Walker v. Brooks

1. Coverture disables a woman to enter into a binding contract, but it does not constitute a protection for her fraud, and if she repudiates her promises she must surrender what she has acquired by reason of them. 2. Where it appeared that the father had delivered to his daughter — a married woman' — property of the value of one thousand and seventy dollars, and took her bond payable on demand for six hundred and seventy dollars, but made no charge against her upon his books of advancements. Held, (1) that the difference between the value of the property and the bond was not intended as an advancement, but a gift; (2) that although the payment of the bond could not be enforced, the obligor was not entitled to participate in the distribution of her father’s estate until she paid it or submitted to have it charged against her.

Contract — Mamed Women — Advancement—Fraud. This is a special PROCEEDING, heard by Shepherd, J., at Fall Term, 1887, of Person Superior Court, upon exceptions and appeal from the Clerk This action, begun before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Person, against the distributees of the intestate and the husbands of such as have married, is prosecuted for the purpose of settling the estate in the hands of the plaintiff as his administrator. It does not appear that service of summons was made upon any, though the defendants W. W. Hill and wife Ida T., come in after an order of publication as to them, they being non-residents, and make answer to the complaint. It is unnecessary to pursue the cause in its singular and irregular course in which all the defendants have borne a share in view of and for the protection of their several interests in the result, and thus make themselves parties to the action. The only controversy finally evolved and the ruling upon which is brought up for review in the appeal of said W. W. Hill and wife, is between them and the administrator, and arises out of the following facts: On February 25th, 1885, the said Ida received from the intestate, her father, a railroad bond of the value of $1,070, and at the same time gave him her bond, as follows: “ $670. On demand and paj^able with six per cent, interest from date, I bind myself, assignees, &c., to pay John Brooks, six hundred and seventy dollars, for full value received of him. I hereby waive the benefit of my homestead exemptions as regards this debt. I hereby set my hand this 25th of February, 1885. IDA D. HILL. [Seal.] The Clerk charges the said Ida with advances to the amount of $45, according to her own inventory filed, and with nothing in distributing the estate of the intestate, and from his refusal to charge her with the bond, the plaintiff appealed to the Judge of the Superior Court, who upon the hearing rendered the following judgment: “ This cause coming on to be heard, and all the exceptions except one, having been abandoned or passed upon by Judge Clark at a previous term, and counsel stating that the only difference between them was in reference to the amount which should be charged against Ida D. Hill as an advancement, and the Court having considered the testimony, exhibits and agreement of counsel, which latter is filed in the papers herein, the Court is of the opinion, and so finds and adjudges, that the coupon bond to the extent of six hundred and seventy dollars was intended as an advancement to the said Ida, and that she should be charged therewith in the settlement of the estate, her bond being returned to her by the administrator. Plaintiff’s exception is therefore sustained. It is further adjudged that this cause be remanded to the Clerk to the end that his report be reformed according to this order.” The defendant Ida excepted thereto and appealed.