Case Name: McDermott Bros. vs. Sarah Garland
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1882-05-25
Citations: 1 Mackey 496
Docket Number: No. 21,351
Parties: McDermott Bros. vs. Sarah Garland.
Judges: } The Chief Justice and Justices Cox and James sitting.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 12
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
McDermott Bros. vs. Sarah Garland.
At Law.
No. 21,351.
{ Decided May 25, 1882.
} The Chief Justice and Justices Cox and James sitting.
Defendant, a married woman, purchased a carriage of plaintiffs, upon credit. At the time of the purchase she stated that she was living in the country’and wanted the carriage to ride backwards and forwards to look after her property in the city. Held, that the defendant being a married woman was not liable in an action at law; affirming and following Schneider vs. Garland, ante, p. 350.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This was an action of assumpsit against a married woman living with her husband, for the purchase money of a carriage. The testimony showed that the defendant went to the store of the plaintiffs, who were carriage dealers, and stated that she wanted to purchase a carriage, saying at the same time that she was living in the country and wanted the carriage to ride backwards and forwards to look after her property in the city. It was in evidence that she owned a house on Sixth street in this city. A carriage was accord ingly sold her, and some time afterwards when she was called upon to pay she said that her property was encumbered and that she was trying to straighten it out and as soon as this was done she would pay the bill. The defendant offered no testimony, but prayed the court to instruct the jury that on the whole evidence, if believed by them, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. But the court refused so to instruct the jury and thereupon charged them that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant purchased from the plaintiffs the carriage as charged in the declaration, and that she stated at the time of the purchases that she was living in the country and wanted the carriage to ride backwards and forwards to look after her property in the city, and that she owned a house in the'city then the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Verdict for plaintiffs.
Thos. F. Milled and Joi-iN F. Eiley for plaintiffs.
HagNER & Maddox for the defendant
cited the case of Schneider & Son vs. Garland decided at the last term of the court and reported ante, p. 350.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Cartter,
delivering the opinion of the court* said :
The rule laid down in the case of Schneider & Son vs. Garland, decided at the last term of this court must be held to apply here. That was even a much stronger case than this but the court found that the defendant, a married woman, was not liable in an action at law. This rule being applied it follows that the judgment below must be reversed.