The Shasta courier., 1866-04-14
SnpRrxr Cnrnr nrcls1ox-The follow.


ing decision of the Supreme Court being of
local and general interest, we give it place:
Camden Us. Mullen No 749 The only
question requiring consideration is whether
married woman, who bad availed herself
of the provisions of the Act of 1852, to
authorize married women to transact bus
mess in their own names as sole traders,
and had declared her intention to conduct
and carry on the business Of keeping pub
lie hotel or eating house, and of carrying on
general farming and ranehing business,
in her own name and on her own account,
could, while that statute remained in force,
execute in her own name valid promissory
note for part of the purchase money for
tract of land sold and conveyed to her, and
could execute in her individual name, with
out joining her husband, a valid mortgage
OF the premises to secure the payment of the
promissory note.
The statutes of this state defining the
rights of husband and wife have made pro-
vision for the acquisition, management, con-
troll and disposition of the separate property
Of either the husband or the wife, and the
common property of both; and by the Act
of 1852 provision was made for different
character of property, which is the separate
property of the wife, but is not TO be classed
with the separate property described in the
Act defining the rights of husband and
wife. 1t may be acquired by her by pur-
chase for pecuniary consideration, or as
the result of her own earnings, but 1t does
not become common property, and is not
subject to the control of the husband The
third section of the Act provides that after
the wife has duly made and recorded her
declaration, she shall be entitled to carry on
in her own name the business specified IN
her declaration, and that the property,
revenue, moneys and debts and credits so
invested shall belong exclusively" to her !;
and that she shall be allowed all the
privileges, and be liable to all the legal pro
cesses now or hereafter provided by law
against debtors and creditors" The Ian
guage of the Act, though not not as lucid in
every respect as might be desired, ind Gates
the intent of the Legislature that in respect
to her business, as specified in her declara
ton, and the property invested therein, she
shall be deemed .feme sole. possessing all
the rights, powers and privileges, and sub
.ject to all the liabilities in respect to such
business and property that she would pos
sess and be subject to were she unmarried.
Such is the construction given to this statute
in McCum vs. McGarvey. 6 CAL. 1877; Quit
mann VS.. Scannell. Cal. Ass, and Mel
chor VS.. Kuhand, % CAL. 523 Maclay VS..
Love, 25 Cal. 367. and other cases.
The right and capacity to purchase pro-
pertv in her own name, to be used about
her business, is necessarily incident to the
power conferred upon her to act as .feme
sole il such business; and in conducting the
business of farming we can see no objection
to her purchasing lands that would rot
equally apply to purchase of grain for
seed. Conceding to her the capacity to
effect purchase of property to be used in
her business that a .feme sole possesses. her
authority to make the purchase on credit as
well as any of the usual terms of sale,
cannot be doubted
The conveyance of the land by the plain
tiff to the defendants, and the notes and
mortgage executed by them to the plaintiff,
to secure a part of the purchase money,
constitute one transaction and her liability
on the notes. To denv her the power, with
out the aid of her husband, to create lien
upon the property purchased by her on
credit. to secure the purchase money. sub
jects the property invested in her business
to some extent to the control of her husband
and while it treats her as a .feme sole in
making the purchase. converts her into a
feme eocert when payment is attempted to be
enforced by process of law
The property mnst be such as is acquired.
by her for use in her business: and the
question whether it was acquired for that
purpose is question of fact. The Court
found that she g executed and delivered the
said potes and mortgage in the course Of
her business as such sole trader, for the
purpose of carrying on said business" and
the evidence tends to prove the fact as
found And besides this, the allegation in
the complaint that she. in connection with
her co-defendant, has since the time of the
purchase of the lands continued to possess
and occupy the land and use the same in her
business as such sole trader. is not denied by
the answer for the denial attempted amounts
only to denial of her continuous occupa-
ton. The use to which the property was
put during that time serves to show the
purpose for which it was purchased.
Judgement affirmed. RHODES. J.
We concur: SANDERSON. J.
SAWYER, J.