VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Patricia Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 May 2002 10:00:02 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Watkinson
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 5/9/2002 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: free trader

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.

Pat Watkinson
Women's History
Randolph-Macon College and Library of Virginia


-----Original Message-----
From: Virginia E Hench
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 5/8/2002 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: free trader

On Wed, 8 May 2002, James Hershman wrote:
>
> According to an attorney currently practicing in Bladen County, the
term "free
> trader" means that the husband is granting the wife the privilege of
conveying
> or mortgaging property without his signature. The husband is dropping
dower
> rights, called in the 19th century, "dower and courtesy".

        Hi Jim - You are right about "free trader." The husband is
        giving the wife the right to engage in buying and selling
without
        her having to get his written permission each time.

        A husband did not have "dower" rights.  Only wives had dower
        rights.

        A husband's rights in his wife's property were known as
        "curtesy" (not "courtesy". That had to do with interests that
        were inchoate during the wife's lifetime and became vested at
        her death.


        The husband who gave his wife "free trader" status may well have
        given up his curtesy interest, but while these issues overlap,
        they are not coextensive.


        Virginia Hench (law prof)

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US