The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-04-13
WOMAN'S LEGAL STATUS
Important Decision by Judge Buck
Concerning q Wife's Prop
erty Rights.
A Case In Which Her Goods Were
Taken for Her Illus
bands Debt

To he Appealed to tile Supreme Court
Information Filed Against an Al
legged Fraudulent Voter.
Judge Buok. in the district court y~ester-
day, delivered an opinion in the case of
Violet M. Kelly against Sheriff Charles M.
J%etferts. The decision is important, as the
case involves the legal status OF women in
ms to separate property, and the
will DO appealed to tho supreme
court, 80 as to finally settle the points In
Tho decision of Judge Buck is Is
follows:
The facts established by the evidence in
this action are as follows: The plaintiff,
Violet Kelly. prior to her marriage with
James j. Kelly, possessed 500. After her
marriage, in 1880, without recording a sop
arate list Of her property, or making =
declaratory statement Of sole leadership.
she invested the money in bar fixtures and
in the city Of Helena. Tbs business wns
conducted by tho husband in his
wife's name. A creditor OF the
husband having obtained a judg-
ment against him for a debt incurred
prior to the marriage, caused these saloon
fixtures and liquors to be sold under exc
oution on or about the 3D. day of October,
1891. Plaintiff sues for the value of the
property. This cause of action, If one OK
lists, accrued prior to March 6, 1891, and a
decision of the case involves only a con-
st. uction of the statutes of Montana relnt-
ng to married women as they existed prior
to March 6. 1891, when the new sole
traders act was passed, inasmuch as said
act preserves all rights Of married women
acquired under prior laws. Before the
marriage Of the plaintiff and James j..
Kelly, and for many years in Montana. the
only statutes modifying the legal status of
married women as property holders at COM
mon law were those authorizing the record
ing Of lists Of separate property by them
and declarations of sole leadership. One
of these two methods had to be followed
or the property Of the married woman in
possession, unless specially reserved for hor
or for her benefit. became liable for the
debts of the husband, whether incurred be-
fore or after coverture. This was the con-
dition of the law on March 3. 1887, when
the Legislature of the territory enacted the
following statute:
"Sec. 1439. That from and after the pas
sage of this act, women shall retain the
same legal existence and legal personality
after marriage as before marriage, and
shall receive the same protection of all her
rights as a woman, which her husband does
az a man; and for any injury sustained to
her reputation, person, property, character,
or any natural right, she shall have the
same right to appeal in her own nsmea alone
to the courts of law or equity for redress
and protection that her husband has to APP
peal in his own name alone; provided, this
act shall not confer upon the wife q right to
vote or hold office except as is otherwise
provided by law. %f
$50. l44O. All laws or portions of laws
inconsistent with the foregoing are hereby
repealed"
Does this act Of March 8, 1887, repeal the
prior acts relating to lists of separate prop
erty and sole tradershlp? A close scrutiny
of the act of 1887 reveals a radical hostility
between the latter statute aud the two
former ones, and compels this court to an
swer the question in the affirmative. Nor
does the fact that the 70 smer acts appear
in the compiled statutes of 1887 in the same
chapter containing the statute of March 8,
1887, affect this conclusion? For section
2O77 of the compiled statutes of 1887 ia as
follows:
"sso. 2O77. The enactment of the said
compilation ID not to affect or repeal any
act of the legislative assembly passed since
the tenth day of January, A. D. one thou
sand eight hundred and eighty-seven. and
all acts passed since that date are to have
full effoct as if passed after the enactment
of this compilation; and SO far as such acts
| vary from, or conflict with, any provisions
contained in said compilation, they are to
have effect as subsequent statutes, and as
repeating any portion of the compilation
inconsistent Herewith"
Therefore at the time the plaintiff in
vested her individual money and carried on
business by it's means in her own name. sh.
had full statutory authority for doing SO
and was under no obligation to record I. list
Of sole leadership in order to free herAlt
from liabilities of her husband. Her legal
status in respect to holding separate prop
erty and engaging in business was the same
az that Of 4 feme sole.
It il unnecessary here to consider what the
ate property is at the present time. The
sole traders act of 1891, however, certainly
does not revive the list of separate prope rty
act and the first sole traders act of Mon
tana, if they were repealed by the act of
March 8, 1887; seec Sec. 203, fifth division
compiled statutes, which il as follows: mo
act or part of an act repealed by another
" nANAl No SAAA W. ~ ny IL
repeal of the repeating act
There is, then, almost a direct conflict
between the act Of March 8. 1887. and the
new sole traders act of 1891. Apparently,
this act of 1891 was passed without a proper
consideration of what it's effect might DO on
the act of March s. 1887; for the last named
act virtually e~manctpated married woman
from almost all their common lawd isabili-
ties. md the act of 1891, without any ex-
press specific repeal of it's provisions seems
to assume that the said emancipation law
never possessed this force expressly impaired
to it in direct, nnequivocal language.
1t is therefore decided, in this action,
that the plaintiff is entitled to the value
of the property sold under execution. which
the court finds to be $500.
.* Court Notes.
The A. j. Davidson company has brought
suit against s. Il. Porter for $780, 90 for
goods sold.
County Attorney Nolan yesterday filed an
information i'll the district couit againa,
Charles Chester for voting illegally at the
recent municipal election.
Sam Alexander has sued j. p. Brusebit7
in tho district couft for $234 25, the value
OF various promlsaory notes given to Other
parties which hnve passed into the PLAIN
tifts possession.
Every one can afford to carry n silk umbrella
fast blacS, wtcn the price is a. low As VI 81, III
advertised in smother column by tho bee Hive.
Hn,r Tn Kacn Suav