Hames

Murray, C. J., concurred.

This action is upon a contract made during the Mexican dominion, and must have its effect and construction according to the laws then prevailing,

Several interesting questions entered into the consideration of the case at the bar, and were argued with an ability which displayed much erudition and research on the part of the counsel engaged on both sides. But from the view we take of the case, only one question is necessary to be considered. The proof shows, that at the time of making the contract, she was a married woman, and entered into it jointly with her husband. By giving to the evidence the construction *111 most unfavorable to the wife, the contract would appear to have been a joint purchase for the joint benefit of husband and .wife.

By the Mexican laws, all property acquired during marriage is common property. See Novissina Recop., ley 1, tit. 4, lib. 10. By the 61st Law of Toro, the wife can neither be bound as security for her husband, nor liable as a joint contractor, except it be shown that the contract has been advantageous to the wife. Schmidt's Law of Spain and Mexico, sec. 4, ch. 2.

To establish that the contract was advantageous to…