Case Name: Robert Patterson & Co. v. M. A. Frazer & Wife
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1852-09
Citations: 8 La. Ann. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Patterson & Co. v. M. A. Frazer & Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 512–514

Head Matter:
Robert Patterson & Co. v. M. A. Frazer & Wife.
A married woman cannot, by surrendering* to her husband the partial or entire administration of her paraphernal property, exonerate herself from liability for debts incurred for her individual use, or for the purpose of rendering that property productive,
A minor, who is a married woman is not incapacitated by article 374 of the Code from incurring debt beyond the amount of one year’s revenue, for her individual use, or for the benefit of her paraphernal property.
A PPBAL from the District Court, Parish of St Mary, Voorhies, J.
T. H. Lewis, for plaintiffs.
Gibbon, for defendants and appellants.
OPINION AND DECREE OE THE DISTRICT COURT.
The defendant, Haney Frazer, is sued by the plaintiffs for the recovery of advances which they have made to her for the purchase of building materials, and for provisions and supplies for the use of her plantation.
The evidence satisfactorily establishes all the items of the amount sued upon, ■except $10 charged as commission for the endorsement of Hollander's note, $1 54 for postage, and $2000 charged as cash advanced. This charge is evidenced by the receipt of M. A. Frazer, the husband. It is not shown that it has inured to the benefit of the defendant.
The plea of minority cannot avail the defendant for the advance of money to purchase building materials employed and used on her plantation, and for supplies and provisions furnished the same.
The plea of prescription may apply to the privilege claimed, but cannot affect the plaintiffs’ rights of action to recover the amount due them, independent of the exercise of such privilege.
It is therefore ordered,' adjudged and decreed, that the plaintiffs recover of-the defendant the sum of seven thousand two hundred and ninety-nine dollars and thirty-one cents, with legal interest from judicial demand, and the cost of this suit to be taxed.

Opinion:
By the Court
—(Slidell, J., dissenting.) Judgment affirmed for the reasons given by the District Court.
This Judgment seems to have been delivered in 1850—by what Judge it doe? not appear. Present: Eüstis, C. J.; Rost, Slidell & Preston, Associate Justices. The judgment on the re-hearing was pronounced in 1852,