Nat'l Bank of Rahway v. Brewster
| Decision Date | 30 November 1886 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF RAHWAY v. BREWSTER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Union county.
Vail & Ward, for plaintiff in error. R. V. Lindabury, for defendant in error.
KUNYON, Ch. This suit was brought in the Union circuit, to recover the amount due upon a promissory note made by the defendant, a married woman, to a mercantile firm of which her husband was a member. The note was transferred by proper indorsement, before maturity, to the plaintiffs. The circuit court nonsuited the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' counsel insist that although the payees of the note,—the firm of which the husband was a member,—could not have sued the defendant at law upon the note, the indorsees may do so. This proposition is based upon the notion that the only reason why a suit at law could not be maintained against the maker upon such a note is that a husband cannot maintain an action against his wife, because of their unity in law, and that therefore, if the note be held by a stranger, the difficulty is overcome. But at law the contract between husband and wife is null and void, and the defect is inherent in the contract, which, therefore, cannot be enforced at law. In Gould v. Gould, 35 N. J. Eq. 37, affirmed Id. 562, a wife lent money to her husband's firm upon their promissory note. After his death she brought suit at law against the surviving members of the firm. She was nonsuited, and it was held that in order to recover the money she must have recourse to equity.
The judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. Unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerriero v. U-Drive-It Co. of N. J.
...sounding in contract against her husband. Any agreement between them is at law null and void and cannot be enforced. National Bank of Rahway v. Brewster, 49 N.J.L. 231; 12 A. 769. So, too, a wife has no right of action at law sounding in tort against her husband. This well settled rule was ......
-
Metzler v. Metzler
... ... Eq.] 562; Rusling v. Rusling, 47 N. J. Law [18 Vr.] 1; National Bank of Rahway v. Brewster, 49 N. J. Law [20 Vr.] 231 [12 A. 769]." See, also, ... ...
-
Ward v. McLellan, 155.
...of the original parties. Wood v. Chetwood, 44 N. J. Eq. 64, 14 A. 21, affirmed 45 N. J. Eq. 369, 19 A. 622; National Bank of Railway v. Brewster, 49 N. J. Law, 231, 12 A. 769. Judge Mackay recently made a search of the statutes and found nothing changing the rule as thus stated, Metzler v. ......
-
Lang v. Lang.
...in contract against her husband. Any agreement between them is at law null and void and cannot be enforced. National Bank of Rahway v. Brewster, 49 N.J.L. 231, 12 A. 769. So, too, a wife has no right of action at law sounding in tort against her husband. This well-settled rule was recognize......