{
  "id": 1873820,
  "name": "Scott et al. vs. Ward, Trustee, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott v. Ward",
  "decision_date": "1880-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "480",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ark. 480"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark., 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark., 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ala., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3002268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/45/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ala., 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        2998243
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/51/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark., 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882921
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/29/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5017,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0356493388089865e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7471541777146081
    },
    "sha256": "09a6c2663216a6b7e30e323ef683b091652c1be5b53dd1cadcd3928da1d217fa",
    "simhash": "1:24b7991808bea06c",
    "word_count": 886
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:57.212153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Scott et al. vs. Ward, Trustee, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "English, C. J.\nThis 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.\nIn the bill, exhibits and answer, upon which the case was heard, there was no disagreement between the parties as to the material facts, which may be briefly stated:\nJ. Neal & Co., a mercantile firm of 'Van Bur\u00e9n, composed of Neal and Charles G-. Scott, being largely indebted and unable to meet its liabilities, by an arrangement between the parties, Henry C. Robards, 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 firm, bearing date June. 1, \u20221874.\nTo secure the payment of the notes, Charles Q-. 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- 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.\n1. Married Woman:\nHer power to convey or mortgage her realty.\nAfter the execution of the deed, Mrs. Robards died, leaving an infant child, Charles Robards.\nHenry 0. Robards failing to pay the notes secured by the trust-deed at maturity, Ward, the trustee, advertised the lands and lots for sale under the power contained in the deed, and the bill for injunction was filed by Mrs. Scott and her infant grand-child, Charles Robards, making the trustee, the beneficiaries, etc., defendants.\nThe bill assumed that the deed of trust was invalid as a conveyance by Mrs. Scott and Mrs. Robards, both married women, to secure the notes executed by Henry C. Robards.\nOn the hearing, the court dismissed the bill, and complainants appealed to this court.\nCounsel for appellants cite Stillwell and wife v. Adams, 29 Ark., 346; Davidson v. Lanier, 51 Ala., 318, and Lippincott v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. (4 Otto), 767, to sustain the proposition that a married woman can not mortgage her separate estate to secure a debt contracted by her husband.\nThe case of Davidson v. Lanier followed Wilkinson v. Cheatham, 45 Ala., 337, 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 her power over her estate, and disabled her to make the mortgage.\nLippincott v. Mitchell was an Alabama case, and the supreme court of the United States followed the decisions of that state made upon its statutes.\nBy our statute, a married woman may convey her real estate, or any part thereof, by joining ber husband in a deed, acknowledged in tbe prescribed form. Wood and Wife v. Terry et al., 30 Ark., 391.\nThe statute does not limit her power of conveyance to any particular purpose or consideration.\nSbe need not acknowledge a consideration, for that may go to tbe husband. Little, Trustee, v. Dodge, Guardian, 32 Ark., 459.\nIf it please ber, sbe may sell her land and pay tbe debts of ber husband with the proceeds, or set him up in business.\n\"Why, then, may sbe not convey it by mortgage, or deed of trust, to secure tbe payment of bis debts, if sbe chooses so to do ?\nIn Stillwell and Wife v. Adams, 29 Ark., 346, supra, tbe mortgages were held invalid because not. acknowledged in the form prescribed by tbe statute.\nThis court has in no case held that a married woman could not execute a valid mortgage of ber estate to secure tbe debts of her husband, and thousands of such mortgages have been taken in tbe state.\nMr. Jones, in bis work on Mortgages, see. 113, vol. 1, says: \u201c A married woman may make a valid mortgage of ber separate property to secure tbe payment of the debt of her husband, or of any other person, etc. Any consideration which would be sufficient to support tbe obligation, if made by any one else, as, for instance, the granting of tbe original loan, or \u00e1 subsequent extension of the time of payment of tbe debt, is sufficient to support tbe undertaking. Whatever conflict there may be in the authorities as to tbe ability of a wife to charge herself personally for any debts not contracted for her own benefit, there is a general unanimity in bolding that a mortgage upon her property may be enforced against that.whether made for her benefit or not.\u201d\nSee, also, 1 Bishop on Married Women, sec. 604.\nThe decree must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "DuVal ft Cravens, for appellants.",
      "U. M. Rose, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Scott et al. vs. Ward, Trustee, et al.\nMarried WOman : Her power to convey or mortgage her realty.\nThe statute does not limit a married woman\u2019s power to convey her real estate, to any particular purpose or consideration. She need not acknowledge a consideration. She may mortgage it for her husband\u2019s debts, or sell it and pay his debts with the proceeds, or set him up in business.\nAPPEAL from Cranford Circuit Court in Chancery.\nHon. J. H. Rogers, Circuit Judge.\nDuVal ft Cravens, for appellants.\nU. M. Rose, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0480-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 481
}