The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-11-26
card IN COURT.
Important Legal Decision Rendered
by the Appellate Court.

An important decision was handed
down today by the appellate judges ln-
terpreting tho purport OF the married
womaI's act, SO called, recently amended
by the Rhode Island Legislature. The
question came before the court on de-
murrer in the case OF q. 5.
Merrimsn d Co., against Mary T.. White.
ThI5 is an action in assumpsit to re-
cover s4l.2I which the plaintiffs ciaim to
be due to them on book account. The
whether suit can be brought and main
tanned against q married woman for the
recovery OF the price of goods which >she
has purchased without joining her nus
band as a defendant. This depends
on the construction OF public statutes,
chapter l66, sect ions and, as amended by
public laws, chapter 1904, sections and z.
Section as amended is as follows:
ANY married woman msy mske any
contract whatsoever, the same az II she
were single and unmarried, and with the
same right and liabilities"
Section 16 as il stood prior TO the enact
ment Of chapter 1904 was As follows:
In all actions relating 10 the property
OF any married woman, secured 10 her by
this chapter, the husband and wife shall
Jointly sue and be sued, except In csse
trustee OF the same be appointed
as hereinafter provided, and ex-
cept in actions upon such
contracts, rs she is authorized to make by
section SIX of this chsptcT, IN which last
case the wills may sue snd DO sued slone."
BY section of chapter 1904, section 9
of chapter 166 was repealed, the effect o
which was TO elemlnste from section 10
the last exception contained in 1t and to
leave it to stand as foilows:
In all actions relating TO the property
OF any married woman, secured TO her by
this chapter, the hus band and wife shall
Jointly sue and be sued, except trustee
of tho same be appointed as hereinafter
provided.
The court, after quoting these pro-
visions OF the public statutes relating TO
this question, says: We are of tho opin-
ion that section as amended authorizes
the bringing OF suit in the circum-
stances mentioned against married
woman without joining her husband.
There can be no question that single
woman could purchase goods and render
herself liable o be sued for the recovery
of the price IL she did not pay the pur-
chase money. AS the statute authorizes n
married woman 20 mako any contract
whatsoever, the same as IL single and un-
married. ana with the same right
and liabilities It must necessarily follow
that she, too, may make a contract for
the purchase OF goods and thereby bind
herself for the payment of the price on
delivery OF the goods and render herself
liab bic TO be sued II she does not pny, pre-
cisely as IL she were single and unmarried;
otherwise her liability on such contract
would not be co-cxtensivo with that OF
sing e woman and IL not co-extensive with
THAI OF q single woman, not the same as
the statute declares it shall be.
" IL will be observed rat section 16 "a IL
stands, and has stsod since The passage OF
Chapter 1904, Is limited to action relating
TO The property OF married woman.
IL does nat purport 20 extend
10 her contract. debt which
q married woman owes is not her property
and, therefore, Section 10 can have no
application 20 such q suit as the present"
Demurrer sustained, plea of coverture
overrUed and case RENTED to the COM
mon pleas division for fnrt her proc seedlings.
Other matters were heard In the appellate
division as follows:
James McV icker VS.. Thomas Nj. Nc
Wicker. Heard on the exception TO a
masters report.
State Va. " illiam Horace. Briefs SUBJ
mitied by petitioner Tor new trial.
John A. Appley va. John ODonnell.
Heard on the defendants petition for a
new trial.
Cecilia A. Sutton vs.Frank sutton. Final
decree entered sustaining the validity OF
mortgage.
The case OF Whitford Aldrich * Co
against Hiram M. Jenekss was. filed in The