Taylor v. Slater

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Taylor v. Slater

31 A. 165, 18 R.I. 797, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 13

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 5, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A. 165 (Taylor v. Slater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Slater, 31 A. 165, 18 R.I. 797, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 13 (R.I. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 1201, of May 26, 1893, the disabilities of married women were removed, and married women were, for the most part, put on the • footing of unmarried women. They may make contracts and subject their property to liability for their debts in-the same circumstances and with the same effect as if they had continued sole and unmarried. This being so, there is no longer any necessity for a married woman having occasion to sue her husband and others in equity to proceed by a next friend instead of proceeding directly herself. Having-been put by the statute on the footing of a single woman, and there being no longer any necessity for the intervention of a next friénd, we think that a married woman is bound to *798 sue in such a case in the same manner as a single woman would be required to do ; that is, directly, and not through a next friend. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the present bill was improperly brought by the complainant by her next friend, instead of by herself directly. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Edward D. Bassett, for complainant. Charles P. Robinson, for respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

By Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 1201, of May 26, 1893, the disabilities of married women were removed, and married women were, for the most part, put on the • footing of unmarried women. They may make contracts and subject their property to liability for their debts in-the same circumstances and with the same effect as if they had continued sole and unmarried. This being so, there is no longer any necessity for a married woman having occasion to sue her husband and others in equity to proceed by a next friend instead of proceeding directly herself. Having-been put by the statute on the footing of a single woman, and there being no longer any necessity for the intervention of a next friénd, we think that a married woman is bound to *798 sue in such a case in the same manner as a single woman would be required to do ; that is, directly, and not through a next friend. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the present bill was improperly brought by the complainant by her next friend, instead of by herself directly. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Edward D. Bassett, for complainant. Charles P. Robinson, for respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 165, 18 R.I. 797, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-slater-ri-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack