The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-08-04

T-TE1 IT& M4 HHEWl
dover and an inheritable interest Ia the %
tate OF her husband. We are Of sne opinaol
that the course pursued BY several state
In recent years OF abolishing the dover . q
giving tho wife an absolute interest IN M
estate Of the husband i wise. We there
fors recommend that the provisions relat
ing to dover embracing sections l4N 70 10y
both inclusive. be stricken Y rms 90
ing lone the wife will TO entitled TO an in.
tsrsst in the estate 40 provided in tho chap
ter on suooessions. We are Of the opinicr
that the husband and wife should be put
upon an exsct equal footing; that the hns-
band shouid DO competent to oonvey hi
property without the signature of his wife,
and tho wife should DO pompetsnt to CON
vey her property without the signature 81
her husband.
81. That section ia DO amend
cd so AZ to read A. follows:
Section ia. Contracts made by = married
woman shall not bs binding upon her .
band, nor render him ncr his properly ia,
bic therefor; but she and her property shall
be liable on such contracts in the same
manner as il she were sole. .
%. That a section to be numbered ITO %
inserted immediately succeeding section
175 as follows: Section lT6. A married
man may make a will in tho same manner
and with the same effect 40 II unn nrtina.
except that such will. hall not, without the
written consent of the wife, operate TO de-
prive her of more than two-thirds OF his
real estate, or of more than two-shirds or
his personal estate.
%. That section 176 be numbered 1T
and be amended SO as to read n follows:
Section 1T. A married man or = married
woman may make contracts oral or written,
sealed or unsealed, and may convey. waive
or relinquish any tight Or interest," IN n
real estate or other prope rty. either in per-
son or by attorney, in tho same manner,
to the same extent. and with the like on cot,
a. if unmarried.
"a. That section 1T b stricken ont.
Your committee will report on the sub
ject Of corporations ton lorrow.
Chairman \. b. Smith presented she fol-
lowing report Of the com mittee on division
of obligations, civil code, which was made
4 special order to follow that of the report
on Subdivisions of persc ms:
Your committee appointed to report upon
the third division Of the civil code having
very hastily. and perhaps to some extent,
inconsiderately examined the same, beg
leave to submit for consideration some mat
to q that to us seem Objectionable.
In section 1854 page ls9 the use Of the
word entire" instead OF "indivisible' VIC
bs'ieys would be better eomprehended and
would not sound so paradoxical at least
Section 1885 OF page lDi Is to some ex-
tent uncertain. Nor do We think it fairly
expresses the rights of all parties under the
conditions named.
Section 1924 on page 1893 seems to be
contrary TO the general rule of law as un-
at common law or in the majority
of decisions.
In section 1,347 the word mot should be
out to make sense.
In subdivision three OF section 1853 the
use Of the VOID "~fraudulsntly" the last
time ought to be omitted in our opinion.
Subdivision three, section 1861 ought to
be amended by adding thereto tho follow
q. by one standing n a judiciary or
such provision. As the section stands it is
too sweeping and would require = purchaser
of property from a stranger TO divulge all
Of his own knowledge OK belief as to the
value.
Subdivision two, section 1857, on page
1913 should be stricken out entirely.
Subdivisin six of seotio on 1,4l2, page POI
should be stricken ont. We cannots see
why there should be any difference as be-
tween agent and prineip a in buving and
selling real estate than would exist in buy
ing and selling other property.
Subdivision five of section l474 should he
amended, 80 shat persons who made con-
should not be allowed to rescind the con-
il such rescision VOL ked any injury to
such third person for whom tho contract
was originally made.
Section 1855 should be stricken out.
Section 1771 on page 233 should be stricken
out entirely as being unjust.
The latter part of section 1869. afte. the
word given" should be stricken out, as
the bette" rule seems to be expressed in
1871.
Section 1899; the last clause should be
changed, making the common carrier OF
goods thnt first accepts the same for trans
portation liable for loss or injury while in
transit, even though the loss occurred on a
line, and leave it for the loss to
be settled between the carriers if more
than one was engaged in carrying the
A majority of the ittee believe that
title XII. covering insurance. should be re-
tanned, while a minority Of the committee.
MIR. Kinsley. believes it should be emit ely
out. together with section 1460, on
pages 205 and 2O6. Section 1882 we believe
should be changed by str liking out the last
words and inserting unless otherwise
in the contract. and as provided
in title AV.. negotiable I'M truments."
Mr.. Russell, as a minority of the COM
believes that sections 1861 and 1867
should be retained as written.
This brings our examination and report
DOWN to article five. paRe 2S3.
1t is expected that the attendance will be
to-day by the arrival of other at
from various points of the state,