Case Name: George H. Meiley, Administrator of Lucy Hughes, Deceased, v. Edward C. Butler
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 26 Ohio St. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: George H. Meiley, Administrator of Lucy Hughes, Deceased, v. Edward C. Butler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 26
Pages: 535–537

Head Matter:
George H. Meiley, Administrator of Lucy Hughes, Deceased, v. Edward C. Butler.
"Where a married woman induces a buyer to purchase lands owned in her right, by verbally agreeing that he may deduct from tho price a debt due to him from her husband, thus paying the husband’s debt, she can not, after the execution of the agreement by a conveyance of the land, by herself and husband, repudiate the agreement as to the husband’s debt, and compel the purchaser to pay to her the entire contract price of the land.
Motion for leave to file petition in error to reverse the judgment of tlae District Court of Hamilton county.
Lucy Hughes, wife of Hiram Hughes, was seized in fee in her own right of one undivided fourth part of a tract of land, as tenant in common with others, all of whom sold and joined in a conveyance of the land to Edward C. Butler, who paid to Lucy Hughes, in cash, her share of the price, except a balance of $195, to recover which she brought an action in her own name against Butler, in the Court of Common Pleas. His defense was that the wife, previous to, and as a part, of, the contract of purchase, verbally agreed with him that if he would purchase the land, she would allow him to deduct from her share of the price a debt of $200 then due to him from her husband ; and that, relying on this agreement, he purchased the land, the husband uniting in the deed, and consenting to the arrangement
Pending the action in the Court of Common Pleas, Lucy Hughes died, ana the action was revived in the name of hei administrator, the present plaintiff in error. On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken by Butler, which shows that testimony was introduced, tending to prove his defense, and that he requested the court to charge the jury as follows :
“ If the jury find from the evidence that the said Hiram Hughes, husband of the said Lucy Hughes, was indebted to the said Butler, and, to induce him to purchase said farm, agreed that, in consideration thereof, any debt that said Hiram owed said Butler should be deducted from her share of the purchase money, and that thereupon the said Butler purchased said property, relying on said agreement, this would be a binding agreement on said Lucy Hughes, and would entitle the said Butler to the benefit of the said indebtedness owing by said Hiram Hughes to said Edward C. Butler.” Which charge the court refused to give, but charged the jury: “That a married woman could not bind her estate in this way; and that the promise on behalf of the said Lucy Hughes, to pay the debt of her husband in this manner, was without consideration or benefit to herself or her separate estate, and therefore not binding upon her.” To which refusal to charge, and the charge given, Butler excepted.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas, and Butler excepted.
On error, the District Court reversed the judgment of the Common Pleas. This is a proceeding by the plaintiff below to obtain a reversal of the judgment of the District Court, on the ground that it erred in reversing the Common Pleas.
J. § B. A. Johnson, for the motion.
Jordan, Jordan ft Williams, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The question here is not whether a married woman, by a verbal executory agreement to pay the •debt of her husband, can charge her separate estate in lands; nor whether her promise was without consideration, or benefit to herself or her separate estate; but whether the wife, where she has induced the buyer to purchase her own land by a verbal agreement that he might deduct from the purchase money a debt due to him from her husband, can, after the contract is executed by a conveyance of the land, repudiate the contract as to the debt of her husband. A married woman is not inhibited from voluntarily paying bier husband's debts out of her own means or property; and where she induces a buyer to purchase lands owned in her own right, by verbally agreeing that he may deduct from the price a debt due to him from her husband—thus paying the husband's debt—she can not, after the execution of the agreement by a conveyance of the land by herself and husband, repudiate the agreement as to the husband's debt, and compel the purchaser to pay to her the entire contract price of the land.
The District Court did not err in reversing the judgment of the Common Pleas.
Motion overruled.