Maloof v. Acornley

I concur with the reasoning and the result of the principal opinion. To avoid misunderstanding, however, it should be made clear that the opinion does not suggest that the provisions of all statutes may be avoided by waiver or estoppel.

The act relating to married women’s certificates, like Gen. Laws, ch. 110, sec. 5 which requires the recording of a name assumed for the transaction of business (Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 583) is one of limited purpose. *72Kolas v. LaRochelle, 270 Mass. 49, 54. cf McLearn v. Hill, 276 Mass. 519, 525. It deals only with the rights of certain creditors…