The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1886-04-14
The Property of Il Woman Not
Liable for Her Debts.
An Important Decision.

1T has been an open question with
lawyers, rs to whether the prop
crty OF Il married woman would be
liable for Il contract in which no
reference is made as to her intcn-
o TO blnd her separate property.
This question has been settled bv
III Supreme Court. They GO far
Their and say that no contract of n
married woman will bind her sep
arate property, even though she
intends 1T to have this effect and
SO expresses in the contract, unless
the contract as made with refer
rncc to her separate estate. In
other words, the consideration of
the contract must concern her prop-
crty in order TO make il liable.
we make an extract from an
article in the Augusta chronicle
from the Laurcns Correspondent.
on this subject: )
x y 4 Underline act as amend
ed the supreme Court has lust de-
cidcd that Il married woman cam
not bind herself by singning utr
as sucty for her husband, even
though the note specifics that il i.
to Pin her separate estate. In the
last few years thousands of dollars
have changed hands on the assur-
ancc of married women's contracts.
as great deal of property is owned
IN TINS State by married women,
and in many cascs husbands can
not get credit without the endorse
mcnt of their wives.
The result of the law is to infer
fcre with trade and
Much property will be locked up
IN the hands of married women.
unaffected by contracts, as proper
ty was once bound up i'm England
in religious corporations and mon
asteries. ltmny be doubled whcth-
or she an execute II valid mort
gage on her estate to secure the
debt Of her husband, as the debt.
the consideration of the mortgages.
IN no Way affects or concerns her
srparatVcstatc.
Another result of this legislation
is giving tho rights Of citizens con-
corning property to certain persons
without %subjccting them t. the IL
abilities OF citizens. \ married
woman can make and break as
many contracts rs she plcaScs, can
commit as many forts as She
plcAScs with perfect impunitv,
while n single wolnan would be-
liable in the same manner as a man.
1T IS putting married woman
above the privilege of minor, who
Is liable for ncccssarics, but it is
doubtful whether she would be lia-
bic for such unless they related to
her separate estate.
Another result of The law is. it
will lead to unpleasant LITIGATION
in domestic affairs. A married
woman when brought into court
will have to disclose the secrets of
the family, and there will be great
temptation to her to exceed the
truth in trying to prove that n
certain contract of hers does not
benefit or concern her separate cs-
tate.
This state of things cannot long
last. a change must come. Too
much property lies concealed by
fraud from the light of day, and
sheltered by the pe%tticoats from
the stern process or the law.
Property ought not to exist in
South Carolina free from the oper-
alton and effects Of ordinary con
tracts. 1t is hoped that the Lepis-
lature, at the next session will
amend the Act so that it will stand
as it did under the Act of 1870.
The Legislature might give the
amendment a retroactive effect, so
that all contracts made since 1882
would be valid. This looks IKE
impalring the obligation of con-
tracts, but this the Legislature can
do, provided it does not divest
vested rights. TO pass such q
law would be more like saving
vested rights than divesting them
Much property has changed hands
on the strength Of married women's
contracts, and they Intended to
bind themselves by those contracts.
In morality they are bound. 1t
would simply make them respon-
for what they thought they
were becoming bound, and for
what they, in.good faith and morals,
were bound tomake good.
1T Is again rumored that the
H. l.