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: 4
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
256 FEDERAL REPORTER '
In Vance v. Wells, 8 Ala. 399, it was heldthat-
"A note executed by a married woman as surety for her husband creates a
moral obligation, which will support an action at law on her promise to pay
To the same effect are Spitz v. Fourth National Bank, 8 Lea. (Tenn.)
641; Bank of Hanover v. Bridges, 98 N. C. 67, 3 S. E. 826, 2 Am.
St. Rep. 317.
In Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark. 267, 273, Chief Justice Watkins speak-
ing for the court said:
"I am clearly of opinion that, if the jury believed the facts which I suppose
the evidence conduced to prove, * * * the plaintiff below was entitled to
recover upon the express promise of the defendant after she became discovert,
without any new or further consideration for the promise being made to ap-
Mr. Justice Walker in a concurring opinion said (page 280):
"In the case now under consideration, although no legal obligation existed
under which the defendant could have been compelled to pay for the pro-
fessional services, still such services were & legal consideration which, but for
the rule of law that makes void the contract of a feme covert, a recovery
might have been had upon an implied assumpsit, and consequently furnished a
sufficient consideration to uphold an express promise made after the divorce to
.pay for them."
In Woodruff v. Scruggs, 27 Ark. 26, 11 Am. Rep. 777, the question
before the court was whether a note which under the statutes, in force
at the time of its execution, was void for usury, was enforceable after
the repeal of that statute, and it was held that it was. This was re-
affirmed in Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591, 596; Nicholls v. Gee, 30 Ark.
135, 141. To the same effect is Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143. 150,
2 Sup. Ct. 408, 27 L, Ed. 682.
In Chollar v. Temple, 39 Ark. 238, 243, it was held that although
no judgment could be rendered against a married woman, if she had
appeared and set up her coverture, a judgment by default against her,
although erroneous, is neither void nor erroneous, but may be enforced
against her separate estate by execution, as if she were a feme sole.
 The next contention, is that the renewal of the former notes and
consequent extension of. time is not a sufficient consideration for the
execution of the note sued on, and as she was not liable, by reason of
her coverture, on the notes executed prior to 1915, this note is with-
out consideration. But the law of the state, as settled by the decisions
of its highest court, is that--
"One who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the
time of a partial failure of the consideration for the original note, is estopped
from setting up the defense of failure of considerations in an action on the
renewal note." Stewart v. 'Simon, 111 Ark. 358, 1683 S. V. 1135, Ann. Cas.
1916A, 825, where the authorities are fully considered.
This case has been reaffirmed in Haglin v. Fiiedman, 118 Ark. 465,
177 S. W. 429. Other cases decided by the Supreme Court of that
state, to the same effect, are Tabor v. Merchants' National Bank, 48
Ark. 454, 3 S. W. 805, 3 Am. St. Rep. 241; Hamiter v. Brown, 88
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/m1/18/: accessed July 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.