Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-02-25


1ishts 0ivem By re esa&ueso Ueoaea ~
Tie Full suprusne Bench.
The supreme court On Monday ollclelly
decided how DR. married woman who I'D
not been declared . feme sole trader could
be held responsible In business trsnanc-
tions. The act In question hiss proved :
pu.Eling one 70 every court In the state and
each one. OF It's seven SECTIONS has been
differently construed from time 70 time by
different courta. Several points under u
have been decided by the supreme court,
but yesterday the supremc court gave q
comprehensive view Of the whole oct.
The decision was rendered In the appeal
Of Oliver Roop and hts wife, Fanny c.,
from decision Of court Of common pleas
No. 8, Philadelphia, which refused 10 open
Judgment entered by the Real Estate In
vestinent company on judgment note
signed by Mr.. and Mrs. ROop. Passing
over the minor claims of the Roops for .
reversal Of the court below, Chief Justice
Paxson In delivering the opinion addresses
himself principally 10 the act Quoting
from II he refers particularly TO the rcstric-
tions mentioned In the different sections,
which are that q married woman shall have
no power to mortgage or convey her real
estate unless her husband Join IN the con-
veyance, nor pay she become endorser,
guarantor or surety for another.
1--WE do not think It was intended to
confer power TO contract generally" says
the opinion. 'The act must be considered
as whole. Viewed In this light II un-
fetters q married woman, subject TO the
restrictions mentioned, for three purposes,
viz: ~ where she engages In trade or
business, (2) IN the management Of her
separate estate and (3) for necessaries.
For any of these purposes she may bind
herself and her estate or business by her
contract, and have no doubt may lawfully
confess Judgment. But beyond this we do
not think the act confers any power. 1t Is on
tirely proper that the law should clothe her
with sufficient power TO properly manage
her separate estate, and when II authorizes
her to embark In business IL Is right that
she should be held to her contracts, which
can only be done by authorizing her TO
make such contracts. So In regard to nee
essaries, If she may purchase them she
her estate for them in the usual manner
and by tho usual forms by which contracts
are made by persons sni juris. But we are
not disposed to say that for every purpose,
she may make contracts and bind her es-
tate generally as may q femme sole. The
Legislature must say 80 In language too
clear to be misunderstood before we will
subject the estates Of married women 10
such peril as this"
at was conceded that this judgment was
given by a married woman. 1t was not
pretended that IL was done in the MANAGE
ment of or for the benefit of her separate
estate, or In the prosecution Of any busi-
ness In which she was engaged, or for
necessaries. On the contrary. II not given
as surety for her husband, 1t was given
upon his Importantly, and to aid him In
his business, one of the very perils from
which the law ought 10 protect q married
woman.
"The judgment, having been confessed
without authority, is void rs to Fanny G.
Roop. The order of the court below 10 re-
versed as to Fanny C.. Roop, and the judg-
ment against her Is stricken from the
record"