While  the  judgment  of  the  court  in  Oreen  v.  Ballardy
supra,  is  correct  and  is  based  upon  the  general  princi-
ple governing  cases  against  married  women,  it  may  be,
that  the  unrestricted  language  used  in  the  opinion  is
not  entirely  accurate.  And  while  the  general  rule  is,  as
laid  down  in  that  opinion,  that  a  personal  judgment
cannot  be  given  against  a  feme  covert,  there  are  excep-
tions to  this  general  rule,  as  will  be  found  in  iijections
1826,  182S,  1831,  1832  and  1836  of  The  Code,  in  which
femes  covert  may  bind  themselves  by  contract  upon
which  personal  judgments  may  be  had.  So,  it  is  not
entirely  accurate  to  say  that,  where  it  appears  of  record
that  the  defendant  is  a  feme  covert,  no  personal  judg-
ment can  be  had  against  her.
But  the  rule  should  be  that,  where  it  appears  from
the  record  that  the  defendant  is  a  feme  covert,  the  trial
should  be  proceeded  with  as  if  .this  defence  was  pleaded,
whether  it  is  actually  pleaded  or  not;  and  if  the  plaintiff
brings  his  case  within  the  exceptions,  or  m  other  words
if  he  show  that  he  is  entitled  to  judgment  notwithstand-
ing the  coverture  of  the  defendant,  then  he  should  have
judgment,  otherwise  he  should  Hot.
716  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT.  [122


Moore  v.  Wolfe.
We  see  no  error  and  the  judgment  appealed  from  is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
