
    OIL EXCHANGE & BOARD OF TRADE, Inc., v. HOGLE et al.
    (No. 7353.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    April 29, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied May 20, 1925.)
    Husband and wife <&wkey;90 — Married woman held not entitled to recover back money paid for stock merely because she was married.
    Married woman, who purchased stock and completed all payments with full knowledge of facts, under agreement entered into voluntarily and in good faith by both parties, could not recover back money paid merely because she was married, even if contract was originally unenforceable.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court; H. O. Gossett, Judge*
    Action by Mrs, Mina Hogle and husband against the Oil -Exchange & Board of Trade, Inc. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Durwood H. Bradley, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    Chas. T. Rowland, of Eort Worth, for ap-pellees.
   SMITH, J.

Mrs. T. L. Hogle, a married woman, entered into an agreement with appellant, a stock brokerage corporation, for the purchase of 25 shares or units of an oil leasing concern. The agreed purchase price was $250, to be paid in installments by Mrs. Hogle. After completing the purchase by paying to appellant the amount agreed upon, but before tbe stock was actually delivered to her, Mrs. Hogle, joined pro forma by her husband, brought this action against appellant to rescind the contract of purchase and recover the amount paid, as well as ■ $500, as exemplary damages. Appellees’ demand was predicated upon the allegation, first, that Mrs. Hogle was induced to enter into the agreement through fraudulent representations made to her by appellant; and second, because she was a married woman without the power to make the contract.

The allegation of fraud was in effect abandoned by appellees, since no evidence was adduced to support it, but the court directed a verdict in appellees’ favor for the amount paid, apparently upon the sole ground that, because of her coverture, Mrs. Hogle was without power to make the contract under which she paid appellant the amount in controversy. ■ In response to the directed verdict, the court rendered judgment in ap-pellees’ favor.

In the absence of fraud, Mrs. Hogle voluntarily paid the amount in controversy to appellant, with full knowledge of all the facts, and in pursuance of an agreement entered into voluntarily and in good faith by the parties. In such case she was not entitled to recover back the money thus paid, even though the contract was itself voidable and unen-' forceable as an original proposition.

“A married woman who voluntarily pays her money or other personal property upon a contract made by her, or in any way that would bind a man, cannot recover it back simply upon the ground that she is a married woman.” Pitts v. Elsler, 87 Tex. 347, 28 S. W. 518; Investment Co. v. Clark (Tex. Com. App.) 239 S. W. 198.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <g=jFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     