Godfrey v. Megahan

• Decision Date: 04 January 1894
• Citation: 38 Neb. 748,57 N.W. 284
• Parties: GODFREY v. MEGAHAN ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

38 Neb. 748

57 N.W. 284

GODFREY

v.MEGAHAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 4, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The disability of a married woman to make a valid contract remains the same as at common law, except in so far as such disability has been removed by our statutes.

2. The statute has removed the common-law disability of a married woman to make contracts only in cases where the contract made has reference to her separate property, trade, or business, or was made upon the faith and credit thereof, and with intent, on her part, to thereby bind her separate property.

3. Whether a contract of a married woman was made with reference to her separate property, trade, or business, or upon the faith and credit thereof, and with intent, on her part, to thereby bind her separate property, is always a question of fact.

Error to district court, Lancaster county; Hall, Judge.

Action on a promissory note by Alphonso S. Godfrey against John R. Megahan and Maggie E. Megahan. From a judgment dismissing the action as to defendant Maggie E., plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Leese & Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

Webster, Rose & Fisherdick, for defendants in error.

RAGAN, C.

Alphonso S. Godfrey sued John R. Megahan and his wife, Maggie E. Megahan, in the district court of Lancaster county, on a promissory note in words and figures as follows: “$1,004.92. Lincoln, Nebraska, December 15, 1890. Six months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of A. S. Godfrey one thousand and four and 92 dollars, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from maturity until paid. Negotiable and payable at the First National Bank, Lincoln, Nebraska. John R. Megahan. Maggie E. Megahan.” Mrs. Megahan answered as follows: “Defendant Maggie E. Megahan, for her separate answer to the petition of the plaintiff, says that she is, and at the date of the execution of the note mentioned in said petition, and for a number of years last past, has been, a married woman, the wife of the defendant John R. Megahan, and living with him as his wife. That the defendant signed the note mentioned in the petition at the request of her husband only, and as surety for him, but wholly without consideration, there then being no existing indebtedness or prior obligation on her part to plaintiff or her said husband, and nothing of value having, at the time of the signing of the same, passed from said plaintiff or her husband to this defendant. Defendant did not, and did not intend, thereby to bind or obligate her separate estate, or herself personally, for the payment of said note. She received no part of the consideration for which said note was given. No benefits accrued therefrom to her separate estate, property, trade, or business, and the said note was not made or given for the benefit of, and did not concern, her separate estate, property, trade, or business; and she incurred no personal or other liability by the signing thereof, and was without legal capacity so to do.” Godfrey replied, denying the allegations of this answer, except the coverture...