The appeal in this case is from an interlocutory order denying a motion by the *831defendant DeLong, appellant in this Court, to strike an application for a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

Suit was instituted by appellees to foreclose a purchase money mortgage securing a note executed by appellant and her husband, defendants, in payment for real property conveyed to defendants, husband and wife. Following foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property, application was made for a deficiency decree in an amount representing the balance due on the defendants’ note together with foreclosure costs and expenses.

We agree with the conclusion below, on motion to strike this application, that Sec. 1 of Article XI1 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. is irrelevant because the debt involved in this proceeding is not that of appellant’s husband but instead is her joint obligation, given in exchange for a conveyance of property to her and her husband. In these circumstances the operation of a business by appellant’s husband on the premises does not affect the joint debt of the parties.2

Section 23 of Art. XI simply defines a limited equitable charge granted to provide some remedy against a married woman’s property even prior to enactment of F.S. Sec. 708.08, F.S.A. Cases 4 construing Article XI before the effective date of Sec. 708.08 are not authority, of course, for appellant’s contention that deficiency proceedings in the present case should be similarly limited, nor do they indicate any collision between the law and constitutional provisions.

The court below correctly found that appellant’s mortgage note constituted an independent obligation the enforcement of which is unaffected by the constitutional language.

Affirmed.