¶1The evidence in the statement on appeal is objected to as a transcript of the stenographer’s notes by question and answer, and no reason is given why it is in that condition. Such a record we will not consider. (Newell v. Meyendorff, 9 Mont. 254; 18 Am. St. Rep. 746, and cases there collated.) The findings will therefore be presumed to be supported by the evidence. Whether the Married Woman’s Emancipation Act, March 3, 1887, does away with the necessity for her to comply with the Sole Trader’s or Separate Property Act, we are not now called upon to decide. This plaintiff did avail herself of the Sole Trader’s Act. As to the question of law that the plaintiff’s property was protected from her husband’s creditors by virtue of her invoking the Sole Trader’s Act, without relying upon the Separate Property Act, that is not an open proposition in this court. Shed v. Blakely, 6 Mont. 247, is conclusive, and on that authority this judgment is affirmed.
10 Mont. 57
Barger v. Halford
Decided July 15, 1890
Montana Supreme Court · decided 1890-07-15
Judgment in replevin was rendered for plaintiff below by Galbraith, J. Statement of facts, prepared by the judge delivering the opinion. It appears from the pleadings that plaintiff was a married woman. On July 8, 1889, she filed in the proper office a declaration of her intention to do business as a sole trader. The law is found in sections 1433-1438, division 5, Compiled Statutes.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1895
2 state decisions
Relies on Newell v. Meyendorff · Shed v. Blakely
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-07-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →