Vance v. Wells & Co.

6 Ala. 737
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 6 Ala. 737 (Vance v. Wells & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vance v. Wells & Co., 6 Ala. 737 (Ala. 1844).

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

A married woman, in general, can-

not be a party to a promissory note or bill of exchange, so as to charge herself to liability in a court of law. [Chitty on Bills-, 24.] Indeed, it has been held, that during, coverture, she is not capable to contract, although separated from her husband. [Marshall v. Rutter, 8 Term, 545.] In the case of Lee v. Muggeridge, [5 Taunt. 37,]. where a feme was under a moral obligation to pay' a bond executed by her when covert, and she, after the death of her husband, promised to pay it, her executors were held liable on this subsequent promise. But here, there is no moral obliga-tion shown, nor any new consideration to support the subsequent-promise; and as the contract was wholly void by reason of co--verture, the subsequent promise to pay, was without consideran tion, and cannot bind her.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.-

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

Related

Union National Bank v. Hartwell
84 Ala. 379 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Grimball v. Mastin
77 Ala. 553 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Howard v. Simpkins
70 Ga. 322 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1883)
Jones v. Crosthwaite
17 Iowa 393 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Dobbin v. Hubbard
17 Ark. 189 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1856)
Hatton v. Wier
19 Ala. 127 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ala. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-wells-co-ala-1844.