The power of a married woman to make a valid contract, though she has no sepa rate estate, was upheld in Harrington v. Lowe, 73 Kan. 11, 84 Pac. 570, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 547, and note, in which the cases are collected and the conclusion reached that the weight of authority is that statutes which confer the right on married women to con tract with respect to their separate estates, do not confer the right to contract generally. A paper indorsed to enable her husband to raise money does not charge her property; Levi v. Earl, 30 Ohio St. where there is an exhaustive examination of the subject. For extreme cases, see Deering v. Boyle, 8 Kan. 525, 12 Am. Rep. 480; Wicks v. Mitch ell, 9 Kan. 80; Metropolitan Bank of St. Louis v. Taylor, 62 Mo. 338. See a full dis cussion of the effect of these statutes con ferring contractual power upon a married woman; ,Stew. H. & W. §§ 369, 378 a.
Where a married woman performs her part of a contract, she may enforce per formance against the other party, though she could not have been compelled to per form her part of the agreement ; Sanguinett v. Webster, 127 Mo. 32, 29 S. W. 698; and if she made a contract, not enforceable against her, to purchase real estate and fail to pay for the same, it may be sold for the unpaid purchase money ; Blanz v. Bain, 95 Tenn. 87, 31 S. W. 159. In some states provision is made for a conveyance of laud by a married woman, abandoned by her husband, under permission of court or otherwise; and under such statute it has been held that, having conveyed without compliance with the stat ute, she may not rescind the deed long after wards, on account of coverture, without re turning the consideration; Gray v. Shaw, 30 S. W. 402, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 61.
The common-law disabilities of a married woman could not be avoided by any false representations with respect to her capacity, and no estoppel would be raised thereby ; Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. 299, 80 Am. Dec. 524; Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 96 ; Lowell v. Daniels, 2 Gray (Mass.) 161, 61 Am. Dec. 448; but in the management of her separate property she would be answerable for the frauds of her agent, within the scope of his agency, though she were ignorant of it; Baum v. Muller, 47 N. Y. 577. The disabili ties of a married woman are her personal privilege, and must be pleaded; Hubert v.
Fera, 99 Mass. 199, 96 Am. Dec. 732. See COVERVukCE. And no one but the husband can object to a suit against him by the wife, so that a judgment against a firm of which he is a member is good if he do not himself raise the defence; Freiler v. Kear, 126 Pa. 470, 17
Atl. 668, 906, 3 L. R. A. 839. Her common law disability is not removed by the so-called married woman's acts which operate only to give her such capacity as is expressed in them; McFerran v. Kinney, 22 Mo. App. 554; Norton v. Meader, 4 Sawy. 604, Fed. Cas. No. 10,351; Canal Bank v. Partee, 99 U. S. 325, 25 L. Ed. 390; Stephenson v. Osborne, 41 Miss. 125, 90 Am. Dec. 358 ; Avery v. Doane, 1 Bias. 64, Fed. Cas. No. 673; and where such statutes authorize her to contract as though single, she is bound by estoppel aris ing from her misrepresentation or conceal ment; Towles v. Fisher, 77 N. C. 437; God frey v. Thornton, 46 Wis. 677, 1 N. W. 362; or by the acts of her husband ; Hackett v. Bailey, 86 III. 74; Upsbaw v. Gibson, 53 Miss. 344. Where such estoppel operates, it is only in respect to her personal estate; Wood v. Terry, 30 Ark. 393; but the weight of authority is against sustaining estoppel against her ; 2 L. R. A. 345, n., where are collected cases of common-law disabilities of a married woman and estoppel against her. The rigor of the common-law disabil ities of a married woman and the merger of her individual and property rights in her husband gave rise to certain equitable reme dies against her husband, intended to secure at least a portion of her property to the use of herself and her children. As to the char acter and extent of these rights, see Wife's Equity, subtit. infra.
As a general rule, a contract made be tween parties who subsequently interqarry is, both at law and in equity, extinguished by the marriage; 1 Bla. Com. 442; but when articles are entered into or a settle ment is executed whereby the wife is to have a certain provision in lieu of her for tune; the husband becomes virtually a pur chaser of her fortune, and she becomes en titled to her provision, though there may be no intervention of trustees, and equity will enforce the contract; 2 Ves. Sen. 675; Husbands, on Married Women 125; MAR RIAGE SETTLEMENT.
At common law a married woman was personally liable jointly with her husband for her torts unless committed under the coercion of her husband ; Appeal of Frank lin's Adm'r, 115 Pa. 534, 6 Atl. 70, 2 Am. St. Rep. 583; Southworth v. Kimball, 58 Vt. 337, 2 Atl. 120. The death of the wife terminated the liability of the husband, but if the hus band died the wife might be sued alone; Appeal of Franklin's Adm'r, 115 Pa. 534, 6 Atl. 70, 2 Am. St. Rep. 583.