In a message dated 5/9/02 10:11:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< The "free trader" designation sounds like it corresponds to the "femme
 sole" designation used in countries like Britain, France and Germany
 during the Early Modern period.  Once the husband appeared in court and
 agreed to allow his wife to buy and sell property or run a business by
 herself (like a single woman), not only did she not need his written
 permission for transactions, but he couldn't be held liable for her
 business debts.  I would imagine that the free trader status protected
 the husband in the same way.
  >>
It is difficult to discuss the rights of women to contract without reference
to a specific date because the law has been in such flux for over 150 years.
Before the Married Womans Act in 1900, a husband could release his wife by
contract for certain purposes but the term "free trader" is not used in any
legal context. It is not a euphemism for the term femme sole which referred
generally to an unmarried woman to indicate for purposes of title that
curtsey did not attach. It was a common designation in Virginia prior to the
abolishment of dower and curtsey. The term was also used when a married woman
wished to acquire property in her own name and prevent the attachment of
curtsey. In that case, it was necessary to also describe her interest as "her
sole and separate equitable estate." I don't have the original email, but I
don't believe the questioner set out the details of how the term was used. I
suggest we are on the wrong tack.
_____________________________________________________________________ Richard
E. Dixon
Attorney at Law
4122 Leonard Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-691-0770
fax 703-691-0978
______________________________________________________________________

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html