FEME SOLE TRADER. A married wo man, who, by the custom of London, trades on her own account, independently of her husband; so called, because, with respect to her trading, she is the same as a feme sole. Jacob, Diet. ; 1 Cro. 63 ; 3 Keb. 902; 2 Bish. M. W. § 528. The custom was recognized as common law in South Carolina, but did not extend beyond trading in merchandise; Mc Daniel v. Cornwell, 1 Hill (S. C.) 429; New biggin v. Pillans, 2 Bay (S. C.) 164; under it a woman could not be a feme sole carrier ; Ewart v. Nagel, 1 McMullan (S. C.) 50. By statute in sevetal states a similar custom is recognized; thus in Pennsylvania, by act of Feb. 22, 1718, the wives of mariners who had gone to sea were recognized as feme sole traders when engaged in any work for their livelihood, and by act of May 4, 1855, the benefits of this act are extended to all those wives whose husbands, from drunkenness, profligacy, or other cause, neglect or refuse to provide for them, or desert them; 2 P. & L. Dig. 2895. By the latter act she may make application to the court of common pleas and obtain a decree and certificate that she is authorized to do business under said act ; id. The act is remedial, and to be construed be nignly ; Black v. Tricker, 59 Pa. 13; Peo ple's Say. Bank v. Denig, 131 Pa. 241, 18 Atl. 1083. She may convey her real estate by deed in which her husband does not join ; El sey' v. McDaniel, 95 Pa. 472. The husband is liable for necessaries. Actual residence with her husband does not take away her privileges under the act ; Appeal of Ewing, 101 Pa. 371; and so in South Carolina ; New
briggin v. Pillans, 2 Bay 162.
In North Carolina the doctrine has been rejected; McKinnon v. McDonald, 57 N. C. 1, 72 Am. Dec. 574. In an appeal from the District, of Columbia it was said that "the law seems to be settled that when a wife, left by her husband, without maintenance and support, has traded as a feats sole, and has obtained credit as such, she ought to be lia ble for her debts," whether the husband was banished for crime or abandoned her ; but her deed of real estate acquired while a feme sole trader was held void; Rhea v. Rhenuer, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 105, 7 L. Ed. 72. In California under a sole trader act, excluding from the benefits of the act a married woman carrying on business in her own name, but managed by her husband, it was held that she could not escape liability as sole trader on the ground that she permitted such management ; Port er v..Gamba, 43 Cal. 105. See Swett v. Pen rice, 24 Miss. 416.
A married woman, authorized by statute to carry on trade on her sole and separate ac count, is liable on a note given for property purchased for business purposes ; the power to make contracts in such business implies the right to conduct it by the means usually employed ; Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 93; Frecking v. Rolland, id. 422 ; Noel v. Kinney, 106 N. Y. 74, 12 N. E. 351, 60 Am. Rep. 423.
See, generally, Husb. Married Women, c. xi.; 2 Bish. M. W. c. xlii.