This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1837 edition. Excerpt: ...of her paraphernal property'! She undoubtedly can, with the consent of her husband. Louisiana Code, article 2367. With his consent, she is even permitted to dispose of her property gratuitously. Ibid., 1467. But, it will be said, that when she alienates her property for the benefit of, or in relation to obligations contracted by her husband, she becomes incapable, under article 2412. How does she become incapable'! Are not married women capable of contracting, unless specially declared incapable by law, and are there no means of removing the incapacity of the wife'! Ibid., articles 1775, I779, 1784. This last article shows the incapacity of the wife only in relation to her becoming security for her husband. Well, in this case, do we consider her as security; did she become in any way obligated to the defendant'! Do we seek to enforce any contract of suretyship'! What is the definition of suretyship'! Ibid., article 3004. Can it be said that she is without this definition'! No; the only obligation that we seek to enforce against her is an obligation not to do, and not an obligation to pay us any thing, either for herself or for another. The stipulation contained in the act of mortgage is nothing but an alienation of her paraphernal rights, so 'far as they may be conflicting with the rights of the defendant; it is a simple renunciation to her priority ofmortgage, and this is certainly warranted by law. The ancient laws of the land, under which the case of Treme vs. Lanaux, 4 Martin, N. S. 230, was decided, were as severe as the new ones in relation to engagements of married women for their husbands, (2 Martin, N. S. 39. 5 Ibid., 431. 7 lbid., 252. 8 Ibid., 415) and still this court has...