Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James Scott, Respondent, v. Sarah G. Conway, Appellant, 1874 — 58 N.Y. 619 · caselaw · US
Administrative
James Scott, Respondent, v. Sarah G. Conway, Appellant
58 N.Y. 619·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James Scott, Respondent, v. Sarah G. Conway, Appellant.
(Submitted May 17, 1874;
decided June 9, 1874.)
A married woman apparently carrying on a separate business is held -to the truth of the appearance. If she has a dormant partner she cannot interpose this as a defence in an action against her by one who dealt with her in ignorance of the partnership. Nor is the rule changed by the fact that the dormant partner is her husband. (Johnson, J., Chubch, Ch. J., and Allen, J., concurring.)
This was an action to recover for labor and materials.
The defendant and Frederic B. Conway, her husband, carried on a theater under the name of “ Mrs. F. B. Conway’s Brooklyn Theater,” and were jointly interested therein. ■■ The plaintiff furnished bill boards for the theater. He was ignorant, until after the commencement of the action, that any one, save defendant, had an interest in the business. Held, as above.
James Troy for the appellant.
Joseph M. Pray for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Johnson, J.,]
Johnson, J.,
reads for affirmance; Church, Ch. J., and Grover, J., concur; Allen, J., concurs in result.
Rapallo and Andrews, JJ., dissent; Folger, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.