Sec. 922. Contract Required To Be In Writing
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 922. Contract Required To Be In Writing
Some statutes require a married woman's contracts to be in writing except in certain cases; as in Alabama, where she is a sole trader under the statute.1 Under such statutes an agent cannot be appointed orally,2 nor can an oral contract for a building be enforced by taking a lien,3 nor can it be ratified,4 nor can the consent of the husband give it validity.5 Indorsement of a promissory note in blank is not written consent within the provision of the statute, so as to enable her husband to pass title thereto.6 Contracts for necessaries are excepted from the provisions of some of the statutes already referred. The term necessaries has a different meaning in this connection from its meaning in the law of infancy. It includes a mule used to cultivate a farm from which the married woman is supported,7 and goods sold to renters on shares;8 but not the wages of an overseer, his services not being shown to be necessary;9 nor the rent of a hotel.10 Contracts for necessaries are not enforceable without due process of law. Thus a creditor who has sold a married woman merchandise necessary for the support of her family cannot take possession of crops raised by her on her own land, but he must take judgment and issue execution subject to her right to exemptions.11
6 Coffin v. Smith, 128 N. C. 252; 38 S. E. 864.
7 Clewis v. Malon, 119 Ala. 312; 24 So. 767; overruling Strauss v. Schwab, 104 Ala. 669; 16 So. 692.
8 Brinkley v. Ballance, 126 N. C. 393; 35 S. E. 631.
9 Rushton v. Davis, 127 Ala. 279; 28 So. 476; Wachovia, etc., Bank v. Ireland, 122 N. C. 571; 29 S. E. 835; In re Freeman, 116 N. C. 199; 21 S. E. 110.
10 Souder v. Bank, 156 Pa. St. 374; 27 Atl. 293.
11 Walton v. Bristol, 125 N. C. 419; 34 S. E. 544.
12 McAnally v. Lumber Co., 109 Ala. 397; 19 So. 417.
1 Clement v. Draper, 108 Ala. 211;
19 So. 25; Strauss, etc., Co. v. Glass, 108 Ala. 546; 18 So. 526 (qualifying Strauss v. Schwab, 104 Ala. 669; 16 So. 692; Strouse v. Leipf, 101 Ala. 433; 46 Am. St. Rep. 122; 23 L. R. A. 622; 14 So. 667; Mitch-elf v. Mitchell, 101 Ala. 183; 13 So. 147).
2 Scott v. Cotten, 91 Ala. 623; 8 So. 783.
3 Weathers v. Borders, 121 N. C. 387; 28 S. E. 524.
4 Weathers v. Borders, 121 N. C. 387; 28 S. E. 524.
5 Strauss, etc., Co. v. Glass, 108 Ala. 546; 18 So. 526.
6 Case v. Espenschied, 169 Mo. 215; 69 S. W. 276.
Continue to:
My Books
