Jefferis v. Kanawha Fuel Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1923
• Citation: 196 N.W. 238,182 Wis. 203
• Parties: JEFFERIS ET AL. v. KANAWHA FUEL CO. ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

182 Wis. 203

196 N.W. 238

JEFFERIS ET AL.

v.KANAWHA FUEL CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 11, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Action by A. Wilson Jefferis and another, copartners as A. W. Jefferis & Co., against the Kanawha Fuel Company and others. From an order sustaining demurrer to her answer, defendant Lottie L. Austin appeals. Affirmed.

August 11, 1922, judgment on warrants of attorney on three promissory notes each for $5,000 was entered against the defendants Kanawha Fuel Company, a corporation, A. S. Austin, and the appellant, Lottie L. Austin, for $14,517.52, principal and interest then due. Subsequent proceedings were had on behalf of appellant so that such judgment was opened sufficiently to permit her to answer. In substance her answer was as follows:

She admitted the signing of the notes set forth in the complaint. Each of these notes was dated, “Chicago, Illinois, January 31, 1921,” and each contained the following:

“For value received I, we or either of us, jointly and severally, promise to pay to the order of myself or ourselves $5000 at the banking house of A. W. Jefferis & Co., Monadnock Building, Chicago, Illinois.”

And each was duly indorsed by the said makers.

She alleged that the defendant A. S. Austin was her husband, a majority stockholder and president of the defendant Kanawha Fuel Company; that the latter was a Wisconsin corporation doing a coal business at Milwaukee, and that said notes were for its sole use and benefit; that she has no interest in said corporation except as owner of one share of stock; that she has a separate estate inherited from her father in 1884; that her domicile is and has been Wauwatosa, Wis., where she signed said notes at her husband's request; “that the business of procuring the notes was transacted in Wisconsin;” that she received directly or indirectly no part of the proceeds of the loan evidenced by the said notes; that her separate estate was in no wise benefited or affected by such loan; that she asserted her common-law inability by reason of coverture to make a binding promise to pay money under such circumstances; that her obligation, if any, arose prior to the taking effect of the Woman's Right Law (chapter 529, Laws 1921); that the plaintiffs are nonresidents, knowing the above-stated facts, and are seeking a remedy in the courts of Wisconsin against a resident; and that there is a conflict in the laws of the two states regarding her liability as a married woman.

Upon such answer she prayed for a dismissal of the action as to her. Plaintiffs demurred to such answer, and, such demurrer being sustained, she appealed.Quarles, Spence & Quarles, of Milwaukee (Kenneth P. Grubb, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Charles D. Mann, of Milwaukee, for defendants.

ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is conceded that, if the liability of the defendant Mrs. Austin is to be...