Case Name: First State Bank of Tomball v. George F. Tinkham et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-12-02
Citations: 109 Tex. 296
Docket Number: No. 3059
Parties: First State Bank of Tomball v. George F. Tinkham et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
First State Bank of Tomball v. George F. Tinkham et al.
No. 3059.
Decided December 2, 1918.
Case Followed—Married Woman’s Contract.
The rulings in Red River National Bank v. Ferguson, ante, p. 287, followed and held to control disposition of this case. The Married Woman’s Act of 1913 does not confer upon her the power to contract as surety for her husband on a note not given for necessaries, and she is not hound thereby. (P. 297.)
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth District, in an appeal from Harris County..
The hank sued Tinkham and wife on their joint note executed November 10, 1913, and appealed from a judgment in which it recovered against the former but was denied recovery against the wife. On affirmance (195 S. W., 880) appellant obtained writ of error.
Thomas H. Ball, for plaintiff in error.
The note sued upon, having been jointly executed by George F. Tinkham and his wife, Mrs. Laura Tinkham, on November 10, 1913, after the statutes of Texas had authorized the joint making of a note by husband and wife, so as to bind the wife upon such an undertaking, and in support of judgment thereon against both husband and wife, it was error for the trial court to deny recovery thereon against the wife, and the Court of Civil Appeals likewise erred, in affirming the judgment so rendered by the trial court. Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes, art. 4624 ; Speer’s Marital Rights, par. 148, p. 197; Colonial & U. S. Mort. Co. v. Stevens, 55 N. W., 578; Washburn v. Gray, 97 N. E., 190.
Fisher, Campbell & Ammerman, for defendant in error Laura J. Tinkham.
A married woman can not, by the execution of a plain promissory note with her husband, bind her separate estate, where the funds were not to be used for the benefit of her separate estate, or for necessaries, even since the enactment of the so-called “Married Woman’s Act” of 1913. Red River Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S. W., 1088;. Akin v. First Nat. Bank, 194 S. W., 610; First State Bank of Tomball v. Tinkham, 195 S. W., 880.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS
delivered the opinion of the court.
The main question in this case is that determined in Red River National Bank v. Ferguson. The case is accordingly ruled by that decision.
The judgments of the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals are affirmed.
Affirmed.