Guttmann v. Scannell

Citations

• 7 Cal. 455

Syllabus

<p>In an action brought by a married woman concerning property belonging to her as a sole trader, under the act of 1852, the husband need not be joined.</p> <p>So far from forbidding, the law, by the plainest implication, intends that the capital invested by the wife as a sole trader, to the extent of five thousand dollars, may be furnished by the husband.</p> <p>If the husband at the time was embarrassed, the transfer, as to his creditors, would be fraudulent and void.</p> <p>The act does not confine sole traders to any particular trade or occupation, nor prohibit the husband from being employed by, or acting for, his wife in the business.</p> <p>The fact that the business was unsuited to the sex of the wife, and the employment of the husband therein, would be circumstantial evidence tending to establish fraud, but not conclusive evidence of it.</p> <p>Per Burnett, J., dissenting.—The act of 1852, was designed to secure the rights of the wife as the owner of separate property, and only carries out the intention of the Constitution, which bestows upon the wife the full capacity to own separate property. The act nowhere says that the property employed by the wife as a sole trader, may be furnished by the husband, and, if so, protected from his creditors. The third section substantially declares that the property invested in the wife’s business, must be her separate property.</p> <p>The fact that the former business of the husband is continued and conducted by him as the agent of his wife, is so pregnant with suspicion, that it should be held conclusive evidence of fraud.</p>