The Nevada journal., 1856-07-04

RIozTs OF MARRIED WoXEy AS SOLE Ira
DgRs.--Judge >hattuck of the Superior Court
Il San Francisco, has recently rendered al
important decision in case involving the right
Of married women to hold property as sole tra-
8ers It viii be read with interest by our
leaders. and We spare portion ofou columns
fur its introduciirn.
IL the case of Eliza Gatman vs. D avid Scan
nell. Sheriff and others, the facts were aR f}l
lows In January last. the plaintiff became
sole trader. under the statute for tha purpose
passed April u 1852 Her capital consisted
Of $3.50 cash, made by keeping boarders and
doing all her own work. and 5000 borrowed
money. Her-hnsband was dealer in ready
made clothing, was in debt more or less during
the last rear, and about the close of it failed.
aud his goods were attached and sold by the
sheriff Two weeks after the husbands fail
are, the plaintiff commenced the same business
previously followed by her husband., She cx-
ien led all tn. money spoken of above in buy
ing goods and also bought on credit. making u
stock of some 81 200 or 81 500 worth OF goods.
3y virtue of new attachment against the
husband. the Sheriff closed her store in three or
four weeks after it was opened. Her goods
we're sold 1T auction for between six and seven
hundred dollars, and she still owed for the bor-
rowed money and for part OF the goods bought
on credit.
Judge .Shattrck said: 1t seems very hard to
deny d married woman the right to ENJOY her
own extra earnings and appropriate 1t ls Sue
peases; A4t tho second section OF the Act de-
hning Inc rights of husband and wife, makes
all the property acquired by either husband ar
wife common property, md the Act gives the
disposition Of it to the husband. While, there
fore the plaintiff tool: extra labor upon her
le'f to make little money independent OF her
husband. tie law vests the ownership iht:eot IN
him
The law authorizing married women to be-
come sole traders is more liberal to the wife,
and provides that "tho property. revenue, mo-
nie., aud ients an credits So invested Shall be-
iong exclusively to said Marli woman nd
shall no; be Liable for debts of her husband
By this il would seem that the act OF investing
IL the name of the wife would exempt 1t from
he debts of the husband, irrespective Of the
source from which she has received her money
The 5th section seems literally 10 provide for
It's exemption, although it came BY the hus-
1aud, if it does not exceed $4,000 To put a
construction upon this Act that its letter SEEMS
not onlv to warrant, but almost to compel,
ronld open q ide door to fraud. BY Its pro-
visions, the husband. when he found himself in
failing circumstances. instead Of paying his
,ieb;s, could turn over the sum Of $4,000 to
MS wife as sole trader, where it would be pro-
rrcted from his debts.
The Legislature could not have intended so
great departure from justice, and must con-
strue it differently. and say the wife cannot es.
tablish herself az sole trader on the capital of
her husband, unless he is in prosperous circum-
stances 81 the time, and able to pay oil his
debts independent fthe gift to his wife. Con-
strung the law authorizing sole traders as
honesty compels me, and that Of husband aud
Siie as It's letter compels ne, vii! show the
$3.50. made partly at least, by extra work OF
the wife, to be the property of the husband.
and subject TO his debts. As for the rest there
ts no doubt of its exemption. Considering the
stock worth 81 500 at the time Of the attach
ment, we must deduct $3.50. her husbands by
law. which leaves $3.50; add $3.50 damage for
breaking up the business, makes $1,000. for
which judgment will bs rendered for the plan