Wilcox v. . Arnold

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wilcox v. . Arnold

21 S.E. 434, 116 N.C. 708

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 21 S.E. 434 (Wilcox v. . Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilcox v. . Arnold, 21 S.E. 434, 116 N.C. 708 (N.C. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTGOMERY, J.:

The defendant Nancy Arnold, while she was the wife of Joseph Tyre, executed, together with him, the note upon which suit was brought before a Justice of the Peace and which constitutes the basis of this action. It purports neither to charge her separate estate nor to be for her benefit; and if it had, the Court of a Justice of the Peace would have had no jurisdiction in the matter. Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C., 300. The note as an executory contract had no validity. In Farthing v. Shields, 106 N. C., p. 289, this Court said, Justice Shepherd delivering the opinion, “It is well settled by the uniform decisions of this Court that, except in the cases mentioned in The Code, Sections 1828, 1831, 1832,'1836, a feme covert is, at law, incapable of making any executory *711 contract whatever. Accordingly it has been determined that The Oode, Section 1826, requiring the written consent of the husband in order to affect her real or personal estate, did not confer upon her (even when such written consent was given,, or when the liability was for her personal expenses, etc.,) the power to make a legal contract. Its object was to require the written consent of her husband, in order to charge in equity her statutory separate estate, on the same .principle which requires the consent of the trustee when the separate estate is created by deed of settlement. Pippen v. Wesson, 74 N. C., 437; Flaum v. Wallace, 103 N. C., 296.”

The cases of Vick v. Pope, 81 N. C., 22, and Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346, have no bearing on this case. In both of them the femes covert made no defence to the actions and allowed judgment to go against them by default. They became bound by the judgments.

The attempt of the plaintiff to hold the defendant liable on a new promise cannot be successful. His testimony and that of G-oodman on this point was not sufficient to go to the jury ; and if the promise had been proved it would be nudum pactum for the reason that there was no present consideration for the promise, and'the consideration of the note was not for the benefit of her sole and separate estate.

There is no error, in the ruling of the Court below and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MONTGOMERY, J.:

The defendant Nancy Arnold, while she was the wife of Joseph Tyre, executed, together with him, the note upon which suit was brought before a Justice of the Peace and which constitutes the basis of this action. It purports neither to charge her separate estate nor to be for her benefit; and if it had, the Court of a Justice of the Peace would have had no jurisdiction in the matter. Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C., 300. The note as an executory contract had no validity. In Farthing v. Shields, 106 N. C., p. 289, this Court said, Justice Shepherd delivering the opinion, “It is well settled by the uniform decisions of this Court that, except in the cases mentioned in The Code, Sections 1828, 1831, 1832,'1836, a feme covert is, at law, incapable of making any executory *711 contract whatever. Accordingly it has been determined that The Oode, Section 1826, requiring the written consent of the husband in order to affect her real or personal estate, did not confer upon her (even when such written consent was given,, or when the liability was for her personal expenses, etc.,) the power to make a legal contract. Its object was to require the written consent of her husband, in order to charge in equity her statutory separate estate, on the same .principle which requires the consent of the trustee when the separate estate is created by deed of settlement. Pippen v. Wesson, 74 N. C., 437; Flaum v. Wallace, 103 N. C., 296.”

The cases of Vick v. Pope, 81 N. C., 22, and Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346, have no bearing on this case. In both of them the femes covert made no defence to the actions and allowed judgment to go against them by default. They became bound by the judgments.

The attempt of the plaintiff to hold the defendant liable on a new promise cannot be successful. His testimony and that of G-oodman on this point was not sufficient to go to the jury ; and if the promise had been proved it would be nudum pactum for the reason that there was no present consideration for the promise, and'the consideration of the note was not for the benefit of her sole and separate estate.

There is no error, in the ruling of the Court below and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.E. 434, 116 N.C. 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-arnold-nc-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack