From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Company v. Wingate

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1892
67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)

Opinion

Decided June, 1892.

The wife of a co-partner, who at her husband's request signs as surety the promissory note of the firm, is not bound by the contract.

ASSUMPSIT, on the promissory note of a partnership whereof James D. P. Wingate is a member, and of Helen W. Wingate, his wife, who signed the note as surety at her husband's request, and who alone makes defence.

F. A. Pelton (of Massachusetts) and Edwin G. Eastman, for the plaintiff.

Thomas Leavitt, for the defendant.


The contract of a married woman as surety for her husband is invalid. Gen. Laws, c. 183, s. 12. The fact that another is bound with the defendant's husband for the payment of the note does not render her undertaking any the less a contract of suretyship for him. Stokell v. Kimball, 59 N.H. 13.

Judgment for the defendant.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

Company v. Wingate

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1892
67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)
Case details for

Company v. Wingate

Case Details

Full title:STORRS BEMENT CO. v. WINGATE a

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Jun 1, 1892

Citations

67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)
29 A. 413

Citing Cases

Odom v. Langston

State ex rel. v. Thornhill, 160 S.W. 558; Burkarth v. Stephens, 94 S.W. 720, 117 Mo. App. 425; State ex rel.…