Sykes v. Chadwick

by Joseph P. Bradley

United States Supreme Court

85 U.S. 141

Sykes  v.  Chadwick

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the case being thus:

James Sykes and H. A. Chadwick (the latter a married man, his wife being Eleanor Chadwick), owning a piece of real estate in the city of Washington, and wishing to borrow money on it, conveyed it by deed of trust-that is to say, mortgaged it-to Hyde to secure a sum which he lent them; Mrs. Chadwick joining in the mortgage, and her acknowledgment of the same being taken separately and apart from her husband, in the way prescribed by the laws of the District in order to pass the estate of a feme covert.

Desiring afterwards to sell the same property (the mortgage being still unpaid), Sykes and Chadwick requested Mrs. Chadwick to join them in a deed to the purchaser for the purpose of releasing her right of dower.

She did so; and, in consideration therefor, they gave her a note in this form:

$5000.

WASHINGTON, October 15th, 1869.

Six months after date, we promise to pay to the order Eleanor Chadwick five thousand dollars, value received.

JAMES SYKES,

H. A. CHADWICK.

At the time when this note was thus given, there prevailed in the District an act of Congress, passed April 10th, 1869, ^[1] in these words: An Act regulating the Rights of Property of Married Women in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 1. The right of any married woman to any property, personal or real, belonging to her at the time of her marriage, or acquired during marriage in any other way than by gift or conveyance from her husband, shall be as absolute as if she were feme sole, and shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband, nor liable for his debts; but such married woman may convey, devise, and bequeath the same, or any interest therein, in the same manner and with like effect as if she were unmarried.

SEC. 2. Any married woman may contract and sue and be sued, in her own name, in all matters having relation to her sole and separate property, in the same manner as if she were unmarried; but neither her husband, nor his property, shall be bound by any such contract, nor liable for any recovery against her in any such suit; but judgment may be enforced by execution against her sole and separate property, as if she were sole.

Also another act, of February 22d, 1867, ^[2] in these words:

An Act to amend the law of the District of Columbia in relation to Judicial Proceedings therein.

SEC. 20. Where money is payable by two or more persons jointly or severally, as by joint obligors, covenantors, makers, drawers, or indorsers, one action may be sustained and judgment recovered against all or any of said parties, by whom the money is payable, at the option of the plaintiff.

In this state of facts and of statutes, the note to Mrs. Chadwick not being paid, she brought suit upon it against Sykes alone, at law, in the court below, a court having jurisdiction both in equity and at common law.

The court below sustained the suit; and from its judgment in the matter this writ of error was taken.

Messrs. W. F. Mattingly and R. T. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error:

1st. There was no consideration for the note. The deed of trust to Hyde, executed previously to the deed of sale (or mortgage), in connection with which the note was given, pased Mrs. Chadwick's right of dower, and in the District, where the ancient rule of the English law, inherited by the District from the colonial law of Maryland, prevails, a widow has no dower in an equity of redemption. ^[3] It will not do to allege that her mere execution of the deed was a sufficient consideration for the note.

2d. Even if she had a right of dower in the real estate, it was not her sole and separate property within the meaning of the law. The right of dower is not an estate in lands. ^[4] If the contrary view is held to be law, then every married woman, whose husband happens to own real estate, has a sole and separate property, with reference to which she may contract.

3d. The note was a joint note, and being void as to her husband, one of the makers, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. ^[5]

4th. This case, in no view of it, comes within the letter or spirit of the acts of Congress. Mrs. Chadwick has no separate property, and therefore could not make any contract as to it. The note itself could not be her separate estate, under the law, for the note is merely the evidence of the contract, which she was incapable of making. Moreover, it is void, as already said.

Messrs. A. G. Riddle, C. M. Hawley, and F. Miller, contra.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes

1. 16 Stat. at Large, 45.
2. 14 Stat. at Large, 405.
3. Stelle v. Carroll, 12 Peters, 201.
4. Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johnson, 167.
5. Edwards v. Stevens et al., 3 Allen, 315.