There is a lack of harmony on the question of whether husband and wife can act as partners with each other, due in part to differences in statutory provisions and in part to differences in determining the legal effect of similar statutes. A married woman may be a partner of her husband in business under statutes authorizing her to contract as if she were unmarried.1 A statute authorizing her to contract with reference to her separate estate specifically providing that she may contract with her husband allows her to form a partnership with him.2 Under a statute allowing her to contract with others than her husband as if she were unmarried, and forbidding her to become his surety except by a mortgage it is held that she can incur liability to third persons as his partner.3 Under statutes authorizing her to contract with reference to her separate estate, she cannot enter into a partnership with her husband.4 From the cases cited

N. W. 353. See the dissenting opinion in this case. To the same effect see National Granite Bank v. Whicher, 173 Mass. 517; 73 Am. St. Rep. 317; 53 N. E. 1004 (also on a note).

42 Poole v. Burnham 105 Ia. 620; 75 N. W. 474. (Under a statute providing that if either husband or wife owned property the other had no interest therein which could be contracted for.)

43 Corse v. Reticker, 95 Ia. 25; 58 Am. St. Rep. 421; 63 N. W. 461 (a contract by a wife to board prisoners for her husband, who had the care of them).

44 Dunham v. Bentley, 103 Ia. 136; 72 N. W. 437.

1 Burney v. Grocery Co., 98 Ga. 711; 58 Am. St. Rep. 342; 25 S. E. 915; Hoaglin v. Henderson, 119 Ia. 720; 97 Am. St. Rep. 335; 61 L. R. A. 756; 94 N. W. 247; Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Alexander (Ky.), 27 S. W. 981; Snell v. Stone, 23 Or. 327; 31 Pac. 663.

2 Belser v. Banking Co., 105 Ala. 514; 17 So. 40.

3 Lane v. Bishop, 65 Vt. 575; 27 Atl. 499.

4 Gilkerson, etc., Co. v. Salinger, 56 Ark. 294; 35 Am. St. Rep. 105; 16 L. R. A. 526; 19 S. W. 747; Barit will be seen that this view is taken by states that allow a husband and wife to make contracts with reference to her separate estate,5 and by those which hold that a married woman may bind her separate estate by her contracts as effectually as her husband can bind his ;6 as well as by states which restrict her power under the statute to contracts intended for the management and benefit of her estate.7 His management of her farm does not constitute a partnership, however ;8 nor does their leasing a hotel together and buying furniture.9 A statute giving her the power to contract as a feme sole and providing that she should have the same powers in law as her husband does not authorize her to form a partnership with him. She is not liable to third persons as a partner.10 A statute making her personally liable on debts incurred in her own name does not authorize her to form a partnership with her husband.11 Under statutes allowing her to conduct business on her sole and separate account she cannot form a partnership with her husband.12 low Bros. Co. v. Parsons, 73 Conn. 696; 49 Atl. 205; Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384; 46 Am. Rep. 607; Scarlett v. Snodgrass, 92 Ind. 262; Lord v. Parker, 3 All. (Mass.) 127; Lord v. Davison, 3 All. (Mass.) 131; Edwards v. Stevens, 3 All. (Mass.) 315; Palmer v. Lord, 5 All. (Mass.) 460; Bowker v. Bradford, 140 Mass. 521; 5 N. E. 480; Artman v. Ferguson, 73 Mick. 146; 16 Am. St. Rep. 572; 2 L. R. A. 343; 40 N. W. 907; Speier v. Opfer, 73 Mick. 35; 16 Am. St. Rep. 556; 2 L. R. A. 345; 40 N. W. 909; Bassett v. Shepardson, 52 Mich. 3; 17 N. W. 217; Payne v. Thompson, 44 O. S. 192; 5 N. E. 654; Weisiger v. Wood, 36 S. C. 424; 15 S. E. 597; Gwynn v. Gwynn, 27 S. C. 525; 4 S. E. 229; Cox v. Miller, 54 Tex. 16; Seattle Board of Trade v. Hayden, 4 Wash. 263; 31 Am. St. Rep. 919; 16 L. R. A. 530; 30 Pac. 87; 32 Pac. 224: Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571; 43 Am. Rep. 790; Fuller, etc., Co. v. Mc-

Henry, 83 Wis. 573; 18 L. R. A. 512; 53 N. W. 896.

5 Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384; 46 Am. Rep. 607.

6 Payne v. Thompson, 44 O. S. 192; 5 N. E. 654.

7 Fuller, etc., Co. v. McHenry, 83 Wis. 573; 18 L. R. A. 512; 53 N. W. 896.

8 Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204; 37 Am. Rep. 817; 8 N. W. 241.

9 Wineman v. Phillips, 93 Mick. 223; 53 N. W. 168.

10 Seattle Board of Trade v. Hay-den, 4 Wash. 263; 31 Am. St. Rep. 919; 16 L. R. A. 530; 32 Pac. 224; 30 Pac. 87.

11 Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 542; 41 L. R. A. 362; 40 Atl. 561.

12 Gilkerson, etc., Co. v. Salenger, 56 Ark. 294; 35 Am. St. Rep. 105; 16 L. R. A. 526; 19 S. W. 747; Lord v. Parker, 3 All. (Mass.) 127. Contra, Suau v. Caffe, 122 X. Y. 308; 9 L. R. A. 593; 25 N. E. 488.

As partners are principals, and not sureties each for the other, a statute forbidding a wife to act as surety for her husband does not of itself prevent them from acting as partners.13