Bradstreet v. Baer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
The appellants carried on the business of a mercantile agency. On the 8th of August, 1872, the appellee, doing business in Baltimore and Philadelphia, under the name of Arthur P. Baor & Co., signed an instrument of writing, whereby he agreed, in consideration of certain services to be performed by the appellants from the 1st of January, 1878, to the 1st of January, 1874, to pay for those services the sum of $150, in advance on the 1st of January, 1873. This action was…
Read the full summary
The appellants carried on the business of a mercantile agency. On the 8th of August, 1872, the appellee, doing business in Baltimore and Philadelphia, under the name of Arthur P. Baor & Co., signed an instrument of writing, whereby he agreed, in consideration of certain services to be performed by the appellants from the 1st of January, 1878, to the 1st of January, 1874, to pay for those services the sum of $150, in advance on the 1st of January, 1873. This action was brought by tbe appellants to recover the sum so agreed to be paid by tbe appellee. The declaration was a special one and fully…
1Opinion of the CourtGrason, J.
The only question which we deem it necessary to consider on this appeal is, whether a married woman can enter into a co-partnershijj under our statutes. It is manifest that at the common law she possessed no such power, but that she was under such disabilities as to prevent her entering into any contract which would legally bind her. Although these disabilities have, in a measure, been removed b)r legislative enactments, so as to secure to her sole and separate use the property she may have at the time of her marriage, or may acquire thereafter by purchase, gift, grant, devise,' bequest, or…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fuller & Fuller Co. v. McHenryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Cruzen v. McKaigCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Davis v. CarrollCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
- Muller v. StemmlerNew York Marine Court · 1874
- Schneider v. GarlandDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1882