Case Name: Charles Jacquin agt. Sophia Jacquin
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-04
Citations: 2 How. Pr. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Jacquin agt. Sophia Jacquin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 51–51

Head Matter:
N. Y. COMMON PLEAS.
Charles Jacquin agt. Sophia Jacquin.
Husband amd wife — Business partnerships between them not authorized.
Business partnerships between husband and wife are not authorized. Therefore a husband cannot claim under a business copartnership with his wife, the right to a dissolution of the same and the appointment of a receiver.
This is adverse to Zimmerman agt. Erhard and Bodge (59 How., 11); and Graff et at. agt. Kinney (1 How. [W. S.], 59); see, also, Eairlee agt. Bloorningdale (67 How., 292).
Equity Term, April, 1885.
This action is brought by a husband claiming under a business copartnership with his wife the right to a dissolution of the same and the appointment of a receiver.

Opinion:
Larremore, J.
The enabling statutes in relation to the authority of a married woman to hold property or transact business have not expressly authorized a married woman to enter into partnership with her husband, and, as I read the decision, no such authority or right is conferred. In this case it appears that the marital relation existed between the plaintiff and defendant, and I find no authority that authorizes the husband to claim under a business copartnership with his wife, the right to a dissolution of the same and the appointment of a receiver. In the absence of any statutory enactment, the rule of the common law in relation to husband and wife remains unchanged, and as no express provision is made by statute for a business copartnership between husband and wife, the old rule must prevail. The complaint, therefore, must be dismissed, but without costs.