
    Octavius K. Yates vs. Mary A. Lurvey.
    Oxford,
    1875.
    June 6, 1876.
    
      Married woman.
    
    An action lies against a married woman for medical attendance rendered at her request, and for which she expressly promises to pay.
    On exceptions.
    Assumpsit on account annexed for some forty visits of a physician extending over two years, stating a balance of $35.00. It was agreed that the services were rendered, and the prices reasonable, that the defendant was a married woman, owning property in her own right, that the husband went for the plaintiff in the first place, and that the defendant at the first visit promised and agreed to pay for the services which were rendered entirely for herself and her children by her former husband, and were charged to the defendant on the plaintiff’s books. The presiding judge ruled ' the action maintainable, and the defendant exeepted.
    
      S. F. Gibson <& G. F. Holt, for the defendant.
    
      H. G. Davis, for the plaintiff.
   Walton, J.

The only question is, whether an action will lie against a married woman for medical attendance rendered at her request, and for which she expressly promises to pay. We think it will. The common law in this particular is entirely abrogated in this state. By statute a married woman is now made liable for any debt contracted by her, in her own name, for any lawful purpose; and an action may be maintained against her therefor, either alone, or jointly with her husband. R. S., c. 61, § 4.

The case finds that the plaintiff is a regular physician, that he rendered the services sued for, that the prices charged are reasonable, that the defendant promised at his first visit to pay for his services, that they were exclusively for her and her children by a former husband, and were rendered entirely upon her credit, and charged to her upon the plaintiff’s books. That the plaintiff is entitled to judgment upon such a statement of facts we cannot doubt, notwithstanding the defendant is a married woman.

Exceptions overruled.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Daneorth, Yirgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.  