Court Opinion

ID: 9809836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:29:29.767366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.456602
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.,
dissenting: I agree witb tbe Court that tbe opinion of tbe majority in Warren v. Dail, 170 N. C., 406, is controlling in tbis ease.
In my dissenting opinion in Warren v. Dail (concurred in by Justice Walker), I said: “If any legal question has ever been settled by repeated decisions of tbis Court, it is tbat tbe deed or contract of a married woman charging ber real estate in tbis is a nullity unless ber husband joins and ber privy examination is taken,” citing numerous ca'ses.
It is admitted in this case that "W. E. Eoberson, tbe husband of Nannie E. Eoberson, did not give bis written assent to tbe contract to convey ber land to plaintiff. It is admitted that tbe contract cannot be specially enforced because executed by the wife alone. It is now proposed to recover damages against tbe wife for breach of ber contract and to sell ber separate'estate to pay tbe judgment. If tbis is not “whipping tbe devil around tbe stump,” I am at a loss to know what is.
I do not think the Martin Act permits, or that its author ever contemplated, that a married woman should be permitted to enter into a contract of any sort affecting ber real estate without ber husband’s consent, by virtue of which sbe may be mulcted in damages and ber property sold to satisfy tbe judgment.
My views are set out more fully and tbe authorities cited in the dissenting opinion in Warren v. Dail, and I am content simply to refer to that.
Mr. Justice Walker concurs in tbis dissent.