30 S.C. 159 | S.C. | 1889
The opinion of the court was delivered by
On March 28, 1884, Missouri C. Shingler and Melcher IT. Shingler made and delivered their joint and several sealed note to the plaintiff, William 0. Livingston, whereby they promised to pay him on January 1, 1885, three hundred dollars ($300), with interest from date. Missouri C. Shingler was then, and is now, the wife of the said Melcher H. Shingler. The note aforesaid was signed by the said Missouri C. as surety for her husband, the debt being his. To secure the payment of the note the said Missouri C., by an instrument in writing, bearing even date with the note, under her hand and seal, assigned and transferred to the plaintiff all her right, title, interest, and estate, real and personal, in the estate of her father, J. Q. Parler, deceased (which was then in process of settlement); and said instrument' was delivered and regularly recorded in the register’s office of Orangeburg County. (See copy in the Brief.)
At the time of said assignment the interest of said Missouri C. in the estate of her father consisted in her share of a certain bond and mortgage executed by one Samuel Lewis to her father, the aforenamed Parler, in his life-time, which was then in the hands of his administratrix, who had due notice of said assignment. It seems that afterwards this share of Mrs. Shingler fell into the hands of Andrew C. Dibble, Esq., master of Orange-burg County ; and this action was brought against Missouri C. Shingler, her husband, Melcher H. Shingler, and the said Dibble, to recover judgment on the note, and to enjoin the said Dibble from paying the money over to Mrs. Shingler, and to require him to pay. the money to the plaintiff under the assignment aforesaid.
Among other things, it was admitted that the note was signed by Melcher II. Shingler and Missouri 0. Shingler; that Missouri C. was then, and is now, the wife of Melcher H. Shingler, and signed the note as his surety; that Missouri C. also executed
“I. Because his honor erred in holding that the assignment made by the defendant, Missouri C. Shingler, to secure the debt of her husband is void.
“II. Because his honor erred in holding that the said Missouri C. Shingler, a married woman, although having the power to alienate her separate personal property under art. 14, sec. 8, of the Constitution of the State, could not assign or pledge the same for her husband’s debt.
“III. Because his honor erred in holding that notwithstanding the said Missouri C. had such an interest in her father’s estate as could be assigned or aliened, she had no power to assign, pledge, or mortgage the same to secure the debt of her husband; whereas he should have held that a married woman, under art. 14, sec. 8, of the Constitution of the State, has power to alien her separate personal property, and having this power she can assign, pledge, or mortgage the same to secure the debts of her husband.
“IV. Because his honor erred in dismissing the complaint as to the defendant, Missouri C. Shingler.
“V. Because his honor erred in dissolving the injunction heretofore granted in this cause, enjoining the payment to the said Missouri C. Shingler of moneys in the master’s hands, and in directing the .master to pay the same to the said Missouri C. Shingler.
“VI. Because his honor erred in holding, in effect, that a married woman in this State cannot, under the constitution (although having the power to alienate), assign, pledge, or mortgage her separate personal property to secure the debt of her husband, or any other person, and can only do so to secure her own debt, when the same is contracted for the benefit of her separate estate.”
This transaction tookjilace in 1884, after the act of 1870 was
We will not go again into the discussion as to the power of a married woman, under the constitution and laws of the State, to contract in reference to her separate estate in such manner as ' effectually to bind, charge, or dispose of the same. So far as this case is concerned, it will be sufficient to say that we are unable to distinguish it in principle from that of Gwynn v. Gwynn, 27 S. C., 525 (1884), which must be regarded as controlling authority upon us. It will be seen that in that case it was held that the contract of a married woman, forming a mercantile copartnership between herself and her husband, under the style of “Gwynn & Co.,” was void; and that notwithstanding her constitutional right to “alienate” her separate estate, “the same as if she were unmarried,” her assignment of separate property to pay the debts of said firm (held to be only the debts of the husband), was also absolutely void. In delivering the judgment of the court, Mr. .Justice Mclver said: “It seems to us, therefore, that the deed of assignment, in so far as it purported to appropriate any portion of the separate estate of the plaintiff (Mrs. Gwynn) to the payment of any debt contracted by her husband under the name of ‘Gwynn & Co.,’ should have been adjudged a nullity, and not binding on the plaintiff, but that it may stand, in so far as it purports to appropriate her property to the payment of such individual debts as may be shown to be legally due by her,” &c.
As it strikes us, this case is very analogous to that. Here the note which Mrs. Shingler signed was void, for the reason that, as a married woman, she could not make a general personal engagement, which would bind her separate property. It is true that the liability of the husband on the note (which the assignment was executed to secure) still remained; but so did the liability
The judgment of this court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.