Case Name: Callan, Administrator of Delany, v. Kennedy
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1829-05
Citations: 3 Cranch 630
Docket Number: 
Parties: Callan, Administrator of Delany, v. Kennedy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 3
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Callan, Administrator of Delany, v. Kennedy.
An action cannot be maintained against the httsband for the debt of the wife, after her death, upon an express promise made by the husband, in the lifetime of the wife, upon no other consideration than his liability as husband for the debt of the wife, and the property which he acquired in right of the marriage.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for f300, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case which stated, that Margaret Delany, being indebted to the plaintiff as administrator of Thomas Delany in the sum of $300, intermarried with the defendant, who, in right of the marriage, received more than sufficient property to pay the debt; which property remained in his possession after the death of his wife. During the coverture he expressly promised to pay the debt; but made no new promise after her death. This suit was brought after her death.

Opinion:
Crancii, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question arising upon this state of the case seems to be, whether an action can be maintained against'the husband for the debt of the wife, after her death, upon an express promise made by the husband in the lifetime of his wife, upon no other consideration than his liability, as husband, for the debt of his wife, and the property acquired by him in right of the marriage.
It was decided in Mitchenson v. Hewson, 7 T. R. 348, and in the case of Rann v. Hughes, there cited, that the promise can only be coextensive with the consideration. During the cover-ture, the husband was bound to pay, whether he received property with his wife, or not; and his promise made during the coverture, did not increase his obligation, or create a new contract, unless it were made upon a new consideration, other than his previous obligation as husband, and his acquisition 'of the property of his wife, in right of the marriage. (See Heard and wife v. Stamford, 3 P. Wms. 411.)
The'CouRT is, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiff cannot recover in this action, and that judgment of nonsuit must be entered.