
    David F. Axson vs. Seth Blakely & Wife.
    The promise of a wife to pay a debt contracted by her previous to mar. riage, will not take the case out of the statute of limitations.
    TRIED before his honor Judge Colcock, in Charleston, May Term, 1821.
    This was a summary process to recover fifty dollars, with interest, on account of so much money had and received by the said Susannah, before her marriage with the said Seth, from the father of the petitioner, on his account, and to be paid to him. The date of the account sued for was in 1803.
    Picas, non assumpsit and statute of limitations.
    The plaintiff produced a witness, who testified that previous to the marriage of the defendants, Susannah admitted that she was indebted to the plaintiff SO dollars, and promised to pay, when able. It did not appear that this promise was made within four years before the process issued, and' the court was about to decree in favour of the defendants, when the witness went on further to state, that since the marriage, about eighteen months ago, Susannah Blakely admitted that she was indebted to the plaintiff, and ¡jromised to pay. That though this was in the presence of her husband, he, by no means assented, but declined paying it.
    On behalf of the defendants,.it was contended, that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations, as there was no promise of the husband, express or implied, within four years. That there was no proof of application being ever made to him. That the debt was barred before maríiage, and after marriage he had not revived it by any promise to pay. That the promise of the wife was, in law, as no promise. - That she could not have been heard, even if sworn in open court; much less could her bare admissions, out of court, be received against her husband ; a wife being incapable of binding herself, or her husband, by her assent to any agreement in-pais, The decree however, was for the plaintiff, and motion was now made' to reverse the decree of his honor, for the reasons above alleged. '
    
    
      White, for the motion.
   Mr. Justice ColcocJe

delivered the opinion of the court:

It was conceived that this case might form an exception to the rule, that a feme covert can not bind her husband without his assent. It appearing that the debt was justly due, and the wife desirous to pay it, I thought it might be-distinguished from cases where the contract itself was originally entered into after marriage. First, because one so. contracting with a feme covert might be on his guard. Secondly, because the husband might, in reality, be benefitted by the debt; and lastly, because the effect of the application of such a rule would be to destroy all confidence in women, while single, and probably lead to that very disagreement between man and wife, which it is the policy of the rule to prevent; for an honorable wife, desirous to discharge a debt justly due, and long due by the kind indulgence of a brother, (as in this case,) must feel indignant at the idea of her husband shielding himself under the law. My brethren however think the rule applicable to the case, and the motion is consequently granted..

Justices Nott, Huger, Gantt, Richardson and Johnson, concurred.

-, contra.  