Whipple v. Giles

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Whipple v. Giles

55 N.H. 139, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 51

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMarch 11, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 N.H. 139 (Whipple v. Giles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whipple v. Giles, 55 N.H. 139, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 51 (N.H. 1875).

Pincite

Opinions

Contracts of Married Women. It is settled that the common-law disability of a married woman to bind herself by contract is not removed by statute in this state, except so far as regards her contracts respecting property which she holds in her own right. That was so decided in Bailey v. Pearson, 29 N.H. 77, upon the statute of 1846, which was not materially different from Gen. Stats., ch. 164, sec. 13, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed since. This seems to me quite decisive of the present case. There is no just sense in which a contract by a married woman for the services of an attorney in procuring for her a divorce can be said to be a contract respecting her separate property, even if she had such property, which does not here appear. I think the action cannot be maintained.

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

Contracts of Married Women. It is settled that the common-law disability of a married woman to bind herself by contract is not removed by statute in this state, except so far as regards her contracts respecting property which she holds in her own right. That was so decided in Bailey v. Pearson, 29 N.H. 77, upon the statute of 1846, which was not materially different from Gen. Stats., ch. 164, sec. 13, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed since. This seems to me quite decisive of the present case. There is no just sense in which a contract by a married woman for the services of an attorney in procuring for her a divorce can be said to be a contract respecting her separate property, even if she had such property, which does not here appear. I think the action cannot be maintained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.H. 139, 1875 N.H. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whipple-v-giles-nh-1875.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack