Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Collins

75 Mo. 280
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 75 Mo. 280 (Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Collins, 75 Mo. 280 (Mo. 1882).

Opinion

I.

Sherwood, C. J.

It has been held from an early period [281]*281in the judicial history of this State that a femme covert possessed of a separate estate might, by giving her promissory note, bind or charge such separate estate. Coats v. Robinson, 10 Mo. 757; Whitesides v. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457; Claflin v. Van Wagoner, 32 Mo. 252; Schafroth v. Ambs, 46 Mo. 114; Kimm v. Weippert, 46 Mo. 532; Lincoln v. Rowe, 51 Mo. 571; Bank v. Taylor, 62 Mo. 338. This is the generally prevalent doctrine, both in England and in this country. 2 Kent, 151; Williams v. Urmston, 35 Ohio St. 296; s. c., 35 Am. Rep. 611; 2 Bishop L. Marr. Wom., §§ 202, 211, 214; Ib., §§ 842, 855, 862, 872, and cases cited.

II.

The ordinary words used to create a separate estate in a married woman are “ to her sole and separate use.” Any equivalent words, however, will answer the same purpose, if the intention to create such an estate be clear. But nothing must be left to conjecture. In the present case there is absolutely nothing in the words employed giving the faintest indication of an intention to create a separate estate.

III.

This being the case, the notes of Mrs. Coleman are nullities and incapable of enforcement in equity; for the reason that there was no subject matter, to-wit: a separate estate, upon which they as a power of appointment could operate ; therefore, judgment affirmed.

All concur, except Henry, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smoot v. Judd
83 S.W. 481 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Sidway v. Nichol
34 S.W. 529 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)
Richardson v. De Giverville
107 Mo. 422 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Arnold v. Brockenbrough
29 Mo. App. 625 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
State v. Jennings
81 Mo. 185 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Mo. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatmens-savings-bank-v-collins-mo-1882.