The plaintiff seeks to make the defendant, who is a married woman, not carrying on any trade or business, and not having any separate estate of her own, liable for some household furniture which he sold and delivered to her. So far as this claim rests upon the statutes of this State respecting married women, I think it cannot be supported. It was not pretended on the argument but that down to the passage of the Act of 1862 (Laws of 1862, p. 343) the authorities were against the defendant’s liability (Barton v. Beer, 21 How. Pr. R. 309 ; Brown v. Herman, 14 Abb. Pr. B. 394), but it was
This disposes of the only question in the case.
The trial seems to have been conducted and decided below, upon the theory that the liability of the defendant must depend entirely upon the statute. The proof, although I imagine from the evidence given that the defects could have been supplied, was not sufficient to fully present the point, and therefore it is unnecessary to discuss whether a case might not have been made in which the defendant could have been held liable at common law (see a review of many of the authorities in Gregory v. Paul, 15 Mass. 31).
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.