Mayo v. Bank of Gleason
| Decision Date | 09 August 1918 |
| Parties | MAYO ET UX. v. BANK OF GLEASON. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
140 Tenn. 423
MAYO ET UX.
v.
BANK OF GLEASON.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
August 9, 1918
Appeal from Chancery Court, Weakley County; Joseph E. Jones, Judge.
Bill by A. C. Mayo and wife against the Bank of Gleason. From a decree dismissing the bill complainants appeal. Affirmed.
L. McCoy and J. M. Troutt, both of Jackson, for appellants.
Jones & Suddath, of Dresden, for appellee.
FENTRESS, J.
Complainants are husband and wife, and the defendant is the guardian of the wife, who is a minor 18 years of age.
The bill seeks a final settlement with the guardian, and decree for the estate of the wife. The chancellor was of the opinion that the marriage of the infant wife did not terminate [205 S.W. 126.] the guardianship, and dismissed the bill.
We think the decree of the chancellor is correct. Prior to the passage of the Bejach Law (Acts of 1913, c. 26), emancipating married women from the disability of coverture, the guardianship of a minor female ceased upon her marriage. Prewitt v. Bunch, 101 Tenn. 723, 50 S.W. 748; Minter v. Clarke, 92 Tenn. 460, 22 S.W. 73; Lane v. Farmer, 11 Lea, 568; State v. Parker, 8 Baxt. 497; Jones v. Ward, 10 Yerg. 160.
The reason for this was that at common law marriage effectuated a gift to the husband of all the wife's personalty. Williford v. Phelan, 120 Tenn. 589, 113 S.W. 365; Prewitt v. Bunch, supra.
The guardian could settle with the husband and deliver the ward's personal property to him. Prewitt v. Bunch, supra; Lane v. Farmer, supra; Sanders v. Forgasson, 3 Baxt. 249.
The law having given all the wife's personal property to the husband, of course, the necessity for the guardianship ceased.
The act of 1913 (Thompson's Shannon's Code, § 4249a) expressly abolished the rule of the common law. It provides:
"Married women are hereby fully emancipated from all disability on account of coverture, and the common law as to the disabilities of married women and its effects on the rights of property of the wife is totally abrogated, and marriage shall not impose any disability or incapacity on a woman as to the ownership, acquisition, or disposition of property of any sort or as to her capacity to make contracts and do all acts in reference to property which she could lawfully do if she were not married; but every woman now married, or hereafter to be married, shall have the same capacity to acquire, hold, manage, control, use, enjoy, and dispose of all property, real...
To continue reading
Request your trial