The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-04-03
MARRIED WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
JUDGE GEORGE p. CARROLL EX-
s, PLAINS THEM At LENGTH

lS77-Qu esdOns BenrinS upon TN
Subject Answered by the Judge from
legal Standpoint.
illegal Rights of Married Women il
Connecticut" was the subject of pape
read by Judge George p. Carroll at g
meeting of the Bridgeport Mosaic Lite
rary club held at the residence Of Mrs
George e. Somers, rs East Washington
avenue, who was the entertainer Of the
club on the occasion. We take the pa
per from the Bridgeport Telegram:
I'm considering the property rights of
married woman, the most important
question to be asked and answered is,
When did she marry? Was the date of
that event on or before June %, 1919?
Was it after June %, 1910, and before
April 20, 1877? Or was it on or after
April 20, 1877? For convenience, / de-
signate these three periods as the early,
the middle and the present periods.
1.-THE legal consequences of marriage
Nt'NAA ~
last, are very different.
prior to 1S49, the personal property
of woman upon her marriage vested
absolutely in her husband. Whether
her personal property consisted of
stocks, bonds, money in the bank, house
hold furniture, wearing apparel, or any,
thing else save real estate it became her
husbands to do with as he chose. His
right was so absolute that, if he died be-
fore his wife, personal property ac
quired from her husband passed by his
will or the statutes Of distribution the
same as did his other personal property.
"Apropos of this state of law story
is told of Massachusetts, woman who
owned dozen solid silver teaspoons in
those days, as the ladies know, objects
of value and pride. She married and
the spoons passed to his heirs. If I re-
member rightly, she married again, her
second husband also died, and she was
again obliged to purchase her spoons of
his heirs.
when the matter of dover is consid-
cred, it will be seen that before personal
property comprised so large a part of
our social wealth, the law did not appear
nor was 1t so unjust as it became to-
wards the middle of this century And
there were one or two counter-vailing
circumstances. One was the husbands
obligations to support his wife according
to his means-a du,y which continues
to-day. And 1 may say here that if
husband neglects to furnish his wife, she
not having abandoned him, with shelter,
food, clothing, or other necessaries of
life, she can contract for such necessa-
ries so far as reasonable, and he will be
liable for her bills. Another common
law obligation of husband was his In
ability in reference to her ante-nuptial
obligations. When a man married she
had chance to win the first trick or to
take the first pawn-you may choose
which game you please For on mar
riage her husband became liable for all
her debts and civil causes of action and
Judgment could be collected out Of his
unless her decease or divorce
should intervene before satisfaction of
the judgment. AS will be seen, this OBJ
legation does not exist in case of mar
riages contracted on or after April 20,
1877
'"Times change and with them the
laws also change. In 1S49 the legislature
provided that all the personal property
Of a woman married after June % of
that year, and all personal property
thereafter acquired by her, and also the
avails of any such property, if sold,
should vest in the husband in trust for
use as follows: To receive and enjoy
The income thereof during his life, sub
5,r+,r 80 i,or
income so much as may be necessary for
he support of his wife during her life |
md of her children during their minori- |
", and also to apply so much of the |
as should be necessary for the |
support of his wife or otherwise with |
Ter written assent. OF course after the |
decease, such property would |
lgain become the wife's absolute estate. |
Sometimes two chemicals, that apart |
possess certain characteristics, when
United exhibit properties unsupported In
ither.. Occasionally this is analogously
rue when legal principles are combined.
Tor not long ago / used the statute re-
erred to-if you will pardon the person.
/ reminiscence-in connection with an
established principle Of equity jurispru-
ence in effect that trust funds can be
ollowed and recovered from any person
Tho may hold them unless he can prove
hat he is an actual purchaser for value
yithout notice. In the combination Of
he statute and the principal was
,eapon of warfare exactly fitted to my
and. For the facts in the case in brief
vere that my client had Endorsed an
Their mans paper to the amount of
lany thousands of dollars. The person
)r whose accommodation he did this
liled, and my client was about being
ttached and was eventually thrown E;
ito insolvency. I had learned, howev-
:, that during marriage his wife had
,uuired and given him from time to
me about fifteen thousand dollars in ! I
oney, which he had invested with his 6
vn money in various properties. So on
le eve of his insolvency I caused him |
transfer his property in such way c
to secure certain of his actual credi- '
RS and also that the residue interest In 1
lie property should be held in trust for I
s wife. After the crash came and a |
ustee in insolvency was appointed, I S
as able to show these facts to the e
ustee and to explain to him my theory G
the law. He was forced to acquiesce &
the force of my contention. And
'entually we compromised on very ia a
,rable terms what had promised to be a
prolonged and expensive litigation. h
LAS regards a married woman's prop r