The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-02


and had separate property Notice Of
y uisnonot was given to Mrs. HOFFMAN. An aver
loe III Tue complaint that she intended to charge
AZ 20 s.ai estate was the only fact controverted
IN the answer The defendant introduced the note
~ cr.aence, anu insisted that 1t had not appeared
charge her separate estate by the endorsement,
separate estats was made Tor the benefit OF her
'oacWmsen delivered the following
OPINION.
o desison In this does not depend upon the
charged in equity with amount OF the note in suit
eh Of HaafSs upon her estate This Court has
Charge sHa he OF egay The office Of suit in equity to
contract i decree by force Of the contract prpa
tc apd eM 6 Of shargS was created the equitable
tom IS equities 4 any adjusted Such an ac
Unknown h TO anS nsapb to be-
This G hs not a na Sn the
Nelson @ snd esnnSs app s
authority IL hi; the reasoning in that case ue
3 as have ss to s0, such a" ean
scribe to q doctrine that under present law,
%Sisb Se Il at ns p n forms Of law
shS ps Mere S W. The
g number OF subsequent cases, have held that in
%ac has MsO
becGme Security for her husband and that IN This
admit her to Sa's such
nai b for s cSnsa % r as
that her separate he bound by her 70 be
Whshsf is1 H " sSSs
and and Showed III, s sss on o asar
pg gpr to The amended amended ast Of sl saSsstng dis
h March 20 ESQ , n By o.
her 'DSn The demand j. spl peSed
and dse ssada % yhs a. nG f
n
ws ,S;C Whereby
considered COZ is whether, Mrs Hoffman could become
Pr%SpsT,sSn viii Si6nal not TS denied Common
woman the tile would vest in her husband The statute
h t. s fsn and yns e
er OF woman s to continue her sole and separate prop
real and personal property OF females then married,
have no evidence in this ease, When Mrs Hon. I
and rights to the Gi IN s suit andar
1852 the properly both re "I'" and personal Ts
s %ra ssm' lawful %asf,d of vo asanray
property remained her sole and separate property and
Il held that under this his 81 statute
ad be sas r married. and
her hasband1;,Alams vs.. Curtis, Lansing i64
his noe nS When made devsT ssi' ss n s
her parae be Used eaaee a
BY i II her pS and which she g
sss tnf Of 's aoss not the
manner which, the means by wn , such disposal
cam 3 made SELL TIC Se''i and
appea shs Holman @ endorse
Sss es s to ne the In s a S
tgansaciSsn This by the
and 1t the usual means of transfer of that descrp
may general endorsement, restricted en-
Nyup N ss "a OF X
change Bank Babcock, AZ n Y Reps, p. GA Il may
may be general ENDORSEMENT The law did not ionaps
% a Ss as s hss ct o.
Of her property without the time granting
@s"s aS' Gsa ,s s %S
fsaaeFa ss as ns aye ps"d
70 he a or W OF W. A.
.insis" NOT y
an held 10
represented BY the note and which the DISPOSAL
shape another received the value Of using the
i IN Which Written in The aa Which Value
OBJECTION w 70 married woman entering into such cod
ss
sne euf 81 e Carrying By
s Be the as we as the
af aqy to % s M
q the property which she owns with which She deals
sri jr Having that capacity, she is liable to be sued in
all matters having relation TO her sole and separate
a Is in rssS1 her @ 81 sp sWps
New York TX Reps Mrs Holman regard to the
Dayc in regard to mortgage transferred by her (3a
S oM sS% dfsS, smith w
which permits married woman to purchase property
ssa sisS nd ss S S% Is -,
n reas n VS. mt
I when married woman assumes to act in reference
to her separate property the question Is not
: right TO and to bind her property carries with
It the right to act unwlsey and to her own injury If she
%propery Is, doubt, ground but II is not the only
8ground. In the eases cited from Lansngs Reports
structon Of married women acts giving her the benefits
and subjecting her TO the liabilities OF person
that the endorsement and delivery endorsee by
married Of promissory note Tor value received
the ns cement Of her separate estse % IN Balm
) and Dilage married woman entered into
was deficiency and for that deficiency gment against
her personally refused by the lower Courts ordered
r propey Of lie married was IN
equity any debt she might contract the credit OF
u for benct Of her properiy and that under
liable for such debt The character OF the debt here ms
the benef OF the separate property There the property
dealt with real here II Is personal But In both cases
TO the property specifically dealt with which
caused in its result to operate upon the property at
ricd female il is OF course Tor the plaintiff
prove that the defendant intended to charger
3 her separate property
b BROOKLYN COURTS.