The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-03-24
4 MARRIED woMAN's CONTRACT.
An Important Opinion by the Suprem,
Court of Tennessee.

An Important Opinion by the Supreme
Court OF Tennessee.
The following recent opinion by Justice
Folkes, Of the Supreme Court Of Tennes-
zee, Is OF very great interest to lawyers as
establishing that a married woman's con-
tract valid when made In another State,
will be enforced, notwithstanding the con-
tract would have been invalid il made in
Tennessee:
IN. Robinson 4 Co. vs.. W. J. Queen. ct al
The first question to be disposed Of In
this cause Is whether a married woman,
domiciled in tbs State OF kentucky, is lia.
bic in the courts OF this State upon a note
made by a firm OF which her hush and was
q member and executed by her rs surety
for such firm, where, under the laws OF
Kentucky. she had, before the execution
OF the note, been emancipated from al
<he disabilities OF Overture and clothed
with all the powers OF a femme sole, so
far as the right 10 contract and TO sue
and be sued were concerned.
This inquiry we answer in the affirm
alive. Though some authorities may be
found 10 the contrary. il NAV now be said
to be well settled that the validity Of a con-
tract, the obligation thereof, and capacity
OF the parties thereto. is to be determined
by the lex loci contractus lin the sense OF
the place OF p%erformance) unless there be
something in the contract which Is deemed
hurtful 20 the good morals'or injurious to
the rights OF its own citizens by the laws
OF the State or country whose courts are
called upon to enforce the contract made
In a foreign State or country.
The notes involved in this suit were
made in Kentucky, payable there, the
makers and payers resident there, and "a
We have already stated. valid there, aud
binding and enforceable against the mar
ried woman rs fully as II she were a feme
sole. Under these facts.
what are the powers and what is the duty
OF the courts OF this State, when by rea-
son OF the fact that the defendant has
property in this State, we are called upon
10 enforce rs against the married woman
the collection Of the amount due on the
notes in question? The general rules ~ to
the enforcement by one State OF a contract
valid in the State where made, and 20 be
performed, IN not denied by the counsel
Tor the defendant; but IL is insisted that
inasmuch as a note made by a married
woman is yold under the laws OF this State
n inasmuch ~ II is the fixed policy OF
this State to throw around married women
the shield OF disability, we should not
under any supposed obligation OF comfy,
entertain a suit 'predicatcd upon such
a contract. Here, us
We have seen under the pro.
ceedings In Kentucky, tho disability
Of coyeriure was absolutely removed and
fhe married woman was authorized 10 con-
tract debts generally. Willis
nndor tho laws Of Kentucky this married
woman has had her disabilities removed.
and can contract, sue and be sued rs a
feme sole. we recognize and enforce in this
State ~ much OF The foreign law as deter |
mines aud fixes her liability; in other |
words, the law Of the contract; but in on.
forcing such liability in the courts OF this
State, II she Is plaintiff, she must sue by |
next friend, or with her husband; Ms a Dc. |
icndani her husband must bo Joined with
her MS a party. Comfy, Ms Il Is sometimes
called, but moro properly the rules OF
private International law, 20 no further |
ihan 10 require the recognition and en-
lOIcemcn, OF the law OF the place OF the /
contract, leaving 10 the State called upon
10 enforce such law. The uso of lis own
forms and machinery, ns far M the same
can be adopted 10 the end In view.
without pursuing this branch Of the case
further, the court is OF opinion that tho
decree OF the Chancellor dismissing the
bill upon the ground that no Judgment
could be numbered against the married
woman on the note IL crroneousa aud should |
be reversed, and decree here made in favor
Of complninants for the full mount Of The
notes with interest aud Gusts
This brings US TO the consideration Of
the second question presented In this rec
ord. The bill herein not only attaches
certain property OF the married woman
upon the statutory grounds, but seeks To
set aside rs fraudulent n conveyance made
by the married woman 10 her brother and
code'endanL j. d.. Miller, Of Muflrcea.
boio, alleging that the conveyance was
made TO hinder. delay aud defeat COM.
plalnants IN the collection Of their debt.
This ground rs not sustained. : hut
II ~ charged In the bil that II such sale
70 the brother bo not void, as made in
fraud OF crcdiion, II IN void and oi no
effect by reason Of the fact that II was
executed by Mrs. Queen without her hus.
a joining with her and without privy
examination.
We must look 10 tho laws Of our own
State alone as determining the suniciency |
OIL The acknowledgment OF this deed.
This deed, M wc have seen, being &C. |
knowicdgcd by Inc married woman before
q notary in Kentucky. h therefore inciIcc.
tual 10 diycst her Of her title 10 the prom.
erty therein described, and the samc was |
tuDlcct 10 the attachment IN this cause.
Tbs majority Of the court IL Of opinion. |
and dcsincs u 10 be announced. that under
The act OF lsOp1O, a married woman own. |
ing a separate estate, where there Il no ~. |
ttriciion upon her power, il authorized Ia
convey such estate, without her husband
joining IA the deed, whenc she has a priyy
examination beior q Chancellor or Cir
cult Judge OF this State or Clerk u tho
County Court Judge Folkes dissonls
Rom this construction.
The decree Of the Chancellor will be To. |
vcrscd aud judgment here ior the amount
oil The notes with interest and Gusts, and
unless paid within the time 10 be- fixed in
NE decrcc tho property attached, includ. |
ing The house aud lot will be sold TO sat.
isiy the judgment
Lock Out Tor Chelera- maguire.. neu..
Plant.