Under other statutes a married woman is empowered to act as a sole trader, and as such to bind herself by contract.1 Such statutes are constitutional.2 Under such a statute a married woman may carry on business in the name of an agent.3 Unless her note is given in connection with her sole business, such statutes do not make it valid.4 A feme covert trading as a sole trader is not subject to the act concerning involuntary insolvency.5 Her ownership of a farm which her husband manages is not a separate business.6 If by statute a decree of court is necessary to empower a married woman to act as sole trader, she has not such power without such decree, even if she has invested her separate property in her business.7

7 Allen v. Long (Ky.), 41 S. W. 17.

8 Bazemore v. Mountain, 121 N. C. 59; 28 S. E. 17.

9 Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 122 N. C. 1; 29 S. E. 55 (in this case the contract was invalid, as neither in writing nor for necessaries).

10 Crow v. Shacklett (Ky.), 38 S. W. 692.

11 Rawlings v. Neal, 126 N. C. 271; 35 S. E. 597.

1 Hiekey v. Thompson, 52 Ark. 234; 12 S. W. 475; Camden v. Mullen, 29 Cal. 564; Wallace v. Rowley, 91 Ind. 586; Eskridge v. Carter (Ky.), 29 S. W. 748; Clark v. Manko, 80 Md. 78; 30 Atl. 621.

2 Eskridge v. Carter (Ky.), 29 S. W. 748.

3 Reed v. Newcomb, 64 Vt. 49; 23 Atl. 589.

4 First National Bank v. Hirsch. kowitz, - Fla. - ; 35 So. 22.

5 Clarke v. Manko, 80 Md. 78; 30 Atl. 621.

6 Union, etc., Bank v. Coffman, 101 Ia. 594 70 N. W. 693.