Bowles v. Field

• Decision Date: 31 December 1897
• Docket Number: 9,316.
• Citation: 83 F. 886
• Parties: BOWLES v. FIELD et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana

83 F. 886

BOWLES v. FIELD et al.

No. 9,316.

United States Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

December 31, 1897

D. W McKee and Morrow & Goodhart, for complainant.

Addison C. Harris, for defendants.

BAKER District Judge.

After a careful consideration of the argument and authorities presented on the final hearing, the court still adheres to the views expressed in Bowles v. Field, 78 F. 742. If it were conceded that the consideration of the note and mortgage in suit rested upon the notes executed and made payable by the feme defendant and her husband in the state of Ohio, and that she was surety for her husband thereon, I am still of opinion that her liability, so created, constituted a sufficient consideration to uphold the note and mortgage in suit. These notes, executed and made payable in Ohio, were valid and binding obligations there, because by the law of that state the feme defendant had the same ability to bind herself by contract as though she had been unmarried. They were the joint and several obligations of herself and her husband, and as to the payee each stood as a principal. Nor do I think the public policy of this state precludes the enforcement of such obligations. The policy of this state has been to enlarge the rights of married women by removing their common-law disabilities, and, simply because this policy has not been carried so far here as in many of our sister states it cannot well be maintained that the policy of our state is so repugnant to the more liberal policy of other states that the courts of the United States ought to refuse to enforce contracts valid by their laws. The policy of congress, as disclosed by its legislation touching the rights and liabilities of married women in the District of Columbia, is the same as the policy of the state of Ohio. 16 Stat. 45; Sykes v. Chadwick, 18 Wall. 141. If there was an irreconcilable conflict in the public policy of the two states on this subject I should be of opinion that this court ought to be governed by the more liberal policy indicated by the act of congress rather than by the public policy indicated by the statutes of this state. The note and mortgage in suit were executed to secure a loan made by the feme defendant of $4,000. She alone executed the note, and the mortgage was executed in conformity with the law of this state by husband and wife. She received a check for that amount at the time, drawn by the complainant on the Citizens' Bank of Harrison, Ohio, and the bank paid the check, and gave her credit for that amount upon its books. On the same day that she received the check and the credit, she drew four checks against the money so on deposit in her name. One check was for $391.12, payable to Francis M. Hollowell to pay off a material man's lien which he had taken upon certain buildings and land belonging to the feme defendant. This lien, in my opinion, was a valid claim against her. She also drew her check on the Citizens' Bank in favor of Albert Williams to pay off a mechanic's lien held by him against her property for $115.15. This was a valid claim against her, and was rightfully paid off. She also drew her check for $100 payable to the complainant, to take up a note for that amount, executed by her in Ohio, for money which she had borrowed on her personal credit, and for her own use, on February 27, 1891. She also...