New-York tribune., 1884-12-29
RLGnrS az 4 MlRRIED WONAN
Jrs!fcE brown GIVES Az OPINION THAT SHE
MAY LEGALLY gK HER HUSBANDS BUSINESS


MAY LEGALLY BK HER HUSBANDS BUSINESS
PARTNER.
NrwBl-RG. Dec. 2s.-Justice Brown of
the Supreme Court has Just rendered an important dec-
sion which lawyers have been looking for with great
anxiety. The question at issue IS whether business
partnerships between husband and wife are authorized
by the statutes Of the state OF NewYotk and whether
contracts entered into I'm the conduct OF such business
can enforced against the wife isa question that
the Court OF Appeals has decided In this state nor
has the General Term ever passed upon It, Two deci-
sons have been rendered by special terms OH each
side OF the nueson one OF these was by Judge West
brpok whose views OF the matter directly opposite TO
those OF judge Brown.
Tho case I'm whch iuige Brown makes Ms decisiQn i
mat o, johrp rttf and ohets against John T. Kihnei
dni ftedcrica a. Kinney Ms #ife, witch tahe rp nj
pihpq tsittt ertctl teth hcli m Bt55kth bh Decei
bst 10 IN heHtttets ihs e'hNldHt N tib aetioh ~
ieoes hai ,Ne Ne snei HN Wa Nit bt the he'ehiih'i
fHAef tieif hfiH HAiHe ~ J: = RiHlt ,8' tfti ~
Ae,eNilNis Afe NriNaNi fNi N''t Ht tNa S Ni'r'i'l
.Vl NiUgN iNe AVIS N4a bi}eH Nffe NFNisNFi ~ H'N
peurNlea ,hs eslaf4le eslAis Gi tAe Nie .a N4sNNe
tha lhe aiipsaiin tAat lAe n9le pa4 WAle VI iNH Hs
icuaauta uuder tAer lrm name u sA''eltAt esHlnN
VI paruelaip sulposins ~ " lesal eAlil H"ulNo
this to be the tue Court says lhal Tue Noll o Az
peals has decided Two questions retains lhs'sto' h'9
that married woman mai contract business partner
ship with her husband aud on business - one ="
firm: sccond that she may contract with her husband
In reference to her separate estate Then the Court
adds:
Assuming therefore these two questions to be decided
In THIS state, unable TO see the
"A contract which married enters Into with her
husband under which he manages her separate esnle
or business her agent and contract of partnership
which n nothing more than mutual agency ny each
In reference the common business OF both section -
OF the Act Of $50 from which married woman derives
power carry any trade or business canot III my
Judgment, he construed rs empowering er 10 engage III
business solely Ia her name and as deny ing to he
Tue pomo' rb ~ nr ,oe aid separate account In
| NJ nil 1n
business" This sufficiently appears by tue punctuation
Of the sentence by this section the Leglslate intended
to confer upon married women tho power 10 40 tntc
things: first to bargain. SELL assign ana raI ser tno
separate "Iio PGpi labor ,og" on their sole and sep
nIate account Ine first two ilarricd woman hhu no
DO but the wages for labor belonged to her husband
10 confer upon her the power to carry on tfIue or
passsS OF Ti ths act she had not enjoyed declare
that she might labor aud perform services wonld nave
conferred no new right upon her but to declare the
wages OF her labor be free from tho control nf her
husband was 10 confer upon her new ana suDsahla
rght aud % accomplish this the Legislature declared
that she might perform labor ana services upon her
sole aud separate account an not Hn"w's WA Una. ~
account" applied 10 the A." trade ana business ns
we'll to her labor aud services bu. thlS section IS
/, drnlaratory solely of what constitutes married
woman's separate estat"
OPINION OF IIlE COuRf OP APPEALS
Ia tho ease NJ nitler against Hathman, above cited
the Commission of Appeals held that she rond contract
.he held her interest ~ the hun upon secret trust FOR
ber husband tho Court held that she could maintain an
action for ,ssoon O protect her apparent rights aud
thnt sha wa liable partner 10 lhn creditors ~ the
usirn- -hle film. 1hn Court hhlal
. Ihe deieudnnt eicopled % Tho cononson mat Tho
plnniin w partner ~ Tho defendant uI hil, brlnR
unuird woman aiin could not ~ law be- III phllhni
1nt rhn having suffered hffHrf lo hr loHuHrh
bt thH iihr puilrf Wh7 lhhln 40 hufli, 10 ihu
rfeiofa uf tht usrualhH NM uhd hNlhR ihua rNpnanl
hsrf u such liabilities rhr hnd 1 rhr rflfhi lhn ilH
ns nvsinsi either tho defendant ~ hrl husband ln r
ufoirri,d out ~ the share winch Wpl bClphH 4" hri
l he oni nolt, na tuaioo tur her husband, at NoA'
Instance aho undertook the trust" 49, -.
n hlr could lu u pilinefHllp ~ lhr thhfNrlN Wn'N
cssfpd ia the rAlr pltpl br made iao 10 tho nnlhll
ahp creditors. Ahc certainly cannot claim inwihli
nom the debts Of u lim In which shn ma enlisted hol
sepn te estate aud her avn aeryiccs 10 the same cc,
ia tie decision NJ the Court OF Appeals Ia the chse ct
Ecott against Conway. n the Wo has the capacity 10
contn, with the husband with reference 10 her separate
| esiaie there r. limit put upon the power III INC
statute The o this state have decided thht 7ho
ha. snch over, aud unable 10 see by whi flp
n may be M held by class NJ contracts ana dehc
| as 10 0theis
| CO-PARTNERsnfP OF HUSBAND AND WIFE possible
Justice Brown then finds In bis conclusion -that inc
Courts ~ the state Of NowYOrk have settled the lueS-
on that a wife may not only contract colnrtneishp
with person other than her hisband and carry ON
business as a member such rin. but that with refer
ence To- her separate estate she contract win l
husband the same II she - fe1ie ACic anu io
have the cupaclty p cutter lnto contract OK carlne
ship Tor the purpose Ot carrying ON trade. or ne7'
aud that contracts made by such URN are ehlociho
| against the, WHO'S estate.