• 480 SUPREME -COURT OF ARKANSAS, - [35 Ark * Scott et al. vs. Ward, Trustee, et al. SCOTT et al. vs. WARD, Trustee, et al. • MARRIED WOMAN : Her power to- conyey or mortgage her realty:— The statute does not limit a married woman's power to convey her real estate, to any particular purpose or- consideration. She need pot acknowledge a consideration. She may mortgage it for her ht.iband's debts, or sell it and pay his debts with the pi s -oceeds, or set him up in business. APPEAL from Crawford Circuit Ccurt in Chancery. Hon J. H. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. DuVal & Cravens, for appellants. U. 111. Rose, contra. ENGLISH, C. J. This was a bill filed / in the circuit court of Crawford county to enjoin the sale of real estate by a trustee in a deed of trust. • In the bill, exhibits and answer, upon which 'the case was • beard, there was no d ' isagrement . between the Parties as to the material factS, .which may b briefly stated.: J. Neal & Co., a mercantile firm of Van Buren,. coniposed of Neal and Charles G. Scott, being largely indebted and unable to meet its liabilities, by an arrangement between the parties, Henry C. Robai ds, the son-in-law of Scott, became his successor in the firm, and assumed its debts at fifty cents on the dollar, for which he executed his notes to the several creditors of the firin, bearing date June 1, 1874. 0 To secure the payment of the notes, Charles G. Scott -and wife, Caroline L. Scott, Henry C.! Robards and wife, *Johanna P. Robards, executed a deed of trust, with power"' of sale, to Augustus J. Ward, as trustee, conveying lands
35 Ark.] MAY TERM, 1880. 481 Scott et aL vs. Ward, Trustee, et al. and lots which were the separate property of Mrs. Scott and her daughter, Mrs. Robards, which deed of trust was dated on the first, and duly acknowledged in accordance with the statute of the thirteenth of June, 1874. After the execution of the deed, Mrs. Robards died, leaving an infant child, Charles Robards. • Henry C. Robards failing to pay the notes secured by the trust deed at maturity, Ward, the trustee, advertised the lands and lets for sale under the power contained in the deed, and the bill for injunction was filed by Mrs. Scott and her infant grandchild, Charles Robards, making the trustee, the beneficiiries, etc.-, defendants. The bill assumed that the deed of trust was invalid as a conveyanro by Mrs. Scott and Mrs. Robards, both married ,women, to secure the notes executed by Henry C. Robards. On the hearing, the court disruissed the bill, and complainants appealed to this court. Counsel for appellants cite Stillwell and 1. Married 0 wife v. Adams, 29 Ark., 346; Davidson v. Lan- Woman: Her power ier, 51 Ala., 318, and to convey Lippincott v. Mitchell, or mort- 94 (4 gage her U. S. Otto), 767, to sustain the proposi-realty. tion that a married woman can not mortgage her separate estate seeure a debt contracted by her husband. The case of Davidson v. Lanier followed Wilkinson v. Cheatham, 45 Ala., 387, and in both cases the wife attempted to mortgage her statutory separate estate to secure a debt of her husband, and the court held that the statute limited • hrr power over her • estate, and disabled her to make the mortgage. Lippincott v. Mitchell was anAlabama case, and the supreme court of the-United States followed the decisions of that state made upon its statfttes. By our statute, a married woman may convey her real 35 Ark.-31
482 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [35 Ark.- .Seott et al. vs. Ward, Trustee, et al. estate, or any pd.rt thereof, by joining her husband' in a deed, acknowledged in the prescribed from. Wood and Wife . v: Terry et al., g O Ark., 391. The statute does riot limit her power of conveyance to any particular purpose or consideiation.. She need not acknowledge a consideration, for that may go to the kusband. Little, Trustee, v. Dodge, Guardian, 32 - Ark., 459. If it Please her, she may sell her land and' pay 'the debts of her hUsband with the proceeds,' or set him up - in businEss. Why, then, may she, not convey it by mortgage, or deed of trust, to secure the payment of his debts, if she chooses so th do ? ' In Stillwell and Wife v. Adams, 29 Ark., 346, supra, the mortgages were held invalid because not acknowledged in the form prescribed , by the statute. This court has in no case held that a married woman could not execute , a valid mortgage of her estate to secure the debts of her husband, and thousands of such mortgages have been taken in the state. • Mr. JONES, in his work on Mortgages, sec. 113, vol. 1, sayS: "A married woman may make a valid mortgage of her separate property to secure-the payment of the debt of her husband, or of any other person, etc. Any consideration which would be sufficient to support the obligation, if made by any one else, as, for instance, the granting of the original loan, or a subsequent ex-• tension of the time of payment of the debt, is sufficient to support the undertaking. Whatever conflict there may be in the authorities as to the ability of a wife to charge herself personally for any debts not contracted for her own benefit, there is a general unanimity in holding that a Mortgage upon her v
35 Ark.] MAY ITRM, 1880. 483 property may be enforced against that whether made for her benefit or not." See, also, 1 Bishop on Married Women, sec. 601. The decree must be affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.