The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-15
STATUS or MARREED WOMEN IN
as ENGLAND.


From ne Spectator.
The history OF the favored position which
married women occupy In our legal system
IL not without interest. Until compare
lively recent times a married woman was
considered in the eve Of the law a. no more
capable Of owning or dealing with prop
erty han an infant or a lunAtic. All she
possessed when she married became her
husbands. All she acquired during her
marriage passed into his control and no
had the solo right Of dealing with IL. She
could not make a valid contract. She
could not sue or be sued alone. She was,
in fact. a legal nonentity. a mere shadow
Of her husbands personality.
As the result Of a series Of acts Of ParliA-
ment passed during the last seventy years
married women have gradually emerged
from this position Of legal disability. Now
a married woman may possess separate
property Of her W and deal with It quite
Independently Of her husband. She may
make contracts. She may sue and be sued
in her own name. In fact. she now enjoys
all the rights Of an unmarried woman.
But for SOM ~unaccountable reason the
Legislature in comforting upon her increased
powers Inc privileges has not enlarged
her responsibility in proportion. Regarded
from the standpoint Of legal liability. her
position still remains in many respects
quite exceptional and anomalous. For
example, the wife is entirely exempt from
liability to pay for articles which fall within
the category Of -necessaries'; and in the
case Of ladies ip society -necessaries' 10
a very elastic tAm and may include ex-
pensive articles Of dress or jewelry.
In a recent case a married woman was
sued by a large West End firm Of milliners
and dressmakers for the price Of goods
supplied. The ana before opening
the account had made the usual inquiries
as to the lady's means, and receiving salts
factory information allowed her to "
the goods on credit. On that footing che
dealt with the firm and became a regular
customer. The articles which she ordered
were charged to her account. The bills
were sent in to her, and for a while she
paid regularly by her own checks. Shortly
afterward the lady's husband. who had
been living with a vast show of wealth, was
found to be utterly insolvent. He alb
seconded and the firm sued the lady for
the unpaid balance OF her account. She
refused to a on the pretext that she
had bought the dresses as her husbands
0bCA eAN AAAaN ~ h~A ANo oNASAA
so. But the firm knew nothing Of this.
The only indication they had received OF
her having a husband at all wa the fact
that she gave her married ame-a fact
which, as was pointed out by one of the
Judges, was entirely consistent with her
being a widow. The case vent to the House
of Lords and eventually it was held that the
lady was not legally liable.
La.1.. ,a,. l. WkaN - a.. k~,I.-.aA.
who deals on credit with a lady enjoying a
substantial income but discovers when he
seeks to enforcs payment that her income
is subject to restraint on anticipation. The
original idea Of this restriction seems to
have been TO protect a married woman from
the consequences OF her extravaganza and
the danger OF her denuding herself Of her
property under the influence Of her hus-
band. Take the following case for the sake
of illustration:
A lady with a settled income Of. say, a
thousand a year. subject to restraint on
anticipation. buys goods on credit for which
she afterward declines to pay. The trades
man sues her. and as she has no defence
he gets his judgment. But to his dismay
he finds the judgment SO framed as to put
beyond his grasp the very means-viz..
the lahy'H income to which ne had looked
for the discharge OF her debt. The lady
may AVE a large credit balance at the
bank at the very time when judgment is
got against her. but the court will not per-
init the creditor to touch a penny Of il;
much less will he be allowed to lay hands
upon subsequently accruing income. He
Is in the tantalizing position Of seeing his
lady debtor in possession of ample means
to pay while he is utterly helpless to COM
pei her to pay a farthing. On the other
hand, if il be shown to be clearly to the
ady's advantage that she should be al
lowed to anticipate her income. in spite Of
this restriction. she can apply to the court
and get the restriction removed. But the
court does not take the view hat the pay
ment Of her just debts ia sufficiently to her
advantage TO justify this procedure.