A voluntary gift of personal property by a husband to another, although depriving his wife of her right to a share therein, cannot be set aside as a fraud against her ; Hall v. Hall, 109 Va. 117, 63 S. E. 420, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533; Robertson v. Robertson, 147 Ala. 311, 40 South. 104, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774, and note, 10 Ann. Cas. 1051.
Threats of prosecution and imprisonment against her husband constitute duress suffi cient to make void the deed or contract of a married woman ; Central Bank of Fred erick v. Copeland, 18 Md. 305, 81 Am. Dec. 597 ; First Nat. Bank of Nevada v. Bryan, 62 Ia. 42, 17 N. W. 165 ; Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 57 N. W. 101, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524; City Nat. Bank of Dayton v. Kus worm, 88 Wis. 188, 59 N. W. 564, 26 L. R. A. 48, 43 Am. Rep. 880 ; 62 L. T. (N. S.) 376.
Generally it is held that a married woman cannot become a partner with her husband, even under statutes which would authorize her to enter into partnership with any one else ; Fairlee v. Bloomingdale, 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 292 ; Miller v. Marx, 65 Tex. 131; Montgomery v. Sprankle, 31 Ind. 113 ; Payne v. Thompson, 44 Ohio St. 192, 5 N. E. 654 ; Board of Trade of City of Seattle v. Hayden, 4 Wash. 263, 30 Pac. 87, 32 Pac. 224, 16 L. R. A. 530, 31 Am. St. Rep. 919 ; contra, In re Kinkead, 3 Biss. 405, Fed. Cas. No. 7,824; Schlapback v. Long, 90 Ala. 525, 8 South. 113 ; Suau v. Caffe, 122 N. Y. 308, 25 N. E. 488, 9 L. R. A. 593 (see as to conflicting New York cases 16 L. R. A. 526, note) ; nor ordi narily with any one else; De Graum v. Jones, 23 Fla. 83, 6 South. 925 ; Bradstreet v. Baer, 41 Md. 19 ; if she have no separate estate; Dunifer v. Jecko, 87 Mo. 282. If, without capacity to become a partner, she does so, the property remains hers and the husband cannot assign it; Howard v. Stephens, 52 Miss. 239 ; nor can his creditors ; Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195 ; Danforth v. Woods, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 9. Where her partnership is a nullity the other partner may be sued alone ; Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 43 Am. Rep. 790. Where her husband borrows her separate property and uses it in a firm, she is the creditor of the firm ; Huffman v. Copeland, 86 Ind. 224; Fox v. Johnson, 4 Del. Ch. 580; and her debt is provable in bankruptcy; Danforth v. Woods, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 9. If a married woman carries on a business under the assumed name of a partnership she may be sued in that name, and cannot plead her coverture ; Le Grand v. Bank, 81 Ala. 123, 1 South. 460, 60 Am.
Rep. 140; nor can her co-partners deny her capacity to sue alone for a dissolution ; Bit ter v. Rathman, 61 N. Y. 512. As to mar ried women as partners, see, generally, 2 L. R. A. 343, note ; 32 Cent. L. J. 128 ; 31 Am. St. Rep. 934, note; and as to partnerships between husband and wife, see 16 L. R. A. 526, note ; 35 Cent. L. J. 328 ; 24 Am. L. Reg. 659.
See PARTNERSHIP.
The capacity of a married woman to be come surety or guarantor will depend upon the construction of the statute; and the ques tions most frequently' arise with respect to efforts to become surety for the husband. In some states' this is expressly forbidden, and the prohibition has been held to prevent her from mortgaging her real estate to one who is surety for her husband or co-surety with hlin ; McNeil v. Davis, 105 Ala. 657, 17 South. 101.
In others, it has been held that the power, not being expressly given, is not possessed, as it is not required for the complete enjoy ment of the separate estate ; Bank of Com merce, Ltd. v. Baldwin, 14 Idaho, 75, 93 Pac. 504, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 676 and not on her power to become surety for one, other her husband.
In other states she may bind her separate estate as surety for her husband ; William son v. Cline, 40 W. Va. 194, 20 S. E. 917 ; Watts Gantt, 42 Neb. 869, 61 N. W. 104 ; and where she makes a valid contract as surety she is entitled to all the rights of a surety ; Filler v., Tyler, 91 Va. 458, 22 S. E. 235.
An assignment by a married woman of her separate estate to pay a note in which she has been joined with her husband for his debt has been held void ; Livingston v. Shingler, 30 S. C. 159, 8 S. E. 842. Mort gages by a wife of her separate estate for the husband's benefit have been held null and void; Lippincott v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 767, 24 L. Ed. 315 ; Goodjoin v. Vaughn, 32 S. C. 499, 11 S. E. 351; contra, Kaiser v. Stickney, 3 MacArthur (D. C.) 118; Brod nax v. Ins. Co., 128 U. S. 236, 9 Sup. Ct. 61, a L. Ed. 445 ; Wells v. Foster, 64 N. H. 585, 15 Atl. 216 ; Hagenbuch v. Phillips, 112 Pa. 284, 3 Atl. 788.
A woman cannot after discoverture ratify by a new promise a debt for which she was not originally liable ; Gilbert v. Brown, 123 Ky. 703, 97 S. W. 40, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1248, 7