Story Case

Mary Carlton was a music teacher, and one of her pupils was John Hackett. Hackett became attached to Miss Carlton, and finally persuaded her to marry him.

At the time of their marriage he was indebted to her to the sum of one hundred dollars for music lessons. Subsequent to the marriage, domestic troubles arose, and finally Mrs. Hackett secured a divorce, and the right to her maiden name. Thereupon she brought suit against Hackett for the money originally due for music lessons. He answered that this debt was extinguished by the common law rule that debts existing between a man and woman before marriage are entirely extinguished when they become husband and wife. Miss Carlton maintained in answer to this that the statute in their state, which permitted a woman to retain her separate property, also abrogated the common law rule on this point. Is this correct?

Ruling Court Case. Farley Vs. Farley, Volume 91 Kentucky Reports, Page 497

Mrs. Farley, the defendant in this action, while a single woman, borrowed money of Mr. Farley and gave a note therefor, secured by a mortgage upon the land by her owned. Thereafter they were married. Some time subsequent to the marriage, domestic trouble arose. The husband produced the note in question, demanded payment and, payment being refused, he brought this action thereon, seeking to recover a personal judgment against his wife, and also to foreclose the mortgage which had been executed to him as security for the faithful payment of the note. During the pendency of the action the wife procured a divorce from the husband.

Mr. Jusice Bennett said: "By the common law, marriage has the legal effect of paying or extinguishing the debt the husband might owe to the wife, or the wife to the husband, at the time of the marriage.* * * If she, at the time of the marriage, held a note on him, the note was, in law, paid; if he held a note on her, it, in law, was paid or extinguished by the marriage."

Was the obligation revived by the subsequent divorce of the parties to the marriage 1 When they married, the obligation disappeared absolutely, and no subsequent event would revive that obligation.

Accordingly, the husband could neither recover upon the note nor foreclose the mortgage.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

At common law the marriage of a man and woman extinguishes all contracts between them. If the man owed money to the woman, or if the woman owed money to the man, their marriage extinguished the obligation in either case. The fiction that husband and wife are one in legal contemplation is the basis of this result.

Nor is the obligation revived by the divorce of the parties. The marriage extinguishes the obligation, and no subsequent event will revive the obligation. The better rule, as adjudicated by the New York Court in the case of "In the Matter of Collister," Volume 153 New York Reports, Page 294, is that the common law rule is not changed by the statutes giving the wife the right to retain her separate property. Even though the wife has the right, any debts existing between them at the time of marriage are extinguished. Therefore, Miss Carlton cannot recover in the Story Case.