
    Eliza J. Erwin v. James McCalop et al.
    Where a married woman is sought to be mad; liable for a debt which she alleges was the debt of her husband, to render her liable, it must be shown affirmatively that the debt was for her benefit. Her being separated of property does not throw the burthen of proof on her, nor is she estopped from setting up the defence by her acknowledgment of the indebtedness in an act of mortgage.
    APPEAL from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Burle, J.
    
      J. M. Brunot, for plaintiff.
    
      George S. Lacey, for defendants.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Rost, J.

The plaintiff has enjoined an order of seizure and sale, sued out by the defendant, McCalop, upon a mortgage given by her to secure the payment of her promissory note in his favor, on the ground that the debt was originally her husband’s, and thbt she is not responsible for it.

The answer is, that the debt inured to the benefit of the plaintiff, and that if it was a debt of her husband, it was contracted under circumstances which render her liable for it. The district court perpetuated the injunction; and the defendant appealed.

It is not necessary to notice the bill of exceptions taken by the defendant’s counsel; for, if all the facts which he offered to prove were admitted, they would not show that this particular debt inured to the benefit of the plaintiff. This fact must be shown affirmatively by the defendant, in order to make the debt binding upon her; her being separated of property does not throw the burthen of proof on her; nor is she estopped from setting up this defence by her acknowledgment of indebtedness, in the act of mortgage. Drangent v. Prudhomme, 3 L. R. 74. Pascal v. Sovinet, 1 Ann. 48, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.  