TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McMahon v. Lewis

McMahon v. Lewis, 67 Ky. 138 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 9, 1868
Judges
Williams
Citations
67 Ky. 1384 Bush 1381868 Ky. LEXIS 92
Headnotes
Whilst under the statute a married woman, having estate, may bind herself for necessaries, it is essential that the credit originally should be given to her, and not alone to her husband; for if to him alone, and she after- ' wards signs a note with him therefor, she will not then be an original ■debtor, but a mere surety, and her property cannot be subjected to its payment.
Summary
CASE 29 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Revised Statutes, sec. 1, art. 2, chap . —, 2 Stant., 8. 2 Met., 252 ; Pell vs. Cole. 8 Met., 335; Marshall vs. Miller. CITED— 2 Stanton, page 8.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAMS

delivered the opinion oe the court:

The store account of appellant, though for necessaries for the family, was charged alone to appellee’s husband, and the only witness who testified being appellant’s clerk, does not state that credit was given to Mrs. Lewis.

When, by a subsequent arrangement, her husband gave his note to Sinnett, and she signed it with him and Anderson, and appellant also signed it, she must be regarded as a security, and not as a principal.

Whilst under our statute a married woman, having estate, may bind herself for necessaries, it is essential that the credit originally should be given to her, and not *139 alone to the husband; for if to him alone, she will not then be an original debtor, but a mere security.

The court properly refused to subject her property to the payment of the debt after McMahon had taken it up from Sinnett.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 11876–1877: 11908–1909: 11920–1921: 11928–1929: 12024–2025: 118702026peak 1870 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hunt v. Smith230 S.W. 936 (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
  2. Robenson v. Yann5 S.W.2d 271 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928)
  3. Luigart v. Lexington Turf Club113 S.W. 814 (Ky. Ct. App. 1908)
  4. Waller v. Johnson4 Ky. Op. 308 (1870)
  5. Chiles v. Ready's Adm'r9 Ky. Op. 51 (1876)
  6. Farmers Investment Co., AKA Farmers Investment Company, Incorporated v. Bg Landco, LLCNo. 2023 CA 000857 (Ky. Ct. App. May 23, 2024)

Most recent

  1. Farmers Investment Co., AKA Farmers Investment Company, Incorporated v. Bg Landco, LLCNo. 2023 CA 000857 (Ky. Ct. App. May 23, 2024)
  2. Robenson v. Yann5 S.W.2d 271 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928)
  3. Hunt v. Smith230 S.W. 936 (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
  4. Luigart v. Lexington Turf Club113 S.W. 814 (Ky. Ct. App. 1908)
  5. Chiles v. Ready's Adm'r9 Ky. Op. 51 (1876)
  6. Waller v. Johnson4 Ky. Op. 308 (1870)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list