Hickey v. Thompson

Decision Date09 November 1889
Citation12 S.W. 475
PartiesHICKEY <I>v.</I> THOMPSON <I>et al.</I>
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, St. Francis county; M. T. SANDERS, Judge.

W. G. Weatherford, for appellant. Sanders & Watkins, for appellees.

BATTLE, J.

Appellees sued appellant, Jennie C. Hickey, on three several promissory notes, executed by her on the 14th of February, 1881, each for the sum of $266.41, aggregating $799.23, and bearing interest from the date of their execution. They allege that she was a married woman at the time when the debt evidenced by the notes was contracted, but that she had a separate estate, and was carrying on a trade and business on her sole and separate account, and that the debt sued for was for money, goods, and supplies advanced and sold to her for the maintaining and carrying on of her separate business of farming and planting, and were used by her in that way. She denied contracting the debt; pleaded that she was a married woman when it was contracted and the notes were executed; and denied that she was carrying on a trade and business on her sole and separate account. The issues were tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of appellees; and, her motion for a new trial having been denied, she appealed.

There was evidence adduced in the trial tending to prove that appellees sold and advanced moneys, goods, and supplies to be used and consumed in improving and cultivating a certain farm, and raising crops thereon; that, believing that the husband of appellant was the owner of the farm, and cultivating the same on his own account, they charged the moneys, goods, and supplies to him; that afterwards they discovered that the farm was owned, claimed, and cultivated by appellant; that she was engaged in the cultivation, and raising crops thereon, on her sole and separate account; that, in the borrowing of the money, and purchasing the goods and supplies, he was acting as her agent; and that when they discovered that fact they requested her to settle the account as her own indebtedness, and she did so by executing the notes sued on. If this evidence be true, were appellees entitled to recover judgment against her on the notes?

The validity of the notes depends upon her right to engage in farming. Did she have such right?

The statute expressly empowers a married woman to "carry on any trade or business," on her sole and separate account. It authorizes her to become something more than a trader, in the commercial sense. It says she may carry on any "business." The primary signification of the word "business" is employment; "that which employs time, attention, and labor." It is clear it was used in that sense in the statute; for it expressly provides that she may carry on any trade or business, "and perform any labor or services, on her sole and separate account," and that her earnings "from her trade, business, labor, or services shall be her sole and separate property, and may be used or invested by her in her own name." It does not limit her right to engage in trade or business, but says she may carry on any trade or business. It follows, then, she may engage in farming. Mansf. Dig. §§ 4624-4626; Netterville v. Barber, 52 Miss. 168; Snow v. Sheldon, 126 Mass. 332; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 8 N. W. Rep. 241; Schouler, Husb. & Wife, § 309.

Walker v. Jessup, 43 Ark. 163, cited by appellant in her brief, has no application to this case. In that case the defendant, who was a married woman, purchased lands at an administrator's sale, upon a credit, and executed her bond for the purchase money. The object of the suit was to recover a personal judgment against her on the bond, and a decree of foreclosure and sale. This court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a personal judgment against her. The question involved in this case was not considered or discussed in that case.

The effect of the statute authorizing a married woman to "carry on any trade or business" on her sole or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sidway v. Nichol
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1896
    ...statute the contracts of a married woman in relation to her separate business create a personal liability against her. Hickey v. Thompson, 52 Ark. 238, 12 S. W. 475; Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727. It follows, upon the same reasons, that a contract in reference to her separate property crea......
  • Phelps v. Wyler
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1899
    ...our statute she has the authority to make an assignment of her property used in her separate business to pay her debts. Hickey v. Thompson, 52 Ark. 238, 12 S. W. 475; Bank v. Guenther, 123 N. Y. 568, 25 N. E. 986; Schuman v. Peddicord, 50 Md. 560. Having this authority, there is no reason w......
  • Hickey v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1889
  • Leo Kee v. Wah Sing Chong
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1903
    ...the first time on the hearing of the motion for a new trial. This objection cannot be raised for the first time after trial. Hickey v. Thompson (Ark.) 12 S.W. 475. It has held that the objection must be raised by plea in abatement, and cannot be alleged as a defense on the merits. 1 Enc. Pl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT