Reed v. Buys

• Decision Date: 16 June 1880
• Citation: 44 Mich. 80,6 N.W. 111
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: REED v. BUYS.

6 N.W. 111

44 Mich. 80

REED v. BUYS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 16, 1880

A married woman can only contract in regard to her own separate property, either already owned or else to be acquired or affected by her contract. So, where a married woman, in consideration of a conveyance to her by her husband of certain property as security for an indebtedness due from him to her, became security for him on a promissory note given to a third person, held, that she was not liable upon such contract.

Error to St. Joseph.

D.E. Thomas and H.H. Riley, for plaintiff in error.

J.W Flanders and Chas. Upson, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL J.

Mrs Reed was sued as joint maker, with her husband and son, of a promissory note for $4,000, dated January 24, 1874, but in fact given in June, 1874, in place of a former note of that date. She made some payments, which were indorsed. The defence was that the note was not given for any purpose relating to her own property or interest. It is not disputed that the original note of January, 1874, was given by her husband and signed by her, in fact, as a surety for money due from him to the original payee, Mr. Buys, partly for existing debts and partly for new advances. The second note was a substitute for the first, and nothing passed to Mrs. Reed or for her benefit in executing it.

The ground relied on for enforcing this liability is that in fact the consideration was the transfer from her husband of certain lands, as an inducement for her to execute it. At the nominal date of the note her husband conveyed to her a tract of land, which was then supposed to be worth more than this debt. Mr. Reed having asked her to become his surety in his arrangement with Mr. Buys, she told him she thought she ought to be secured for his old indebtedness to her before she should sign for him. He had received and used the proceeds of several items of property belonging to her, and, among others, $4,000, for a farm at Pigeon, which he owed her, with interest. He offered to convey to her the land in question for what it was worth, it being encumbered, but in his judgment worth more than the debt. She refused to take it at more than $4,000, but agreed that if she got more for it she would apply the balance on the debt to Mr. Buys. There is no evidence tending to make out any substantially different case, but, in the view we take of the facts, this is not very material. The utmost that...