The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1886-04-16

SUPREME CCURr'- NOVEMBER TERM,
1855.
c. e. iIabericht, plaintiff, appellant, VS..
Rawls & Wilhalf, John Agncw, jr., and
Jcnuio Agncw, defendants, and Jennie
Agncw, appellant. OPINION.
MC1VER, n. j.:
On the l4th day Of January, 1883, the
deft.liants, Rawls & Wilbalf, made the
notes sued on payable to the plaintiff, and
before they were delivered to him they were
endorsed by the other two defendant, Jen-
ME Agucw then and now being n married
woman. The notes were given in discharge
Of n lien held by the plaintiff on the stock
Of go DDS belonging to Rawls d Wilhalf.
Mrs. Agpcw had no interest in the stock Of
goods and received no consideration for her
endorsement. She was therefore, practi-
cally, nero surety for the debt of another
aud the sole question raised by the appeal
is, whether she, being married woman, was
capable Of making such a contract. At
common law there is no. doub, that she had
no such capacity, and therefore the inquiry
is whether she has by statute been endowed
with the power to make such contract.
That IL Act of 1870, incorporated in Chap
ter G of the General Statutes of 1872, Page
:1S2, Section 3, did confer upon 4 married
woman the power to make any contract
which tcne sole conld make, even to the
extent of becoming surety for her husband,
was settled by the cases of Pelzer, Rodgers
g. Co. VS.. Campbell, Is S. G. Rep, 5S1,
and Clinkscales VS.. Hall! 15 S. G. Rep,
| COZ. But at the very next session of the
General Assembly, which convened only
few days after the decisions in the cases
| lust Tec;sed were rendered, the law which
had been thus construed in those cases was
altered SO as to limit the power Of married
woman to contract, and the question is os
to the extent and effect of that limitation.
BY the law as it formerly stood it was
dec!rred that "a married woman shall have
the right $ & to contract and be contrac-
ted with in the same manner as if she were
unmarried but by the law as i, stood at
the date of the alleged contract here in
question, ana still stands, it is declared "a
married woman shall have the right # : "'
to contract and be contracted with, as to
her separate property, i'll the same manner
rs if she were unmarried; the five words
;t,l;,;sol b,r, hoon ;rsortol 10 IN omcn3
mcnt to the law as it formerly stood; so
that the question raised by this apbca is
narrowed down to the inquiry as to the effect
of these five words 1t seems to lis that
the NEST natural and the proper construc-
ton Of the Act. as amended, is that adopted
by the Circuit Judge: that the contract
which married woman is there authorized
to maxi is 'as to the separate property,
must have reference To her separate prop
erty, must concern her separate property.
It will ho observed that the question is rs
to what contracts a married woman may
make, and not as to their effect after they
have been made. If given contract is one
'"''' '"o ''" "u'',o' '~0' " ''.''' '''' "0''" "
'ii'No' '"''' II" e'''' 30 '''" '''"'' "''''1"
rily be, the same as that Of contract of
Pc'So" ''o' i""'''"S u""'' ""y u'S"o'n'J'
IL IS very ''o"' '"'' '''' "0o '"'"'u'' 'n''i'-
oeu ~ '''IA' '0'',' "''I'"''''' ~ Wv ~" 80
it formerly stood, and we think it equally
c'e'' ''''' VIC '''''"''''' ""' ~ ''"''' '"'