Case Name: J. Hobart vs. Anne Lemon, a sole trader, and her husband; Petit, Dunning & Co. vs. The Same
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1846
Citations: 3 Rich. 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Hobart vs. Anne Lemon, a sole trader, and her husband. Petit, Dunning & Co. vs. The Same.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
J. Hobart vs. Anne Lemon, a sole trader, and her husband. Petit, Dunning & Co. vs. The Same.
In order to charge a mamed'woman as a'feme sole trader on a contract made by her, it is n ot necessary to shew that she had advertised her intention of becoming' a free dealer. It is sufficient to shew, to the satisfaction of the jury, that she had acted and been considered as a sole trader.
Before O’Neall, J. at Fairfield, July, extra Term, 1845.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
“ These were actions of assumpsit brought on notes of hand, made by the defendant. Anne, in New York, for the purchase of goods. > The proof very clearly was, that every year the defendant went to New York to purchase goods, her husband remained at home. She and her husband kept stores in the same building; he in one end has a grocery store, and perhaps keeps dry goods of a coarse kind. She in the other end keeps a fancy store. Each do business separately, and she is considered as a sole trader, in the village of- 'Winnsboro’, where they reside. Most of the receipts and business transactions are in her name as to the fancy store, though her husband, perhaps, in one or more instances, collected the debts due her with others due him, and on one occasion, in her absence, sold an article out of her store, but said he did not know the price of it, which it was agreed should be fixed by her when she returned.
The defendants contended that they were not chargeable, inasmuch as by the Act of ’23, 6 Stat. 213, it is provided that no woman having a husband living shall be entitled, either at law or in Equity, to the rights of a free-dealer, unless she shall give notice by publication in a pub- lie newspaper, of her intention to trade as a sole trader— which notice shall be published at least one month ; and in case there is no newspaper published in the district, the notice shall be published in the same way as sheriff’s Sales. The Act of ’24, 6 Stat. 236, amending this Act, provides that the notice shall include the name, place of residence, and occupation or profession of the husband of the sole trader. I thought that these Acts did not change the liability of the defendant, arising out of her carrying on a separate mercantile business, which, according to the custom of London, made her a feme sole trader; it might be, that without such notice, she could not claim the rights of such a trader against her husband and others. The law making her liable by carrying on a separate mercantile business, was carefully explained to the jury, and the facts left them to say whether such a separate business had been proved.
They found, to my entire satisfation, for the plaintiffs in both cases.”
The defendants appealed, on the following ground.
Because the evidence of the defendant, Anne Lemon, acting as a sole trader, was entirely insufficient to establish such fact, and the court should have so charged the jury.
Hammond, for the motion.
Arthur and Rutland, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts of these eases were for the jury, to whom they were very properly left. We think they fully sustain the verdicts.
The motions are dismissed.
Richardson, O'Neall, Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurring.