Schaeffer v. Ivory
Schaeffer v. Ivory
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit brought originally before a justice of the peace, upon a promissory note signed by the defendant when she was married and had a separate estate, and also signed by her husband, by which note the two promised to pay to the order of the plaintiff’s intestate $250, for value received, with interest from date, the 1st of January, 1874, at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The defendant became discovert on the 9th of January, 1875, and this suit was then brought against her as a single woman.
It is contended that the instrument cannot be treated as a note, as when she made it the respondent had no capacity to make a note; and that the justice had no jurisdiction, as this cannot be considered an instrument in writing, but a “ liability.” The questions were examined and disposed of in Hooton v. Ransom, 6 Mo. App. 19, and the decision in that case is decisive of this. The distinction was there dwelt upon between a void contract and a contract non-enforceable for the time being. Though the contract of a married woman is often called void in the books, this term is so used in the mere looseness of language. Equity is not in the habit of enforcing void contracts, and equity constantly enforces the contracts of married women during coverture, and when made during coverture. So, on the other hand,
The judgment is reversed, and judgment will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the note and interest.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.