majority"> *393 Reade, J.

The question is, whether the bond of a married, woman to pay money given for a fair and full consideration is valid and binding upon her ?

It is familiar learning that the contract of a married woman is not merely voidable like the contract of an infant, but that it is absolutely void and of no effect and cannot be ratified.

It is supposed, however, that our Constitution of 1868, and our Legislature since, have made some exceptions to the common law doctrine. They have made none whatever as to the general doctrine. If a married woman borrows of me $100 and gives me her bond for it, she is no more liable than she was at common law. So if she sells me her land or other property and I pay her for it.

■ The exceptions are that under the constitutional provision all that is hers at the time of marriage, and all that she shall acquire during marriage, shall remain her sole and separate property, and may be devised or bequeathed by her to take effect after her death, and may be conveyed by her to take effect immediately or at any time, with her husband’s written assent. Const. Art. 10, § 6. And under the statute she may make a contract affecting her propérty for her necessary personal expenses, and for the support of the family, and to pay her debts existing before marriage. This she may do of her own accord, by her own separate act, without the consent of her husband. Bat. Rev. ch. 69, § 17.

This case does not fall under any of the exceptions. To put it in the strongest light for the plaintiff, it was a bond given for the acquisition of property to make equality of partition of land between her and her sisters. She is not bound upon the bond. But whether the land is not bound is a question in regard to which the plaintiff will no doubt be advised.

There is no error.

PeR Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress