Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-30
COURT DECISIONS De
DICESTED BY w. q. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virgin:an- Pllot)
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
WALTON v. BRISTOL.

''~A1A OAN W DINlO LOl.
Supreme Court Of North Carolina,
December, 1899.
THE ENDORSEMENT OF A NOTE
WHICH BELONGS no HER MADE
BY A MARRIED WOMAN, IS VOID,
UNLESS MADE WITH THE WRIT
TEN ASSENT OF HER HUSBAND,
BECAUSD OF ARTICLE 10 SEC. 6
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
NORTH CAROLINA.
The case appears from the opinion of
the court
The court says:
This is an action on the part of the
plaintiff to recover of the defendants
the possession of certain personal pro-
perty, consisting OF certain promissory
notes and another paper writing men
toned In the complaint. A jury trial
was waived, and the facts were found
by his honor, which were, in substance,
as follows: The payee, J. v. Black
well, OF the first note, was the father
OF the plaintiff in this action; and
aIter his death the note was assigned
Dy executor, /. r. Avery. to her os
a part Of her share of her fathers
estate. Afterwards the plaintiff, who
was then a married woman, the wife
OIL f. 5. Walton, now deceased, in the
language OF the finding of fact, wrote
ner name upon and across the back
thereof (the note), and her husband
~. 5. Walton. delivered the same to
the Piedmont Bank and Morganton. N.
=. as collateral security to an Indebted
ness then due and owing by him to the
eaio oank and the said bank for this
purpose; the bank and the said 10. s.
walton tlar0Qftor f,,er
mutual dealings; the bond at all times
remaining In the possession of the
pank,' after that time the indebtness
or the husband to the bank became in
creased by overdrafts in a large amount
until 1T amounted to about So. 600 Thot
amount was borrowed from the other
defendant, the National Bank OF VIII
mlnston, N. c.. by the husband, T.. S.
walton, and for which he executed his
notes payable to that bank The note
was Endorsed by the Piedmont Bank
upon agreement with the husband that
the 81 ESQ note should be placed by the
husband with 1t rs security against
loss by reason of It's Endorsement Of the
$4,000 note, and in order to secure the
payment OF that note.
IL the Endorsement by the wife be
considered in the view OF an attempt
on her part to convey her property
!,ei scperate eState--to the defendants
then the attempt must fail; for she
could not do that without the written
assent of her husband, and that was
never had. Article 10, sec. G. of tho
constitution is In these words: "Thc
real and personal property of any
female In this State. acquired before
marriage, and all property real and
personal to which she may after mar
rinSe become in any manner entitled.
shall be and remain the sole and
separate estate and property of such
female. and shall not be liable for any
dcpts, obligations or engagements OF
her husband, and may be devised and
bequcathed. and. with the written
assent of her husband. conveyed by her
as If she were unmarried" The con-
stitutton. MS we have seen. so far as
the wife's dover to convey her ato
estate is concerned, makes no differ
ence between real property and person.
al property If she undertakes TO CON
vey either species of property, the writ
Ten assent of her husband must be had
In the brief of defendants counsel It
Is said: But. aside from all that it
wouln DC monstrous doctrine in our
law that married woman can.-Wffb
the verbal assent of her husband. dis.
pose of an article of personal property
or indorse note or draft and receive
the proceeds thereof. and then recover
such security or property on the
ground that she did not have the writ
ten consent OF her husband. If such ho
the law. then her coverture becomes n
sword instead of a shield. Certainly. if
such be the law. no reported cases can
be found in this State to sustain It. and
none should be found" But the constf-
tuition. as we have seen. in the section
we have nI1nfnd
assent Of her husband in order to ena-
BILE the wife to convey her separate
personal property. and certainly no re-
ported cases can be found In the re-
ports Of this State against that con-
stitutional requirement, and, in the
language Of the brief, none should be
found"
G. OF q. RAILWAY co. v. HICKS
Supreme Court of Georgia.
November 80, 1899.