The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-05

been characterized by 4 wholesome
conservatism.
This means that the Convention
will be composed. in the main, of
level-headed, conservative men.
In such q Convention, manufactu-
rers Of facts, fanatics with one idea,
cranks and demagogues. will have to
take back seats.
We feel deeply interested in the
Convention and trust great good will
flow from it to our whole people.
May it be so.-Snmtcr Idrn,ce,
AprU 24N.
Az Important Decision by tn" Supreme
Court.
The defendants. Rawls & Wilhalf,
made the notes payable to the plain
tiff. January -. 1888. Before deliv-
cry they were endorsed by the other
defendants, one, Of whom, Mrs. Ag-
new, was then aad is now q married
woman. The notes were given in
discharge of a lien held by the plain
tiff on the stock Of goods belonging
to Rawls e. Wilhalf. Mrs. Agnew
had no interest in the stock Of goods
and received no consideration for her
endorsement. She was, practically,
a mere surety for the debt of another.
The sole question raised by the ap-
peal is, whether she, being q married
woman, was capable of making sucA
q contract.
The Supreme Court decides as fol-
lows: At common law she Lad no
such capacity. The Act of 1870: in
corporated in Chapter C Of the Gen
eral Statutes Of 1872, p. 4S2, Section
3, conferred upon married women
the power to make any contract
which .tSme sole could make, even
to the extent Of becoming surety for
her husband. See Pelzer, Rodgers
& Co. VS.. Campbell, - S. c.. 5Sl,
Clinkscales VS.. Hall, Is S. c., COZ.
But at the next session Of the Legis-
lature the law was altered so as to
limit the power Of q married woman
to contract. BY the law as it for
merly stood it was declared that "a
married woman shall have the right
x < x .; to contract and
be contracted with in the same man
ner as if she were unmarried" but
BY the law as it stood at the date Of
the alleged contract in this case. and
still stands, it is declared. that 20
married woman shall have the right
= = 4 to contract and
be contracted with as to her sepaTute
property in the same manner as if
she were unmarried" the five words
italicized having been inserted as an
amendment to the law as it formerly
stood. So that. now, the contract
which q married man is authorized to
make is as to ler separate property,
and must concern her separate prop
erty. The Legislature intended to
limit the power Of 4 married woman
as to the kind Of contracts which she
was permitted to make, viz: to those
in relation to her separate property.
Before q married woman can be
made liable for the breach Of 4 con-
tract alleged to have been made by
her. it must be made to appear, either
from the inherent nature Of the con-
tract, or otherwise, that the contract
was made in relation to or concerned
her separate property. Even if she
declares, in express terms, her inten-
ton to bind her separate estate, that
alone will not be sufficient to render
the contract valid; for the question
is as to her poerer which is to be de-
termined by the nature. of the con-
tract itself, and not to her ihtenttOn
to bind her separate property.
Judgment below affirmed. Opin-
ion by McIvcr, Al.
MCGOWAN, A. J.. is Of the opinion
that the insertion Of the words. "as
to her separate estate was not in
tended to defeat 4 married woman's
powers, but to limit the power TO
such contracts as express an inten-
tion to bind the separate property,
such as are made with express refer.
ence to her separate property.
Filed March 2j. 1886.
Messrs. Sloan, Lyies and Haynes
worth, for appellant. Mr.. Bauskett
for respondent
Spare the Birds.
The February number Of Science