The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-11-03
Supreme Court Circuit.
Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt.
INFORMANT TO NsoLvENr pEBroRs

AAEVNAANE Az ANooAVENA OcbkVhcs
Nov. John Sati0 Vs. Stephen Paul.-This was an
action upon prossoy note made by the defendant
nine hundred and odd dollars. Tho defence was dis
charge under what Is known the twothrd ast- The
defendant read evidence discharge OF the defend
ant granted by Hon. A. D. Russell, City Judge, under tho
two-thtrd act, and rested.
The plaintiff then introduced in evidence the original
paperupon which said discharge was granted and in
sisted that the discharge void for tho following
the nsoyens este his petition for dis
charge; that the words Unnecessary wearing APPAREL did
constitute schedule Of tho insolveut estate 3D.
because the schedule of the inaovents debts showed
they for borrowed money when the adavis Of the
peionng the same debts to be Stocks
bonds and sold and delivered to the insoven
3D. Because the notice TO the plaintiff and other creditors
OF the solvent to show cause why the insovent should
be discharged from his debts served person
The Court held that the iaoharsc vo,d that the
statute authorized ard the Judge who granted the dis
BY ietter addressed by mail and that proof Of tho de-
posting of the letters in the Post Office Of New York.
where the nsovent and creditors resided not that
give the Judge Jurisdiction to proceed IN the matter 10
der assignment grant the discharge and therefore,
the plaintiff was entitled TO verdict for the amount
claimed and interest.
IMPORTANT 10 MARRIED PEOPLE.
Nov. 2-Euvy Xal1er5e--The following opinion was
delivered this morning by Justice Roosevelt
In this the husband Is sued tor the debt or his
wife, and the question IS, can such suit under tho cir
cumsances proved tho trial. the law stands be
sustained against him, II appears that his wife has, at
present. no property out OF which Judgment can be
collected. Madame Malherbe and her husband, although
living together carried business, shown, for
many years in their separate names, and In different
places. About four years ago his establishment, for
some not fully explained was discontinued. Since
then all the purchases have been made In the name Of
the wife, and among them the purchases which this
not only Charged tho goods to her individually but took
her individual notes, giving for them receipt as in full Of
the account That Maherbe approved Of these purchases
there be doubt But is equally clear that he did
under tho iiea that the goods TO be hers and the
debts hers. He acted, presume, under some vague
notion Of the French instead of the English law By the
former, husband and wife In many respects two dis
nct PERSONS by the latter they in most respects
If the wife, with the husbands assent, express I'M
piled, buys goods, the goods, general rule Of the
English common law, become the property and the obi
cation the debt Of the husband Gates against Brown
aen @ against sns - s
that the recent statute has changed the rule referred
to- The object Of that statute was, no doubt, ren,e-
law attached to coverture and TO enable married
woman to have something which she might call her own
and to do something for her own subsistence and hat Of
sructicn." DARBY against Caaghan in the Court Of
Appeals, SMITHS Reports, 7e) 50 construed, am un-
contract debt Since imprisonment for debt has been
abolished contracting Of debts Is but mode Of acquiring
and diposDg Of property and by the act In question she
Is invested substantially With the power Of acqcisi
ton and disposition IL she ga single female" If,
then "a single female" may buy credit why not
der the new act married woman2 The case Of Yale and
Dederer recently passed upon by the Court Of Appeals S
New York Reports, 1857, merely decided that when
wife signed note as surety for her husband, the con
tract as TO her was not binding. Much stress in the
opinions delivered laid upon the pecularities Of
the law Of suretyfhp, end upon tho probable undu
influence OF The husband and upon the supposed want
Of benefit 70 The wife, The reasoning does not apply
70 purchase on credit made BY married woman
carrying on business In her own name, In her own
establishment and for her benefit And even that de-
cision was ccncurred in by only bare majority The
change OF single vote would have produced different
result In the previous Of Derby and Calaghaa It
was held by unanimous vote that married woman
could accept lease to herself although the consideration
expressed in The future payment by her Of the spu
lated quarterly rent Now lease whore the rent Is not
paid In advance neither more nor less than purchase
or property Credand Interest In Land instead OF an
interest in merchandise to DO paid for in equal nsalmenis
at the expiration the case may be- Of three, SIX nine
and twelve months And II the purchase be ,od and SO
the Court held how could the obligation 70 pay be vods
Upon the whole am inclined 10 the conclusion that hc
notes in question were valid obligations Of the wife, to be
collected Of her separate estate whatever that may
DO, and not to be enforced as II was his debt, against
tho husband The complaint against him must therefore
be dismissed. But as the question is ono not free from
difficulty tho plaintiff will BIO entitled, should he desire IT,
order staying proceedings till he take the sense
OF the General Term. III.
Twelfth Anniversary Of the Academy II
Medicine.
The twelfth anniversary Of the New York Acadc-
my Of Medicine celebrated last evening at the Ninth
street Dutch Reformed church. DR.. Watson presided
The exercises opened by the Rev. Dr. Auhenberg,
pastor Of st. Luke'e Hospital with prayer, after which