Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-11-10
A MARRIED woMAx,s CREDIT.
A Decision by the Court in General Term
Touchins an Interesting Question.

| A Decision by the Court in General Term
Touching an Interesting Question.
In the Court in General Term yesterday Mr.
Justice James delivered an opinion of the cour,
In the case Of Adolph Goldsmith agt. Thomas A.
Ladson. Of which brief mention was made in
The SrAn. in which some curious questions re-
garding the status Of q married woman in bust
ness transactions were discussed. The action
was one of replevin. Alice Ladson, the de-
| PENDANTS wife. being the owner Of a separate
estate, undertook to carry on the jewelry bust
ness in this city and obtained 81, 100 worth OF
goods on credit from the plaintiff, who lived in
New York. She paid on account $500. and the
plaintiff having demanded the balance duo in
sisted that either that the bill should be paid
or sufficient of the goods should be returned to
cancel the debt. This demand not being
complied with the plaintiff came here from
New York, and finding the husband in charge
Of the store renewed to him his demand. Pay
ment not being made. and defendant refusing
to surrender up any of the goods. the plaintiff
replevined the goods to the vnlue OF s239.60 by
means of this suit. The plaintiff furnished the
goods to Alice Ladson in goodffaith, supposlng
her entitled to carry on business I'D married
women are permitted to do under the laws Of
New York, and as soon rs he found to the con-
trary he instituted suit.
I'm this Jurisdiction, - Justice James opinion
said. "a married woman having separate estate
can buy with it any kind of property. By an
exchange Of what il her own for something else
She of course, acquires title to the latter. This
is a necessary operation of her jus disponendi.
She must be able to make a contract for ac-
quiring title in exchange in order to perfect
exercise OF power to dispose of her own.
But does she acquire title by purchase on
credi:-thst ia TO say. by such q purchase not
having relation 70 her separate property? We
have several times been called on to determine
when an action could be maintained against
married woman for the price of goods sold to
her, and have always held that unless the pur
chase was a contract having relation to prop
erty which she already owned. her status in the
transaction is just what it had been before tn.
act; that is TO say, it was determined by the
common law, which made her incompetent to
bind herself. We have now to consider whether
there is, in an ordinary purchase by her on
credit, any contract, having any legal eff
feet at all, between the vendor and VEN
dee. We think there il none. There
must be at least two parties to a contract. both
capable of consent, and in contemplation of
the common law a wife does not count one.
However stupid that notion was it observes
consistency. 1t does not nullify her actions
on one hand and on the other give it the effect
OF dlvesting another persons title and trans
ferring to herself. If it be suggested that the
vendor at least being able to consent may be
regarded as surrendering and thereby parting
Will LIS tltie, Tue answer ID tnat sucn bOlu-
ton would be fraudulent fiction. HIS inten-
ton could only be to surrender title to buyer.
The plaintiff then could have resumed posses
sion of his goods the day after the socalled sale
on credit"
The court then considered the effect Of the
payment on account and held that by it the
wife acquired an interest III the goods. II the
wife had such right the presumption must be
that the defendants possession derived from
her was lawful, so that the usual judgment
for damages would follow.