Story Case

Andrew Cloud and his wife lived in Massachusetts before that state changed the common law rule that a woman could not contract in her own name after marriage. Two years after they were married a conflict arose between them and Cloud refused to continue living with his wife. After he had moved into another house and left her at their original home, she made a contract to purchase a piano from the Werner Piano Company. Later she refused to take the piano, and the company brought suit against both the husband and wife. He defended on the ground that she did not have the right to contract any liability in his name, and she defended on the ground that, as a married woman, she had not the power to bind herself alone.. What do you say as to the defenses?

Ruling Court Case. Shaw Vs. Thomson, Volume 16 Pickering's Massachusetts Reports, Page 198; Volume 26 American Reports, Page 655

This was an action for services rendered and necessaries furnished to Thomson's deceased wife. When these necessaries were furnished the wife, her husband was a pauper in the almshouse, and the wife was living with the plaintiff, who was her daughter. The question raised was whether the wife could bind herself for support while her husband was still living.

Mr. Chief Justice Shaw delivered the opinion of the Court: "By law, a husband is entitled to all the personal property of the wife, including choses-in-action, to all her earnings and acquisitions and to the income of her real estate. It also throws upon him the obligation to support and maintain her. Any implied promise, therefore, which the law raises to one who affords such support and maintenance, is the promise of the husband and not the wife. Nor is a married woman liable on her express promise for support. This rule necessarily follows from the principle that the husband and wife are one person in law and her ability to bind herself by express contracts is necessarily suspended."

The Court decided that the plaintiff could recover of the defendant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

At common law the wife was without power to bind herself on contract. She could not bind herself even for the absolute necessaries of life. Any necessaries which she procured, were chargeable to her husband but not to her. In the Story Case, the husband is not liable to the piano company because the article purchased is not a necessity and the wife has no power to bind her husband on any contract. The wife is not liable because at common law she could not bind herself in a legal obligation.

After the courts of equity had given to a married woman the power to own a separate estate free from the control of her husband, she might bind herself by a contract made in connection with, and for the benefit of, her separate estate. Modern statutes have greatly removed the common law restrictions upon the capacity of married women to contract. With few exceptions they may now contract as freely as single women.