Hodges v. . Hill

10 S.E. 916, 105 N.C. 130
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1890·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The only question' presented is whether a Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of an action against a married woman'to recover a debt contracted prior-, to her marriage. This is not an open question. It has -been held *131 that he has. Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346. The Code, §1823, expressly provides that the liability’of & feme sole “shall not be altered or impaired” by her marriage. Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C., 300, which holds that a Justice of the Peace has not jurisdiction of an action against a married woman, applies only to liabilities incurred by her while a feme covert, and not even to them in cases where she is a free trader, or the proceeding is to enforce a laborer’s lien. The Code, §§1790, 1828, 1831 and 1832; Smaw v. Cohen, 95 N. C., 85.

Error.

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

Hodges v. . Hill, 10 S.E. 916, 105 N.C. 130 (N.C. 1890).

10 S.E. 916 (Hodges v. . Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lancaster v. . Lancaster
100 S.E. 120 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Scott-Sparger Co. v. Ferguson
67 S.E. 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Harvey v. Johnson
133 N.C. 352 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Bevill v. Cox
107 N.C. 175 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Beville v. . Cox
12 S.E. 52 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Darden v. Neuse & Trent River Steamboat Co.
12 S.E. 46 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)