Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas H. Ball, for plaintiff in error. — The note sued upon, having been jointly executed by George P. Tinkham and his wife, Mrs. Laura Tinkham, on November 10, 1913, after the statutes of Texas had authorized the joint making of a note by husband and wife, so as to bind the wife upon such an undertaking, and in support of judgment thereon against both husband and wife, it was error for the trial court to deny recovery thereon against the wife, and the Court of Civil Appeals likewise erred, in affirming the judgment so rendered by the trial court. Vernon's Sayles' Statutes, art. 4624; Speer's Marital Rights, par. 148, p. 197; Colonial U.S. Mort. Co. v. Stevens, 55 N.W. 578; Washburn v. Gray, 97 N.E. 190. Fisher, Campbell Ammerman, for defendant in error Laura J. Tinkham. — A married woman can not, by the execution of a plain promissory note with her husband, bind her separate estate, where the funds were not to be used for the benefit of her separate estate, or for necessaries, even since the enactment of the so-called "Married Woman's Act" of 1913. Red River Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S.W. 1088; Akin v. First Nat. Bank, 194 S.W. 610; First State Bank of Tomball v. Tinkham, 195 S.W. 880.
Judges
  • MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thomas H. Ball, for plaintiff in error. — The note sued upon, having been jointly executed by George P. Tinkham and his wife, Mrs. Laura Tinkham, on November 10, 1913, after the statutes of Texas had authorized the joint making of a note by husband and wife, so as to bind the wife upon such an undertaking, and in support of judgment thereon against both husband and wife, it was error for the trial court to deny recovery thereon against the wife, and the Court of Civil Appeals likewise erred, in affirming the judgment so rendered by the trial court. Vernon's Sayles' Statutes, art. 4624; Speer's Marital Rights, par. 148, p. 197; Colonial U.S. Mort. Co. v. Stevens, 55 N.W. 578; Washburn v. Gray, 97 N.E. 190. Fisher, Campbell Ammerman, for defendant in error Laura J. Tinkham. — A married woman can not, by the execution of a plain promissory note with her husband, bind her separate estate, where the funds were not to be used for the benefit of her separate estate, or for necessaries, even since the enactment of the so-called "Married Woman's Act" of 1913. Red River Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S.W. 1088; Akin v. First Nat. Bank, 194 S.W. 610; First State Bank of Tomball v. Tinkham, 195 S.W. 880.
Judges
  • MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

FIRST STATE BANK OF TOMBALL v. GEORGE F. TINKHAM ET AL.

Case Followed — Married Woman's Contract.

The rulings in Red River National Bank v. Ferguson, ante, p. 287, followed and held to control disposition of this case. The Married Woman's Act of 1913 does not confer upon her the power to contract as surety for her husband on a note not given for necessaries, and she is not bound thereby. (P. 297.)

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court.

The main question in this case is that determined in Red River National Bank v. Ferguson. The case is accordingly ruled by that decision.

The judgments of the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

FIRST STATE BANK OF TOMBALL v. TINKHAM
(Dec 2, 1918)