Pelzer v. Durham

Citations

• 37 S.C. 354
• 16 S.E. 46
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>1. Married Woman’s Contracts—Onus Probandi.—-A contract made by a married woman in 188G is binding upon her if made as to her separate estate, but if not so made, it is not binding, and be who seeks to recover upon her contract of that date must show by evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the contract was made with reference to her separate estate.</p> <p>2. Ibid.—Parol Testimony.—-Where a married woman is sued upon a bond and mortgage executed by her in her own name, parol testimony is admissible to show whether it is such a contract as a married woman had power to make.</p> <p>3. Evidence—Entries on Books.—Where plaintiffs put their books in evidence, they cannot object to the consideration of a pencil memorandum thereon made by their own book-keeper, and which related to a charge entered in the account against defendant.</p> <p>4. Ibid.—-Consideration.-—Testimony is admissible to show that a written agreement by defendant’s husband to ship cotton to plaintiffs was a part of the inducement for plaintiffs’ loan of money on the security of defendant’s contemporaneous bond and mortgage.</p> <p>5. Harried Women—Loans.—Honey actually borrowed by a married woman may become a part of her separate estate, and her contract for its repayment binding upon her, without regard to her use of it or the lender’s knowledge of its intended application, but this proposition is inapplicable to a case where the married woman did not borrow the money.</p> <p>6. Hypothetical Case—Immaterial Ruling.—An exception to an immaterial ruling on a hypothetical case, not considered.</p> <p>1. Harried Woman’s Contracts—Agency—Facts.—A man applied to plaintiffs for a loan of money on the security of real estate, to be used in mercantile business, and plaintiffs assented, requiring in addition an agreement to ship cotton. The applicant had recently made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and plaintiffs knew it. Plaintiffs employed an attorney to examine titles, who was told by