Whitworth v. Carter
Citations
- 43 Miss. 61
Syllabus
<p>1. Coverture at Common Law. — At common law the contracts of a feme covert were, as a general rule, absolutely null and void, ab initio; and this rule applies also in Mississippi, except in so far as validity.is imparted to such contracts by statute,</p> <p>2. The Married Woman’s Law oe 1839. — Erost v. Doyle, et ux., 7 S. & H., cited as showing tho extont to which the act of 1839 modified and limited the rule of the common law.</p> <p>3. Eeeect oe Mississim Statutes toon the Common Law Rude. — The decisions from 1839, adjudicating under the act of that year, and under the amendments of 1846 and 1857, are uniform that these are enabling acts, and that the feme covert is still subject to her common law disabilities, except as to the class and subjects of contracts enumerated in the statutes.</p> <p>i. Disability of Mabeied Woman to Conteaot Debts. — A married woman cannot obligate herself by a sealed instrument or otherwise, to pay for property purchased on credit, except as she is specifically empowered to do so by the statute; as for example, to provide for the maintenance of herself and family, education of her children, and improvement of her separate estate. She cannot embark in the hazards of trade or speculation, and is not liable on her obligation to pay for a slave. Semble : That she may buy any species of property for ready money.</p> <p>5. Sureties oe Mabeied Women. — Although it is a general rule that the obligation of a surety is accessary to that of the principal, and it is of the essence of the sureties’ liability that there be a valid obligation of the principal; yet, if there be no vice in the subject matter of the contract itself, as mala in se, or mala prohibita, which the courts refuse to recognize, this general rule does not apply. And there being no objection to the subject matter of an undertaking by a feme covert and her sureties to pay for a slave, the sureties may, though the principal may not, be held liable.</p> <p>6. Emancipation no Br
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- partially overruled on other grounds
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Simrall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.