Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 N.C. 377

24 S.E 6

Hall v. . Walker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1896

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1896-02-05

<p>Husband and Wife — Abandonment of Wife by Husband— Wife Free Trader by Abandonment of Husband — Constitutionality of Statute.</p> <p>1. There is no constitutional inhibition on the power of the Legislature to declare where and how the wife may become a free trader, Section 6 of Article 10 being intended to protect instead of disabling- her.</p> <p>2. Section 1832 of The Code, which provides that a woman whose husband shall abandon her or shall maliciously turn her out of doors, shall be deemed a free trader so far as to be competent to contract, &c, and to convey her personal and real estate without the assent of her husband, is not unconstitutional. .</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1962

4 state decisions

2018961900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Faircloth, C. J.:

¶1 Gode, Section 1832 : “ Every woman 'whose husband shall abandon her, or shall maliciously turn her out of doors, shall be deemed a free trader, so far as to be competent to contract and be contracted with, and to bind her separate property … and she shall have power to convey her personal estate and her real estate without assent of her husbatid.”

¶2 In this controversy without action, the sole question is whether the above section is constitutional. The plaintiff’s husband five years ago deserted and abandoned her, ■ and has been continuously out of the state and has not been seen or heard from by her, and he has in no way contributed to the support of herself or family.

¶3 At common law a wife and her husband could not by deed convey title to her own land, nor in any other mode, ■except by uniting with him in levying a fine. But our statute prescribes a more simple method, to-wit: by deed • and private examination, which must be strictly according to the terms of the statute.

¶4 There is no constitutional inhibition on the power of the Legislature t declare where and how the wife may become • a free trader. Art. X., Sec. 6, was uot intended to disable, ■but to protect her.

¶5 In Troughton v. Hill, 2 Hay., 614 (406), it was held *381 that when the husband became an alien, the wife became a feme sole for the purpose of contracting and might acquire and transfer property. Chancellor KeNt, referring to this subject, said : “ Though the husband be not an alien, yet if he deserts his wife and resides abroad permanently, the necessity that the wife should be competent to obtain credit and acquire and recover property and act as a feme sole exists in full force,” and that the “ distinction between husbands who are aliens and who are not aliens cannot long be maintained in practice, because there is no-solid foundation in principle for the distinction.” 2 Kent Com., 157. It would b'e a distressing rule of law if the-wife, because of her husband’s neglect and desertion, could not control her separate property for the support and comfort of herself and family. It is her property ; why may she not sell or exchange it?

¶6 Affirmed..

/118/nc/377 · .json · Public domain