Court Opinion

ID: 9811122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:10:14.46457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:16.914601
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
concurs on the following grounds: Tbe Constitution, Art. X, sec. 6, provides that a married woman shall bold her property in the same manner as if she bad remained single, and may devise and bequeath it, and, “with the written assent of her husband, convey it,” as if she were unmarried. Even this requirement of the husband’s assent has long since been abolished in England, and witb rare exceptions by all the States in this country. It is the sole restriction permitted by our State Constitution upon the wife’s power to dispose of her own property. If Rev., 2107, extended to conveyances, it would be a violation of that provision of the Constitution by adding the requirement that some third party, a magistrate or other official, must give bis wise approval before she can do what the Constitution guarantees that she may do “with the approval of her husband.”
In the second place, out of deference to the Constitution, Rev., 2107, does not mention conveyances of realty. That section comes under subhead 3, entitled, “Contracts between husband and wife,” and an examination of the section shows that it applies only to contracts. In Rea v. Rea, 156 N. C., 530, it is said: “An examination of section 2107 shows that it applies solely to contracts, and not to conveyances; indeed, the word ‘contract’ is used 5 times in that section, besides in the beading. Tbe object of the Legislature was clearly to prevent the wife making any contract witb her husband whereby she should incur liability against her estate which in future might prove a burden or charge upon it, or cause a charge upon or impairment of her income or personalty. To that end not only a privy examination was required, but the certificate of the magistrate that the contract was not unreasonable or injurious to her. This provision does not attempt to add as to conveyances by her (as to which the act of 1911 retains the constitutional restrictions in regard to realty, that .there must be the written assent of the husband and statutory privy examination), any further restriction, such as the approval of a third person. Adding that if it did it would be unconstitutional,” quoted, Butler v. Butler, 169 N. C., 597.