Watkins v. Martin

• Decision Date: 11 May 1901
• Citation: 65 S.W. 103,69 Ark. 311
• Parties: WATKINS v. MARTIN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

65 S.W. 103

69 Ark. 311

WATKINS v. MARTIN

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 11, 1901

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court JOSEPH W. MARTIN, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Mark Valentine, for appellant.

A married woman has free power to sell and convey her separate property as if she was a feme sole. Sand. & H. Dig., 4940; Const. 1874, art. 9, § 7; 53 N.Y. 93. The power of attorney was the best evidence to show agent's authority. 52 Ark. 234. A principal, on being fully informed of one's act acting without authority for him, must disaffirm it in a reasonable time, or he will be held to have ratified it. 40 Wis. 431. A single act and a single recognition of authority may serve the agency. 24 Minn. 269. Every new item on a running account draws with it all preceding items. 2 Mo.App. 580; 40 Iowa 41. A married woman may contract through an agent for improvement of her real estate. 71 Ind. 159. A husband may act as such. 99 Ind. 469.

J. H. Carmichael, for appellee.

Our statute does not authorize married women to make executory contracts for furture conveyances. 29 Ark. 658; 29 Ark. 346; 30 Ark. 612; 38 Ark. 31; 39 Ark. 120; 16 Cal. 533. Before the passage of act of 1893 a married woman's executory contract to convey land was void. 39 Ark. 357; 44 Ark. 112; 53 Ark. 109; 44 Ark. 153; 41 Ark. 169. The power of attorney was void. 41 Ark. 169. For what she did, unless for the benefit of her separate estate, she was not liable. 29 Ark. 346; 33 Ark. 266; 34 Ark. 32. Statute of limitations was sustained. 2 Ark. 14; 3 Ark. 532; 5 Ark. 309; 6 Ark. 456; 14 Ark. 27; 13 Ark 316; 18 Ark. 53; 27 Ark. 292; 33 Ark. 828. The bill of exceptions does not profess to set out all the evidence, and the presumption is in favor of the judgment. 2 Ark. 33; 8 Ark. 429; 24 Ark 602; 22 Ark. 179; 25 Ark. 334; 14 Ark. 298; 37 Ark. 57; 40 Ark. 185; 46 Ark. 67; 27 Ark. 395; 45 Ark. 240; 43 Ark. 451; 55 Ark. 126.

BATTLE, J. WOOD, J., absent.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

William M. Watkins brought this action against Francis C. Martin upon an open account for services rendered by him to the defendant. The defendant answered and denied the account, and, among other things, pleaded the three-years' statute of limitation in bar of plaintiff's right to maintain the action. The defendant recovered judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that his action was not barred by the statute of limitations. Leigh v. Evans, 64 Ark. 26, 41 S.W. 427; McNeil v. Garland, 27 Ark. 343; Carnall v. Clark, 27 Ark. 500; Railway v. Shoecraft, 53 Ark. 96. He has utterly failed to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

WOOD, J., absent.