New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-03
SUPREME COURT-CRcrIT.-Noy 2-Before Justice
ROOSEVELT.
IMPORTANT To MARRIED PEOPLE.
Elery agt Mslherb-.


Elery agt Mslherb-
The following odiniOn delivered this morning
hi. case The husband death HI. ~if- and
on the stands be sustained against HIM IT
appears that his wife has at present no property out oil "hch
Madame Maherbe and her husband although living ossher
carried business shown for many years IA tbeir 'ePa
rate Names different places About four years ago bis
tabhmet. ior not fully explained wa dcon
Of the wife aud among them the purchase, on "ch ta
suit is founded The plaintiffs a-.isn9 fneps o. not
ydua giving them receipt In full OF the account
ANA "a aV clear that he did 50 under the idea thai
the good be hers and the debts hers tie acted We may
presume under notion OF the French instead OF the
English BY the former husband and wife ale two distinct
person.by the latter they are in most rspscli one. II ns
with the husbands assent express or implied bays goods
the goods general rule of the ENGLISH Common Law" be-
cone the properly and the Obligation The debt OF the husband
Gate, against Brown Selden Do; Gardner against Gsfdne'
cent statute ha. the rule referred - 1he oec, o; That
au,e wa remedial to remove the Disability which
woman 10 have something which she might call her and
something own subsistence ana tha' Of ner OF
unr aud II should therefore liberal construction
baby Cs4shsn III the Court Of Appeals smilhs Reports
~ so construed am able tc see nov 1t y tha' Married
woman Il contract debt Since imprisonment Tor
debt abolished contracting Of debts Is nut mode OF
he invested substantially with power OF acquiring
aud disposition II she "a single ruse IT, thrn
single may buy credit why not, under the ne" act
The case Of ale and Dedecr recently passed upon by the
Court OF Appeals (s Newi Reports. zl merely decided
when wife signed not a. surety Tor heI husband 'he
binding hueu stEr-s IA thr opiipi-
d,liyeT-d was laid upon the pccuait OF the las Of
tyshp upon probable undue INFLUENCE q the hna-
band ana upon the supposed want Of benrnt 10 Ms wiz
The reasoning apply ~ purchase on credit uidr
by a married carrying business, IN her own name
Ia her own establishment snd Tor her benefit
And even the decision concurref in by only bare
majority lie change OF single vote would nave pro
aued different In the previous OF DERBY ard Cal
larhan held by unanimous vote mat nArei woman
could uccrp, heel although the consideration
pressed II by her Of the stipulated quar-
lease where the rent Is not paid an ads
tnzn purchase o property on
an instead 81 Interest ~ ercnan" 20 De
paid fo equal sauens- al the expiration e. the c may
pe of three and twelve months. Aud tine pur'
chase be GOOD and the Cou held how could the obligation
g. pay be- void! -. .
/, o,srior were valid obligations Of the wife, be collected
out OF her sepre whatever tst 10" znd not ~ p-
enforced a, II IL wa his debt. ssans, hr husband
complaint against him must Therefore o. DISMISSED
hut a. III. question from dcJits the pl'ih
VIII be entitled shord h. desire IL 70 an order staying proceed
ius. till he an t-kr OF the Genera irEn