Heugh v. Jones et Ux.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 32 Pa. 432
• Parties: Heugh versus Jones et ux.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 432

32 Pa. 432

Heugh versus Jones et ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Philadelphia.

L. Hirst, for the plaintiff in error, cited 1 Jones 272; 1 Harris 480; 1 Am. L. R. 434; 12 How. Pr. R. 336; 7 Paige 9; 20 Wend. 570; 12 Id. 433; 1 Comst. 452.

Guillou, for the defendants in error, cited Stoops v. Blackford, 3 Casey 215.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

Mrs. Jones, owning real estate in her own right, borrowed $1750 of the plaintiff, for the avowed purpose of improving her separate estate, and gave a promissory note therefor, with her husband as endorser. This action is brought jointly against them for the recovery of the money. The simple question upon the record is, will such an action lie?

The plaintiff declared in twelve counts upon the promissory note and for money lent, &c. The bill of exceptions shows that he offered to prove that Mrs. Jones borrowed the money for the purpose of improving her separate estate, but it shows also that no evidence was offered to prove that the money was so applied. The evidence, such as it was, was rejected by the court.

That a married woman's note or obligation is absolutely void, at common law, is not a controverted point; but it is supposed, the Act of 11th April 1848, commonly called the Married Woman's Act, enables her to contract debts for the improvement of her separate estate. Some of the phraseology of the enactment would seem to favour this view. After enacting that she shall enjoy her separate estate as a feme sole, the proviso is that "nothing in this act shall be construed to protect the property of any married woman from liability for debts contracted by herself, or in her name, by any person authorized so to do."

"Debts contracted by herself;" what are they?

They are: 1st. Debts contracted before marriage whilst she was competent to contract, or afterward as a feme sole trader.

2d. Debts for necessaries, after her husband has deserted her, or neglected and refused to support her.

3d. And possibly, debts contracted for the improvement of her separate estate, where the money is so applied.

We say possibly in this last instance, because, it not having been shown that this money went into her estate, this point is not now to be considered as ruled.

Whilst the marriage relation subsists, and the husband performs all marital duties, the wife has no power to contract debts except as his agent, and then they are his debts, not hers....