Collins v. Megraw

• Decision Date: 31 March 1871
• Citation: 47 Mo. 495
• Parties: GEORGE COLLINS et al., Respondents, v. MARGARET L. MEGRAW et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 Mo. 495

GEORGE COLLINS et al., Respondents,

v.MARGARET L. MEGRAW et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1871.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Henderschott & Chandler, for appellants

I. To charge the separate estate of a married woman it must appear that she made the engagement with reference to, and upon the faith and credit of, her estate. The court will not impute the intention to charge the separate estate of a married woman when she is living with her husband, but the intention must be clearly shown. (2 Sto. Eq. Jur., § 1401, a.)

II. The plaintiffs, at the time of making the contract and doing the work, had notice that the title to the real estate was not in the husband, but was held by a trustee for the sole and separate use of the married woman; and after the work was so done, made out an account in the name of the husband. Having thereby once given him credit, they can not shift the claim thereafter and charge the separate estate of the wife with the payment thereof.

S. N. Taylor, for respondents.

The separate estate of a married woman is held liable for all her debts, charges, encumbrances and other engagements which she expressly or by implication contracts. The fact that the debt has been contracted during coverture, either as principal or as surety, for herself or for her husband, or jointly with him, seems ordinarily to be held prima facie to charge her separate estate without any positive agreement or intention so to do. (2 Sto. Eq. Jur., §§ 1399, 1400; Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Brown's Ch. 16; Heally v. Thomas, 15 Ves. 596; Yale v. Dederer, 21 Barb. 289; Dyett v. N. A. Coal Co., 20 Wend. 370; Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526; M. E. Church v. Jacques, 17 Johns. Ch. 581; Sadler et al. v. Houston et al., 4 Porter, 208; Long v. White, 5 J. J. Marsh. 230; Sanford v. Marshall, 2 Atkins, 69; Thomas v. Falwell, 2 Watts, 11; Wallace v. Costan, 9 Watts, 137; Marshall v. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159; Montgomery v. Agricultural Bank, 10 Sm. & M. 567; Wilson v. Beeklam, 8 Leigh, 20, 27; Harris v. Harris, 7 Ired. Eq. 112; Bell & Terry v. Keller, 13 B. Monr. 384; Coates et al. v. Robinson et al., 10 Mo. 757; Whiteside v. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457; Claflin v. Van Wagoner, 32 Mo. 252.)CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien. The legal title to the property sought to be charged, and upon which the labor and material sued for was expended, appears to have been vested in a trustee for the sole and separate use of the defendant, Mrs. Megraw, the wife of one of the other defendants, as her separate estate. The petition avers that the work and material was done and furnished at the special instance of Mrs. Megraw. This averment is controverted. The plaintiff, however, gave evidence tending to prove the facts as alleged. It was in evidence that Mrs. Megraw had personal knowledge of the work prior to its completion, and that she to some extent gave personal directions respecting it, although her husband was the principal...