
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    JAN. 1806.
    M’Hugh v. Cave and Wife.
    If a judgment be obtained against a feme covert defendant, and it is not stated in the record by what authority the contract on which the judgment was had was entered into on her part, the judgment shall be arrested.
    This action was assumpsit on two notes signed by Sarah Cave. Verdict for the plaintiff, before Trezeva-nt, J., in Charleston district- The motion in this court was to arrest the judgment. The declaration on the face oí it imported, that the notes were given by the said Sarah, as a feme covert, and did not state any circumstances to shew how the wife was authorized to make the contract, ox-why she should be bound thereby. >
    Pringle, in support of the motion,
    cited 6 'Bac. Abr. 324, new ed. 3 Esp. Rep. 18. The declaration does not allege that the wife had a separate maintenance ; that her husband was living out of the United States, or that she was authorized, in any manner, to contract as a feme sole. 8 T. R. 545. Marshall v. Butler. Barnes.
    J. Waid, on the other side.
    After verdict, the court will presume that the wife had authority to contract. A sole trader, although under coverture, may bind her separate property ; and the husband may be named for conformity, — A. A. 6 Mod. 240. Coverture might have been given in evidence.
   The couet

(all the judges pi-esent)

granted the motion, and judgment was arrested. It appeared on the face of the record, that the contract was made by a feme covert, and it did not appear by what authority she had contracted, or that she had any right to contract, to bind herself or her husband. Therefore, no legal cause of action appeared on the record to authorize a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants.

Judgment arrested.  