, 1874-02-01
MARRIED WOMEN,
Their Right to Garry on Business
for Themselves.
Harmonious Opinions Of the State Supreme
Court and Judge Drummond.

a AAHHlEu hOAAN q I16dlb
An important question in relation to tn
capacity of married woman to form copart
nership WAS decided yesterday by Judge Drum
mond affirming the opinion Of Judge Blodgott OF
the same point.
The question arose on q petition filed in bank
ruptcy by J. Y. Farwell j. Co. Dec. 7, 1871
against Joseph D. kinkcad aud f. l.. knkoad
his wife. Among the claims against tho estate
filed, wero two by Miles Mansur r-one fo
10,577.97, and the other for 81 ,970,7 botl
against the individual estate of J. D. Kinkead
Mausur claimed that Kinkead Was carrying OF
business under the name Of Kinkead l. Co.
that, though it was pretended that Mrs
Kinkead WAS partner, yet she furnished nc
part Of the means invested. and had no interest
IN the business. All other claims we're proved
against the estate Of Kinkead d Co., and tho
the large part Of the assets vera held in the
name Of the firm. At meeting of creditors
held July, 1872, Manser asked that his claim
might bo paid pro rata with the claims proved
against the firm. Objection was made, aud the
matter certified to Judge Blodgett, who over
ruled the motion and denied the request.
A petition for review was filed, and the case
taken up to the Circuit Court when Judge
the decision Of Judge Blodeett, and holding that
a married WOMAN may form valid part
ncrship esen With her husband, and
that Mansur having filed his claim against the
estate Of Kinkead n1oae, must wait until the
partnership claims are exhausted before lis can
be allowed.
4 case involving similar question has Just
been decided in the Supreme Court OF this
State, in the case of Harriet IL. Haight against
Franklin and Wayne McVeayh. The following
syllabus OF tho opinion from the Legal Ncecs Of
Yesterday will give the important portion OF the
VOL o$ NJ t.
will be seen that the two decisions by the United
States Circuit Court aud the Supreme Court Of
the State are harmonious
Tho defendant below was q married woman
residing with her husband, and with his consent
carrying on the business of retail grocery store
in her own name, in conjunction with one Chase.
who Tas silent partner. The husband had no
interest in the business, but was acting as clerk
for the firm. The account for the collection of
which suit was brought, WIS for goods pur-
in her business. No plea in abatement for the
non--joinder Of Chase vas filed. The Court, If
ter discussion the uct OF 1861 and of 1862 giving
to married woman her own earnings, and the
decisions Of the Court constituting the sane, say,
in this case tue goods we're purchased by tie
appellant, to be used in her business as proprie-
trees OF retail grocery store. There is no pre-
tense that they we're purchased by the husband,
or Tor his use, Or uLder such circumstances
that the law will infer his liability. Trey be-
came appellants sole and separate property, and
either she must be held to pay ior thom, OF it
must be held that while married women have
the right to contract and acquire property, they
shall nevertheless be exempt from complying
with their contracts for that purpose.
The legislative department has seen fit to
ing to the property rights Of married women.
and it is the duty OF the Court to enforce the
Law as they have made it.
It is not to be supposed that it Was within the