The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 1
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
AND THE DISTRICT COURTS
WALKER v. ARKANSAS NAT. BANK OF HOT SPRINGS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 18, 1919.)
1. HUSBAND AND WIFE =56--NOTE BY WIFE-'IHAT LAW GOVERNS.
In an action on a married woman's note executed and payable in the
state of Arkansas, the laws of that state control.
2. HUSBAND AND WIFE 4'=87(3)--SuETY ON NOTE FOB HUSBAND.
Prior to Act Ark. March 19, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 684), a married woman
would not be liable as a surety on a note for her husband, but since its
passage all restrictions have been removed, and a married woman may
sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with, as though she were a
3. HUSBAND AND WIFE l171(1)-MORTGAOES--SuRETY FOR HUSBAND.
It is the settled law of Arkansas that a married woman may mortgage
her separate estate as surety for her husband without any consideration
passing to her, the consideration to her husband supporting the mortgage.
4. HUSBAND AND WIFE X85(6)-NoTE FOR HUSBAND'S DEBT-VALIDITY-RE-
As prior to Act Ark. March 19, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 684), a note executed
by a married woman as surety for her husband was merely voidable, a
renewal note given after the passage of such act, which allowed a, mar-
ried woman to become surety for her husband, is not void under the rule
that a contract absolutely void for illegality will not be validated by a
5. HUSBAND AND WIFE 85(6)--SUEETY FOR HUSBAND.
Prior to Act Ark. March 19, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 684), a note executed
by a married woman as surety for her husband was not wholly void, but
merely voidable; there being no statute prohibiting a married woman
from becoming a surety.
6. HUSBAND AND WIFE 4=85(6)-SuRETY FOR HUSBAND-RENEWAL NOTE.
Where a married woman who had before Act Ark. March 19, 1915 (Acts
1915, p. 684), signed a note as surety for her husband, and after the pas-
sage of such act, with knowledge that part of the consideration was the
note so signed, executed a renewal note, held, that she is estopped from
setting up the failure of consideration in an action on the renewal note.
41For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/15/: accessed August 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.