Evening journal., 1893-05-08
THE SCOPE OF AN ACT.
A Married Woman Not Liable
for Her Endorsement
JPON HER HUSBANDS !. o. U.

chief Justice Lore Lays Down the Law
in the Case of Arnold Kohn ct. ell. Va.
Susan +. Collision In the Kent County
court-He Removes Doubt as to the
Scope OF the Married woman's Act.
Chief Justice Lore delivered an i'm
portant decision In the Superior Court Of
Kent county the latter part OF last week.
It's Importance rested upon the fact that
10 dealt with the scope Of the Married
Woman's act Of this state, and settled
question concerning which the most
astute lawyers have disagreed.
The case necessitating the decision
was that OF Arnold Kohn, et al VS..
Susan f. Collision. J Alexander Fulton
represented the plaintiffs and Edward
Il dgely the defendant
The parties mutually agreed that the
case should be tried by the court without
the Intervention of a jury The suit
was brought by the plaintiffs against
the defendant as endorser Of a promis-
sorry note a copy whereof, with tue ell
dorsements thereon, is AZ follows:
s2nN DOVER, Del. Oct. A. 1891.
| sixty days after daie. promise to pay 10
| the order OF susan +. Collision at the Farmers
| Bank OF the state OF Delaware, at Lover.
| Two hundred and threc n-l0I dollars with
ii. q. CoLLsoN.
| Endorsed.
Pay 90 the order OF kohn. ROeenheim a Co,
| Nc. 533 Market street, thiladelphia, Pa
SUSAN r. COLLIsoS.
The due execution, endorsement, de-
livery presentation, refusal OF payment
for want Of funds protest and notice
thereof was al nitted lt was also ad-
mitted that the defendant, Susal II
Collision, al the time of the making and
endorsing the note was and still Is a
mar rled woman, being the wife Of the
uaker, II. g. COLLISION aud living with
him; aud that the note was given by
Collision In part settlement Of an ante
cedemt Indebtedness Of his 20 the said
plaintiffs for goods sold aud delivered TO
him In he course Of his business as
merchant, aud not on account or for the
debt OF the said defendant or on account
OF her separate estate, and that the
defendant was an accommodation en-
dOrser.
Opinion OF tho Bench
The substance Of opinion Of ths new
olief justice is as follows;
The question in this CASE Is can a
married woman be held liable upon her
accommodation endorsement of her hus-
band prOmiss0ry note, made by him
and endorsed by her In payment OF mer-
, cnandise sold TO him in the csurse of his
! business, aud in no wise necessary to
Le made with respect TO her own pro-
letty.
"This involves the construction Of the
j. several acts relating TO married women,
al fl..f.
IA 1891, the date the note in question was
5 made aud delivered IL is conceded that
at common law a married woman could
make 10 such contraot-and II such
po yer now exists IL Is only because OF
4 statutes of this state enabling her 80 TO
! do.
To Ascertain the latent.
4 "ln constituting statutes the chief rule
b Is to usceit5iu the intention of the Legis.
lature The intent Is the vital part, the
q essence of the law Ia the titles Of acts
passed the Legislature disclosed It's
9 intention TO be 70 benefit, secure the
4 earnings OF and TO protect married
women We must gather this intent
, however, from what IS embodied and
A expressed In the statutes.
n Remedial statutes are construed lib
orally 10 accomplish the intended pur
pose OF tue act Apply these rules OF
construction to the statutes in hand
4 rheir declared purpose is for the benefit
l., aud protection of married women Where
then either IN the letter or the spirit 0I
L. the Law is authority given TO a married
n woman TO become an accommodation en-
d dorser for her husnand2
"rne whole scope of the law Is to de
stroy the common law cintrol Of The
}. husband over the wfe's property, anC
exempt il from liability for his debts
10 To protect her property, and even hel
consent, from the husband s control, 10
n regard TO her separate estate. WoulC
ie not such right IA married woman de
m ieat the purpose Of the law and enable
- he to make her separate property liabl'
g. her husband deblsg
y "Ihese statutes enable a married
.e woman TO make any and all manner o
Dt contracts necessary TO b. made with re
d spect to her Own property, under IT,
most liberal construction of this law,
ie remedial law, it could hardly be con
50 tended that such an endorse
ne ment is necessary to be made will
TO respect 20 her property or 70
j, her benefit. To admit such right on th
y contrary, would burden her propert
I'd with the debts of an improvideut o
Id designing husband aud subject her I
his persistent constrint and control-on
Of the very evils the statute was in
tended to remedy. Such con
struction would permit the wife I
'r make contract which is absc
lutely without consideration, a
C. she receives no beneit whateve
ch therefore, with respect to her ow
a. property; as to which alone, thes
ss statutes remove her common law disabi
II tiles We can find nothing in the stat
De ute to show that the intent Of the Legi:
E. lature was TO give the wife generl
sn Oower TO contract with respect to sui
I'd ects other than her own property.
be 1--WE are clearly OF the opinion that q
is such contract can be made by Marie
ig woman AS the one In the case before III
Judgment therefore must be entered
favor of the defendants for costs.