Case Name: William H. Dial vs. C. Neuffer, and John Neuffer, her husband
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1846-08
Citations: 3 Rich. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Dial vs. C. Neuffer, and John Neuffer, her husband.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
William H. Dial vs. C. Neuffer, and John Neuffer, her husband.
A married woman may become a. feme, sole trader in .the business of keeping a boarding house.
Before O’Neall, J. at Richland, Spring Term, 1846.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
“ The defendants were sued on a due bill, made by defendant, 0. Neuffer, and an account for bread furnished her. The due bill was also given for a balance due for bread. The plaintiff is a baker.
The defendant, C. Neuffer, is a married woman, the wife of John Neuffer, and was so at the making of the contracts. She had previously given a month’s notice of her intention to become a feme sole trader.
She kept a boarding house, and the bread was furnished to her for the use of herself and her guests.
She acted, and was considered, as a feme sole trader. Her husband had nothing to do with the boarding house. It was her separate business.
1 thought that, according to the cases in this State, the business of keeping a boarding house was such an one as to which a feme covert might become a feme sole trader. I therefore decreed for the plaintiif. ”
The defendants appealed, on the following ground.
Because one of the defendants, Catharine Neuffer, was improperly joined with her husband, John Neuffer ; the business of keeping a boarding house not being such as, by the laws in force in this State, will admit of the wife’s acting in the capacity of a feme sole trader.
N. R. Blacky for the motion,
cited 1 McM. 50 ; Harp. Eq. R. 149 ; 1 Hill, 428 ; 2 Bay, 154, 333 ; 1 Eq. Rep. 445.
Tradewell, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court concurs in the judgment below. The motion is dismissed.
Richardson, O'Neall, Evans, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurring.
Butler, J. absent at the argument.