The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-18


no power to make the alleged contract
unless she did own separate estate.
In reviewing the case the Court OF
Appeals said: AT common law mar
ried woman had no power to contract:
herr engagements were simply VOID.
This common law disability remains IN
fun force in this State except so far as
it is modified by statute. The only
power a married woman has to con-
tract is conferred by section 22SS Of the
Code.
This act does not, confer upon mar
ried woman power to contract generally.
1t limits such power TO married women
who have separate estate. We hold,
therefore, that a married woman is now,
as at common law. incapable of maxi
ing a contract. unless She owns separate
estate at the time the contract is made"
AS TO the correctness of the pleadings
IN the case before the lower court the
court said: The ownership OF separate
estate by a marrisi woman being I,
prerequisite to the exercise by her of
any contractual power, it follows that
in ORDER to maintain action at Jaw
upon contract made by her during
coverturc it is necessary for the dcclara-
ton or other pleading fled in the
cause to aver, that she not only made
the promise sued on, but TO aver alss
such a state of facts as will show that
her promise is such as. under the statute
she was authorized TO make"
Tor the reasons above cited the court
| held that the demurrer to the Gec1.ra-
ton should have been sustained. and
entered an order reversing the Judgment
setting aside the verdict sustaining the
demurrer, and remandiDg the cause to
the trial court. with leave 10 the defend
ant in error 10 amend the declaration.
LAW REGARDING FENCES
Poindcxter vs.. May. Opinion by Judge
George NJ. Harrison.
This was a case in which the appellee
in this court secured an injunction in the
trial court. namely, the Circuit Court of
Louisa county. restraining the appellant
from allowing. permitting or suffering
his cattle and horses to tresDass upon
appe!lee':S premises. On hearing the in
junction was made perpetua! against The
appellant l,y the lower court. TO the eX-
tent of rcstra ming him from turning his
! horses and cattle in upon the lands Of
appellee. Appellant assigns as error one.
the action of the court in oVerruinG the
demurrer 10 the bill praying for injunc-
ton; two. its action in granting the in
junction restraining him from turning
his cattle upon appeLee's land. Under
! Rule IN the appellee assigns as error the
action of the court below in refusing to
restrain APPELLANT from allowing, permit
ting or suffering his cattle TO stray upon
appellee's land.
After an exhaustive review of the vari-
| Gus cnactments of the Virginia Leg:sla-
tuTe relative TO the matter OF fences. the
Court concludes that the general fence
law of Virginia Is now TO be found. in
chapter % Of the Code of 1857, except sec
ton 203S and the amendment thereof. to-
Eetiler with the act of 1924 %. 9iD,
which is in the words of secti3n 2C3S de-
filming what is lawful fence. &c. AS to
the contention that the statutes have
not repealed the common law rule. which
requires the owners of cattle 10 keep
them upon their own lands on pain OF be-
coming liable in trespass for their entry
upon the lands Of others the Court held
that the rule Of the common law, above
mentioned was not in force in this State
special legislation governing the question.
AS to the contention that the fence law
as contained in the present statutes is
unconstitutional. because in violation OF
the inherent right secured to every one
Of 1.-The means of acquiring and possess
ing property and also because in viola
ton Of the provision that private prop
erty shall not be taken for public use
without Just compensation the. Court
held them both to the GrnundleSS and
stated that although the people of Viz
gina have been living under fence laws
for nearly three hundred years, and
there have been several constitutions
adopted since the foundation of the gov
ernrnent in which no reference is made
TO the subject, this is the first time so
far as we know. that their constitution
Atty has been questioned iii this court.
The legislature has the power to regulate
The relative rights and responsibilities Of