The Red Cloud chief., 1889-02-15

with might ana main. VIII you So'
Al lopersa.s Deeasse..
The following opinion was rendered
the other day by F. A. Sweezy,' judge
Of the county cour. Of Webster county
in the case Of Bank Of Dorchester 70
Talbot and Talbot.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
As to the defence Of usury there
seems to be no ground for doubling
that the Bank OF Cowles and L. c.
Gilbert are and have been during this
whole transaction the agents Of plain
tiff and tho loan in question Vas made
for plaintiff, and of its money and it
had full knowledge At al times Of the
usury in said note and l ind said
usurous interest 50 paid to have been
$102 and that it wal paid in cash and
must be deducted from the note Of
$500 leaving . balance due plaintiff OF
1898, and as to tho question OF the
liability Of defendant, Ellen G. Talbot
on said note it appears from the evil
dence that she 10 and was At the time
the note val signed the wife OF de-
PENDANT, A. NJ. Talbot, and signed
said note simply at his request and
with no intention, as she testi6es. OF
charging her separate estate, and it
appears thai she was not in business
for herself and was simply engaged in
the household duties of the family Of
defendant, A. NJ. Talbot. her husband.
That the money received on said
notes was used by defendant, A. NJ.
Talbot, in his own business and de-
PENDANT Ellen Talbot had no knowl-
edge Of the use made Of said proceeds
Of said notes.
The evidence does show that de-
fen6ant A. NJ. Talbot to secure the
credit or loan, represented to the
agent Of plaintiff that his wife L. 6.
Talbot, owned real estate in her own
right and that she would sign said
note, and the plaintiff did make said
loan believing that said Ellen Talbot
was good a. . surety on said note.
There is no evidence to show that
plaintiff or its agents had any CONVEX
sation or contract with Ellen Talbot
t, specially charge her separate es-
tate, nor does the evidence show that
defendant, A. NJ. Talbot ever repre-
sented to plaintiff that she, E. G.
Talbot, had or would agree to charge
her separate estate. but simply that
'.hi, wife would sign the note. and
that she had property and was good"
which appears to have been true. 1t
is also evident that at tho time the
notes were given both plaintiffs and
defendants believed that in Law .
married woman was As good surety on
. note As any man, but this cannot e.
feet the finding in this case. a. the
las must govern, and the court finds
that this question has been several
times settled BY the supreme court Of
our state. In the 5th. Sth, 10th and
several subsequent volumes Of OUT
reports we end the rule laid down, but
the case 10 10th Nebraska, is identical
with this one so We will only refer
to it. There the note set out in full
was in words like the note in suit and
the court found that the wife signed
the note As surety, and say 10 their
opinion ~ follows: "!As it does 20,
appear in the record that the contract
of s~urety.hip vas made BY the wife
upon the faith and credit Of her sep
arate estate OF With references 70 TIL
same, ahe is not liable and as 70 he,
suit vas properly dismissed. There
fore this court finds that the defea6
ant Ellen G. Talbot is not liable OF
said note and ~ 70 her this cause j.
dismissed"
Old copper. iren, rsss. ETC., take'
in trade for SiAuase q Adm MOI