At Common Law, subject to certain exceptions, it was well settled that an executory contract entered into by a married woman was void, and even now no contract is enforceable against her at law unless under the provisions of some statute.1 Thus a contract by a married woman to surrender her child is void,2 and cannot be ratified.3 So her assignments,4 covenants of warranty,5 agreements to assume debts,6 and notes7 are void. So a bond given by her is not payment of a pre-existing debt of her husband's.8 To such an extreme is this view carried that a note purporting on its face to be executed by a married woman cannot be the subject of forgery.9 A married woman's lack of capacity is not affected by the fact that the adversary party did not know that she was married.10

1 Johnson v. Gallagher, 3 De G. F. & J. 515; Smith v. Plorner, 15 East. 607; Threefoot v. Hillman, 130 Ala. 244; 89 Am. St. Rep. 39; 30 So. 513; Dobbin v. Hubbard, 17 Ark. 189; 65 Am. Dec. 425; Butler v. Buckingham, 5 Day (Conn.) 492; 5 Am. Dee. 174; Ross v. Singleton,

1 Del. Ch. 149; 12 Am. Dec. 86; Snell v. Snell, 123 111. 403; 5 Am. St. Rep. 526; 14 N. E. 684; Stevens v. Parish, 29 Ind. 260; 95 Am. Dec. 636; Graham v. Graham (Ky.) 56 S. W. 708; Brown v. Dalton, 105 Ky. 669; 88 Am. St. Rep. 325; 49 S. W. 443; Robinson v. Robinson,

11 Bush. (.Ky.) 174; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 236; 19 Am. Dec. 71; Burton v. Marshall, 4 Gill (Md.) 487; 45 Am. Dec. 171; Shaw v. Thompson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 198; 26 Am. Dec. 655; Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433; 47 Am. Dec. 41; Por-terfield v. Butler, 47 Miss. 165; 12 Am. Rep. 329; Stephenson v. Osborne, 41 Miss. 119; 90 Am. Dec. 358; Macfarland v. Heim, 127 Mo. 327; 48 Am. St. Rep. 629; 29 S. W. 1030; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624; 43 Am. Rep. 780; Citizens;

State Bank y. Smout, 62 Neb. 223; 86 N. W. 1068; Wadleigh v. Glines, 6 N. H. 17; 23 Am. Dec. 705; Brick v. Campbell, 122 N. Y. 337; 10 L. R. A. 259; 25 N. E. 493; Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 167; 8 Am. Dec. 378; Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 9; 21 Am. Dec. 245; Terry v. Robbins, 128 N. C. 140; 83 Am. St. Rep. 663; 38 S. E. 470; Dorrance v. Scott, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 309; 31 Am. Dec. 509; Mackinley v. McGregor, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 369; 31 Am. Dec. 522; First National Bank v. Shaw, 109 Tenn. 237; 59 L. R. A. 498; 70 S. W. 807; Harris v. Taylor, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 536; 67 Am. Dec. 576; Hollis v. Francois, 5 Tex. 195; 51 Am. Dec. 760; Sherwin v. Sanders, 59 Vt. 499; 59 Am. Rep. 750; 9 Atl. 239; Stewart v. Conrad, 100 Va. 128; 40 S. E. 624; Pickens v. Kniseley, 36 W. Va. 794; 15 S. E. 997; Weisbrod v. Ry., 18 Wis. 35; 86 Am. Dec. 743. See Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 542; 41 L. R. A. 362; 40 Atl. 561, for a discussion of the Teutonic theory of the famiiy.