, 1873-07-24

this fors that Mrs Kinkead never had any separate
ossato derived cithor from hor husband othor ror-
and has boon eysr SINCE without property; TINT aho
never made or Attempted to mako my contract Of
rartno'rnip witl her husbnnd; that hho never ep:
ont M tho partner Of her husband. This Is court OF
original woil appellate jursdcslon Of cglnhla
tho ende Of sco to be lefeatod ~ would 10 clearly
tho result In tho end II the claimant postponed to
r. h % nosss ag sras ss
t%at % Mrs. rE' E'nhsad soa!s'Sstsa t.. gS1s pos'oa
me a business san ] aSs o S s .s1. 4sn asf0s & a
5 e.5n eSf Int
equitable @ soi1i wh sss~
s % sren as " ss z
TINT tho pfobanli OF The negative Of each Of these
In III esp e N h9 fq g
given expression to xona equitable giows of Ills case
70 which, before closing our notlce Of ha ouion 1t
tho disabilities Of coveruro md the exceptions there
TO- "pat ths rlsl1 1ule q tho common law haa heei
y o Do S i et sy s q
Legislature tho disabilities Of coycrtre In
whole Or 1n part but until y ia thus accomplished,
Is b1sneh &c ts fs a % oS A i@
% .9 srs fs s hsea 5 ea, hS ' o1s Ct
croato right noi,-o1stent II law, nor ca il change
tho law. All II cun do Is either enforce right to
arc inadequate to do either. This is tho whole
turtAdcsfon OF equity courts. T. II, there
f9 S%n that sss sns which t,s on otap tue
admiutaters, oro Nonresident at lhw7 There can 10
no Rrcater error than to auppose 1t.
with regard to tho disabilities Of eoyerturo removed by
1t, or tho exceptions to tho wlfos genera! disabilities
BY M st5r 5san to sa ns ngs g her
Tooe, that tue caa.o Of tho vito under tho act ia
legal eatato; that she nay bind herself md be sucd ut
bind her separate esate In equity before Tho act Of
1901. Tho courts Of Illinois hayo not decldod that
maut shall DO entered In personam against her or
that shall not he entered IN against her proper
u. Tho deorces in equity before tho net in such
nos
decied undor this net that MI contracts between hus
cocdiuga against Mra. Knkoad upon the supposed con-
tract Of partnerahp entered into botweon srssH and
anohor exception to tho list Of the wfes general did
abilities Of coyorturo II the act had removed tho
would DOT avo been void, IS has boon eoiiod nndos
tho act. It may DO safely assumed therefore, that the
wife'a general disabilities have not been removed by
ernl disabilities Of covortre has been ercatod BY the
act to tho extent to permit hor ut Law to contract with
= ns1
wifo to form mercantile partnership IN void in I'LL
nolB It secms alao to follow from The act that fct
covert without separate estate in Illinois Is not liable
to DO Buel. ..-
Thcse to be fair conclusions pointed to By tht
act and decided by tho Court Il 1t safe to depart fro
tho beaten track? Is 1t not beor infinitely to atant
supcr nnti1uaa vian said BY the grcat English
Judgn who succeeded tho brilliant Nlanshold7 IL i
not hazardous to cut 1ooBe from tho traditions ant
reccents Of auccstora1 Thor e1poricnco Hhoult
b. wisdom; thelr Wisdom guido. To cast then
aatde Is to plnngo into Of uncettainticB
1aunch our PROV Into ptchy darkness, while heav,
gale weighing In aatarn to drive vessel into se
straits moro dangerous than scyNa mud Charybds, al
VIC follow \ seductive Charm which, although 10
equally musical Is tho less fatal to It's votaric
than tho Byrons aong OF yore.
Mr. Tonny, for tho othor side, was brief, In
cBiye and clear, III usual. His argument ma,
be summed up under tho following gonera
| leadB:
Tirsl-The error was in tho original bill; tina
tho defendants were partners. That has nevo,
boon attached
Second Tho ljudication could only be attack
| cd by writ of error.
Third-Mauser now seeks to introduce ney
evidence showing tho that wife was not part
| ner. This cannot ho dono.
FourAt-H tho question stated is to be roach
| cd, if ever it is reached, NO say that Judg
| Dlodgett's decision is right.
The Court reaorved his CeciBion-