Notes of Recent Cases, result occurred through pure chance, as de fined, and that it did not proceed from the possession of superior information or the exercise of greater judgment or skill? MARRIED WOMEN. WITH HUSBAND.)
(BUSINESS
PARTNERSHIP
IOWA SUPREME COURT.
That a married woman, at least in her business relations with third persons, is slowly recovering her identity and emerg ing as a separate individual from the com posite and fictitious personage which, under the common law, was created by marriage, is indicated by Hoaglin v. С. М. Henderson & Co., 94 Northwestern Reporter 247. This is an Iowa case, and the statute of that State gives married women the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property and make con tracts and incur liabilities as if unmarried, and their legal powers and rights are other wise extended by statute. Under these pro visions it is held that a married woman may enter into a business partnership with her husband. The court takes the view that in asmuch as the common law disability of a married woman to contract has been re moved by statute, almost any ordinary con tract may be made by a married woman with her husband. In this connection it is pointed out that it is not open to question that a wife may become a surety for her husband and be liable generally on such contract of suretyship, may become the gen eral creditor of her husband, may be joint owner of property with him, and may be his agent or make him her agent in the transaction of business. From these facts the court's argument is convincing that in asmuch as the essential characteristics of a partnership are the joint ownership of property and authority of each part ner to bind the other by his acts with reference to the partnership property and to impose partnership liability on the other, and as these relations may be separately sustained between husband and wife as just pointed out, there is no reason why they may not be collectively created by entering into and carrying on the relation involved
857
in the formation of the entity known as a partnership. The only objection, says the court, which occurs to us is that involved in the denial of the capacity of husband or wife to maintain a suit against the other. Inas much, however, as the wife's right to con tract with the husband was now unques tionably established, the inability to maintain a suit cannot be regarded as preventing the formation of the partnership. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (PERSONAL LIABILITY OF OFFICERS FOR DAMAGE.) ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.
A rather interesting case is that of Gage v. Springer, 71 Northeastern Reporter 860, which was an action on the case brought by a property owner against certain mem bers of a village board of local improve ments. The questions involved arose out of the ac tion of the lower court in sustaining a de murrer to the declaration, which alleged that plaintiff's property was specially assessed to pay for a certain improvement, which, by the ordinance providing for the same, was to be caried out in a particular manner by the use of materials of a certain quantity and quality, and which was to be done under the supervision of the board of improve ments. Defendants, who constituted a majority of the board of improvements, colluded and conspired with the contractor and unlawfully permitted him to construct the improvement in a different, inferior and cheaper manner than was provided for by the ordinance, and in violation of their duty accepted such cheaper improvement as a compliance with the terms of the ordinance, and issued to the contractor bonds largely in excess of the contract price of the im provement. Damage to plaintiff's property resulting from depreciation in value, the Supreme Court held that under the facts stated in the petition defendants were indi vidually liable to plaintiff for the damages sustained. In so holding the court said in part: "The failure of a public officer to perform a public duty can constitute an individual wrong only when some person can show that in the pub
