Court Opinion

ID: 9932790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:13.549257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:23.342753
License: Public Domain

Even in the absence of the common law doctrine of necessaries, it is my opinion that a husband's promissory note to cover medical services provided to his wife would be binding upon the husband. The relationship would provide all the consideration that the law of negotiable instruments requires. What the law does not require, a husband can bind himself to do, and when he does bind himself he is not excused from performing simply because performance would not have been required by law in the absence of a promise. However, in the case at issue, the claim against the husband's estate was not based upon the promissory note, but on the common law doctrine of necessaries. Therefore, I concur.
ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.