Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Long
| Decision Date | 01 August 1927 |
| Parties | FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK v. LONG et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth Judge.
Action by the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York against Mary Elizabeth Long and her husband on notes. An order of dismissal was entered, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Promissory obligations by married woman not free dealer residing in Florida taken for obligations executed where enforceable cannot be enforced. Promissory obligations executed by a married woman not a free dealer residing in Florida, the obligation to be performed in Florida, cannot be enforced in an action at law in this state, even though the promissory obligations so executed in Florida were taken in satisfaction and extinguishment of promissory obligations executed by the married woman in another state that were valid and enforceable against her in that state.
[FIDELITY & CAS CO OF NEW YORK V LONG 114 So. 249(1927)] Huber Clements & Blackwell, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
M. D Carmichael and Ernest Metcalf, both of West Palm Beach, for defendants in error.
In this case demurrer was sustained to an amended declaration, and the plaintiff declining to plead further, order of court was entered dismissing the cause, to which order writ of error was taken.
The declaration attempts to allege a cause of action based upon promissory notes and a contract executed by a married woman in the [FIDELITY & CAS CO OF NEW YORK V LONG 114 So 249(1927)] state of Florida, which notes and contract were so executed by her in consideration of the extinguishment of certain obligations which she executed in the state of New York.
It appears that the obligation alleged to have been so satisfied and extinguished was valid and binding under the laws of the state of New York. See section 51, art. 4, of the Domestic Relation Law of the state of New York (Consol. Laws N.Y. c 14). But, when the plaintiff's assignor accepted in lieu of that obligation the contract and notes executed in Florida by a married woman then residing in Florida, and which notes were made payable at a bank in Florida, it accepted an obligation which could not form the basis of a common-law action in this state, because the notes so executed by such married woman are void and the allegation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial