The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-17
SUPREME COURT CASES.
OPINION As 10 CONTRACTS MADE
BY uIHRfED wOHEN.
Another Usury Case Decided-selling
Goods without License-ihc Estate OF
a Married Woman After Death.

to declaration that IL showed those facts,
but failed to aver facts showing she had
the right or power 20 make such a con-
tract, which demurrer was overruled
in court below.
He'd: / The common law as 10 con-
tracts by married women remains In full
force IN Virginia. except as 81 has been
modified b. statute. In order TO main
tain an action at law upon n contract
made hy her during coNeitpie under h,r
statutory power to contiac,, lhe EeSu-
iugs must aver not only neI PROMISE
bur also such a state or iacts a. VIII
show her promise such a one as me
statute renders her competent 10 maze.
% Sections .@ys. 2-N-. Z-SH, construct
tn mean that a married woman may
make contracts with reference 10 her
statutory separate estate as ii sore may
be sued Oh them. anu tAal theIe sna''
be the same remedies in respect 10 mem
AGAINST nar and her said estate "a u she
were unmarried. that "A personal Judg-
Wclt or decree may he rendered against
her. and any separate estate sne Las
or may subsequently acquire mot onIy
ag.iinst such estate. in the same manner
as if sne we're unmarried.
The contract in this case II mace p!
Mrs Duval while owner OF statutory
separate estate and With the intention
of charging that estate with It's payment,
can ne sued on in court OF law ana
personal Judgment be rendered asdinst
uer. Though plalntllls may NOW oytdlh
such personal Judgment hhret the toue
for their debt they can only suplccs
such separate estate a. sHe owned Wirt
the contract was MADE OF 50 inuch OF ~
Judgment and execution attaches. - ' a.,
20 4 change in the remedy Ola not
change the rights of the parties -.
5. Without the averments lNdt MIa. Du-
val. when she executed the bond. was me
owner of statutory separate estate ana
intended 10 charge the same ~ executing
10. the declaration IS fatally detective.
3. When married woman mas sem
rate estate, legal OF equitaule, ana MAKES
e. contract for the payment OF money IL
is presumed as matter OK law, unless
expressed TO the contrary lh the con-
tract, hat she Intended TO make sncn
estate liable. and she VIII not be heard
tO deny it, Now, b. express terms o. inc
statute. such contracts, made since May
j, 1855 are deemed as made WIN refer
enc. 10 such estate. 81 Graft, BIS. %
craft 81. aas: Burks' Sep. Estates
2g--s SO. Price vs. Planters Nat bahh'
decided during this term; Va. Code' sec.
ACTION OF ENRICHMENT.
Russell and others against Almond
From me Circuit Court Of gloucester.
Afirmed Opinion by Cardwel. judge.
This fs an action OF eJcctmcnt The
Court sets out the facts al lensth az
proven, and concludes:
From this statement Of facts u be-
comes wholly unnecessary Tor US To
consider the several assignments OF error.
for the plaintiffs IN error could not
I'm any event recover ia ms action, as
| they aid not have the regal title 10 the
land in question. and present right OF
possession under u at ,ne time o. tne
commencement OF tine acilon. We are
of opinion that the case D. contrOAe4 uy
rs a.. Isl. The opinion OF the toIlt
I'm that case. delivered by Judge staples,
ana characterized ~ tnat cleaihe+- ahu
f5rcf always found in opinions prepared
, hy hlm reviews all the authorities az
uiica ole 10 the case ana aIlff sldll-s an
exceptions 90 she rule, sayr auLltrt
TO- thc exceptions tthe case an i1r cohhlE
uader none OF theml, NE eocliihc, a
cenerallv understood in Virginia, u mat
i'm ejectment the plaintiff must now q
LEGAL title in him self. ana "a present Iisnt
no uosaession under r. AZ tne time OF
the demise leid in The declarau0n. see
also Grceul. Evid., see. 800. 1 l-oinaA
Dix. 323. Newell on Eiccimcnt' 81 sec.
%. am cases cited.
r. Tugate and others against IA
change Deuo-lt Bank. From the tifclll
Court ~ Washington county reversed.
Opinion by Keith, PRECEDENT
This was usury case, ana me Hrlh,.-
pies on which it vas decifed were l.ilJ
rot ort iu NumOri. Trustee, against NC
/ .rpIgh'e Admin s-rator. decision handed
down last Thursday ana reported ~
Length in The Times OF the following
dag. ..
As TO LICENSE TAXES
Commonwealth vs.. Myers From The
HasuuEs Court Of Richmond. Ainlihea'
Opinion ny President Keith.
information against Myers. who, having
ar, REGULAR place u business in This
/ CITY oneu III al times in regular business
hours was engaged iu soins from mouse
to mouse. &c. Wltl wagon ana morse,
Offering for sale and actually selling am
I article known as "soapluc,' without first
obtaining license.
plea oil mot guilty" and acquitted by
3 the Jury writ of error granted inc
] Commonwealth on petition OF Attorney
General. livery fact alleged DID, INC in-
& formation was proven. Accused Stal-
doi in his own behalf that he IS an em-
DiOye Of the manufacturing company. %.
Rhode Island De- neither owned nor mao
amy interest in the So1pine OF proceeds
of sales. 10 VAS manufactured IT, Rhode
Island hv tle company, and me- was laiu
4 wales a. agent and salesman, all the
officers of the COMPANY noh-Ieslqehis OF
Virginia. and he also. That Soapine was
not Injurious 10 health or morals Dut
ME Zeal question raised is whether
section q Of the act 81 l,'- ~, defining
bedding and prescribing the license
therefor is in conflict "lih the Constltu-
ton 0f the United Stat
Held: The right of the states 10 Inn
pose u license tax upon peddiers where
IL operates uniformly upon an citizens
and eocs nos discriminate In favor OF
! riffzer ST Virginia as against citizens OF
other States, or where the TAX is I'M
rcsag IN the exercise az the police power
/ fo regulate commerce, although incident
r,f. tt NAV have thai effect, has been
uniformly maintained. but where any
irfr.ioes Discrimination ls discovered IN
! favor Of the resident a. against the nom
resident or with respect 20 inc sales or
/ articles manufactured IN thls state over
] similar articles manufactured abroad,
/ fhe state laws are declared 20 be void as
/ renus-nant TO the Constitution Of the
United states.
In this case 10 is not pretended that the
article peddled was huftiul or injurious IN
/ any way. and. II manufactured ia this
I srate. could have been sold exactly as IN
| this case without the sellers mourning
any penalty whatever. c!lzen OF VIZ
sinia who had manufacturer the article
| could have haWked OF pede'ed II from
i place 10 place within lhe units OF me
| Commonwealth without mourning the pen
/ aIries q 1nounccd in section %. II that Dc
| -o then the statute does injur,ously dis
| eriuinate against the prod ucts Of other
| states and the rights Of other citizens,
! and is an attempt 10 fetter Commerce
| among the States, and does deprive the
citizen Of another State OF me privileges
! ard immunities possessed by citizens o.
| mic state 100 an infringement or the Con-
/ stiution. and therefore yold.
LIABILITY AFTER DEATH.
price etc. US. Planters National Bark.
! rrro,n the Charcery Court OF tine city
~ richmond. Affirmed. Opinion ~
,rhe ilahiiity Of the equitable separate
| estate OF a married woman, AFTER lef
| death. Ter her general ensagcments. IS
| Inc importaut question IN This case. Il
/ t. liable al all: and. II 50, In what man
]