Singluff v. Tindal

• Decision Date: 05 March 1894
• Citation: 19 S.E. 137,40 S.C. 504
• Parties: SINGLUFF et al. v. TINDAL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

19 S.E. 137

40 S.C. 504

SINGLUFF et al.

v.TINDAL et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 5, 1894.

Wife's Separate Estate—Charges—Promissory Notes.

A note is not a "conveyance, mortgage or like formal instrument in writing, " within the act of 1887 (19 St. 819), which provides that such instruments, executed by a married woman, shall be effectual to convey or charge her separate estate when the intention to do so is declared in them.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Sumter county; J. H. Hudson, Judge.

Action by Singluff, Dinsey & Co. against Susan S. Tindal and the firm of John M. Tindal & Son on promissory notes. From a judgment for plaintiffs, Susan S. Tindal appeals. Reversed.

Lee & Molse, for appellant

Blanding & Wilson, for respondents.

McIVER, C. J. The facts in this case are undisputed, and may be briefly stated as follows: The defendants John M. Tindal & Son, as partners in trade (one of them the husband and the other the son of the appellant), being indebted to the plaintiffs in a certain sum of money on account of a purchase of a lot of shoes, which indebtedness the said Tindal & Son were unable to meet at maturity, the plaintiffs sent out their agent to arrange the matter. This agent proposed to give an extension on such indebtedness, provided security was given; and, being told that Tindal & Son had no security to offer, the agent inquired of John M. Tindal whether he could not get his wife (the appellant) to sign the notes, to which the reply was that he supposed he could, the agent at the time making use of this significant remark: "I know that in this state a married lady cannot be held responsible for her husband's debts, " and stating that he only wanted Mrs. Tindal's signature "to make a show of security." Accordingly, on the 16th of November, 1891, Mrs. Tindal signed two notes, aggregating in amount the amount of the debt due by John M. Tindal & Son to the plaintiffs, and both made payable to the order of John M. Tindal & Son (one on the 15th and the other on the 20th of January, 1892), and by them immediately indorsed, and delivered to plaintiffs' agent. Both of these notes contained the following words: "And I do hereby declare that it is my pur-pose and Intention, in making this note, to charge my separate property with payment of the same." The defendant Susan S. Tin-dal put in her answer alleging that she was a married woman at the time she signed said notes, at the instance of the plaintiffs, as security for the debt of John M. Tindal & Son, which fact, as well as the fact that she acquired no benefit from the transaction, whatever, was well known to plaintiffs at the time. The other defendants made default. The circuit judge instructed the jury that by reason of the words inserted in the notes, expressive of an Intention on the part of appellant to charge her separate property with the payment of the same, the appellant, though a married woman at the time, and though the contract sued upon was not a...