Musick v. Dodson
Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
Parties | MUSICK, Appellant, v. DODSON. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.--HON. ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Millan & Musick for appellant.
H. D. Risdon for respondent.
Action before a justice of the peace, based on the following statement:
1. MARRIED WOMAN'S PROMISE TO PAY ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR DIVORCE.
A married woman is wholly incapable of making any contract whatsoever, which will bind her personally, or create against her a personal debt or obligation. Bauer v. Bauer, 40 Mo. 61; Higgins v. Peltzer, 49 Mo. 152. And it has been expressly decided, that a married woman's promise to pay an attorney his fee for obtaining a divorce for her, would not be binding upon her. Whipple v. Giles, 55 N. H. 139; s. c., 2 Cent. L. Jour. 484. This being the case, the engagement made with the plaintiff by Mrs. Dodson, now wife of defendant, then wife of James Allen, to pay plaintiff, as an attorney, a certain sum for obtaining a divorce for her from Allen, cannot be regarded as a debt of the wife of Allen, and if not a personal debt of hers, then according to plaintiff's own position, the defendant could not be held legally liable for anything less than the debt of his wife, contracted anterior to his marriage with her. And if Mrs. Allen could not, during the existence of marital relations with her then husband, bind herself personally, then as a matter of course there could not be any consideration for the promise made by Mrs. Allen, after the divorce was obtained, to pay for such services, so the subsequent promise would be a mere nudum pactum and of no binding, obligatory or debt-creating force.
2. MARRIED WOMAN'S PROMISE: affirmation when discovert.
The case of Wilson v. Burr, 25 Wend. 386, gives support to plaintiff's position that a moral obligation on the part of a femme covert, is sufficient to uphold her promise, made after the removal of her disability. That case is based on Lee v. Muggeridge, 5 Taunt. 36, which Mr. Parsons says, “is not law.” 1 Parsons Cont., 435. It was subsequently abridged and modified in Littlefield v. Shee, 2 B. & Ad. 811, and denied in Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 Ad. & El. 438, Denman, C. J. It is said by Mr. Story that where contracts are 1 Story Const., § 593, and cases cited. Mr. Baron Parke said “A mere moral consideration is nothing.” Jennings v. Brown, 9 M. & W. 501. Chancellor Kent says that the weight of authority is opposed to the view that a mere moral obligation is of itself, a sufficient consideration for a promise except in those cases in which a prior legal obligation or consideration had once existed. 2 Kent, 465.
The doctrine of the case of Wilson v. Burr, supra, was departed from in the subsequent cases of Watkins v. Halstead, 2 Sandf. 511; Smith v. Allen, 1 Lansing 101, and Geer v. Archer, 2 Barb. 424, where that doctrine is repudiated. And before that case was adjudicated a different view of the law had been taken in Ehle v. Judson, 24 Wend. 97, and Smith v. Ware, 13 Johns. 257, which cases were not noticed in that on which plaintiff relies. The views we have expressed touching the point in hand are also supported by Mills v. Wyman, 3 Pick. 207, where the subject of the insufficiency of a mere moral obligation as the basis for a subsequent promise, is very clearly and elaborately discussed, and also by numerous other cases cited in the text-books from which we have quoted.
In Greenabaum v. Elliott, 60 Mo. 25, Wagner, J., delivering the opinion of the court said: “A moral obligation by itself is not a good consideration for a promise. To impart to it any binding character, there must be some antecedent legal liability to which it can attach. Parsons says the rule may now be settled as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinney v. Murray
... ... Hayworth, 26 Gratt. 324. And as she was married when it ... was made she could not ratify it. Musick v. Dodson, ... 76 Mo. 624. The record in this case admits that no enabling ... acts had been passed in either Virginia or Illinois to ... empower ... ...
-
Carson v. Hecke
...abandoned his property rights was sufficient to bar his curtesy. Doyle v. Rolwing, 165 Mo. 231; Phelps v. Walther, 78 Mo. 320; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624; v. Delargy, 57 Mo. 37; Rose v. Bates, 12 Mo. 33. (6) Lane by his act induced the purchaser and all other people interested in this pie......
-
Bopp v. Jetama Inv. Co.
...of and paid a commission, was without consideration and void, and no recovery can be based on it. Greenbaum v. Elliott, 60 Mo. 25; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624, l. c. 627; Terry Terry, 217 S.W. 842, l. c. 845; 13 C. J. 359. C. L. Shotwell for respondent. (1) When a real estate agent interes......
-
State ex. Inf. Miller v. St. L. Union Trust Co.
...Mo. 338; Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Indiana Auto. Co., 201 Fed. 499; Velie Motor Car Co. v. Kopmeier Motor Car Co., 194 Fed. 324; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624; Bragg v. Israel, 86 Mo. App. 338; Pershall v. Elliott, 163 N.E. 556, 249 N.Y. 183; Clayman v. Bibler, 231 N.W. 336; M.-K.-T. Ry. Co. ......