, 1863-11-26
SUPERIOR COURT.
Has d Married Woman n Right to Suo
In her own Name.

The question involving tho construction OF tho
act of1en "to protect married women In their
separate property" camc up before Judge Ga.y. of
the Superior Court, in chambers yesterday. The
act in question is 4 somewhat sweeping one In its
effect upon the hghts Of tha better portion Of crea
ton, and the question 1aieed under 1t IL novel and
Important. We know Of 10 better way Of present.
Ing The subject before the Court with brayity and
completeness, than to give the language Of the
statute.
Sec. tst. Be 1t enacted, &c, That all the psop-
erty, both real and personal, belonging to any
woman hereafter married, or which 6he owns ut the
time Of her marriage, or which any married wom-
m during tovcstu1e acquires In good laith, from
ary person, other than her husband, by descont
devise OF otherwise, together with ali the
rents issuee, increase ard profits thereof, shall.
Notwithstanding her marriage, be and remsl4.
during covc1t4fe, her sole and separate p1opsrty,
nsde5 asa hsd .ols sonsso} r. end q
sole and unmarried; and shall not BE- subject to
the disposal, control or interference OF her hus-
band, md shall BE- exempt ffom execution Or
0tdes this statutc, Mary E. Baldwin, married.
woman, sued out writ OF forcible detaineT
aeainAt one y. Higgins, who occupies premises
|. win. In the Justices Count whero the action Of
!orcible detainat Was drst brought the defe nocpt
pleaded IN abatement that the plaintiff was i
he plaintiff replied ':inat tne premises ID oaes @
hon arc her Eole and separate property, held,
oWIed nId posacsted bY hes Ii her own right,
IS her own separate cstate." To this replY
the defendant demurzed, the court oyerruled the
demurrer, there was 4 trial and verdict for The
plaintiff writ Of restitution granted and an ap.
On the appeal, tho question whether, the legal
remedies Of married women were enlarged By the
statute, 70 as to permit shem to sue in thelr own
name for The rents and profits Of property held by
them tolely Was argued at, considerable Ieueth.
Judge Gary was dleposed to hold that under {hc
Statnte married woman conld sue IN her own
name. He thought that unless that construction
was gfvsn to it. The intention Of the causes which
and en1oyed BY her, the same as though she was
cole and unmarried; and aha1l not bo subject 10
the depos.l, control or Interference OF t6e hns-
! ta1d, would be to large extent defeated and
| reDdcte nugatory.
| II wife could only sue Jointly With he. bus.
baId, he might defeat the enjoyment Of properly
leastd 70 other parties. By Ietussng 70 allow Ill
Of alter Judgment be might control, to the injury
Of the wife, the proeeeds Of the execution.
Hi. HlId. counsel for defendant euereated that
there weEe remedies in ehancesy for the evils
Which the court desired to ayoid. He thought that
the wife would have the right, at any rate, to use
her husbands name, and that the CONT. II 1t
became Necessary to DO e, woula !epjoin tic hus.
q hs Wie during ite progrets. or With the aTaila
Of It, At Ito termination. The court, however, was
Of the opinion thAt the remedies suggested by the
council were more ctrcumlocutory than was con.
elttent with the intention OF statute 20 plstu
aId straightforward as this appeared to ba. The
Judgment OF tho court On the demurrer TO The
replication was re.pondeat custer against The