HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0434 and id is 1 raw text is: WATT v. STARKE.
term of one year, are valid by the laws of the State. Code
1871, sect. 2892.
Much discussion of the question of estoppel is unnecessary,
as it is clear that a married woman cannot, by her own act,
enlarge her capacity to convey or bind her separate estate.
Palmer v. Cross, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 46.
Facts recited in an instrument may be controverted by the
other party in an action not founded on the same instrument,
but wholly collateral to it. Recitals of the kind may be evi-
dence for the party instituting the suit, but they are not
conclusive. Carpenter v. Buller, 8 Mee. & W. 209, 213; Her-
man, Estoppel, sect. 238; Lowell v. Daniels, 2 Gray (Mass.),
161, 169; Champlain v. Valentine, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 485,
488.
In order to work an estoppel, the parties to a deed must be
8uijuris competent to make it effectual as a contract. Hence
a married woman is not estopped by her covenants. Plainly
the wife was not competent to purchase supplies for the planta-
tion of the husband, and therefore cannot be estopped by these
recitals. Bigelow, Estoppel, 276 ; Jackson V. Vanderheyden, 17
Johns. (N. Y.) 167.
Viewed in the light of these suggestions, it is clear that there
is no error in the record. Tyler, Inf. and Coy. 726.
Judgment affirmed.
WATT v. STARKE.
1. The verdict upon an issue which a court of chancery directs to be tried at law
is merely advisory. A motion for a new trial can be made only to that
court, and the party submitting it must procure, for the use of the Chan-
cellor, notes of the proceedings at the trial, and of the evidence there given.
2. The evidence and proceedings become then a part of the record, and are sub-
ject to review by the appellate court should an appeal from the decree be
taken.
3. These rules are not affected by the second section of the act of Feb. 16, 1875
(18 Stat., part 3, p. 315), which provides that in a patent case the Circuit
Court, when sitting in equity, may inpanel a jury and submit to them such
questions of fact as it may deem expedient.
4. Harm= v. Johnson (94 U. S. 371) reaffirmed.
Oct. 1879.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0434&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)