Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Story Of Reynolds V. United States: Federal "Hell Hounds" Punishing Mormon Treason, Martha M. Ertman
The Story Of Reynolds V. United States: Federal "Hell Hounds" Punishing Mormon Treason, Martha M. Ertman
Faculty Scholarship
Part of the “Law Stories” series published by Foundation Press, this chapter in Family Law Stories tells the back story of the 1878 US Supreme Court case Reynolds v. U.S.. While the case held that Mormon polygamy was not protected as the free exercise of religion, this chapter shifts our focus away from sex and religion and toward the Court’s language linking Mormon polygamy with “Asiatic and African” peoples as well as political despotism. This close examination of the historical record shows that 19th century concerns about Mormon separatism – commercial, social and political separatism as well was religious – …
In Good Times And In Debt: The Evolution Of Marital Agency And The Meaning Of Marriage, Marie T. Reilly
In Good Times And In Debt: The Evolution Of Marital Agency And The Meaning Of Marriage, Marie T. Reilly
Journal Articles
A married person sometimes acts solely for herself and at other times on behalf of her spouse. If she incurs debt solely for herself, then only she is liable to the creditor. If, however, she incurs debt both for herself and on behalf of her spouse, both are liable – the debtor directly and the spouse indirectly by imputed liability. Before married women’s property reform, imputed marital liability followed from marital status. As marriage changed to recognize the legal individuality of both spouses, so too did the scope of a spouse’s imputed liability for the debts of the other spouse. …
In Good Times And In Debt: The Evolution Of Marital Agency And The Meaning Of Marriage, Marie T. Reilly
In Good Times And In Debt: The Evolution Of Marital Agency And The Meaning Of Marriage, Marie T. Reilly
Marie T. Reilly
A married person sometimes acts solely for herself and at other times on behalf of her spouse. If she incurs debt solely for herself, then only she is liable to the creditor. If, however, she incurs debt both for herself and on behalf of her spouse, both are liable – the debtor directly and the spouse indirectly by imputed liability. Before married women’s property reform, imputed marital liability followed from marital status. As marriage changed to recognize the legal individuality of both spouses, so too did the scope of a spouse’s imputed liability for the debts of the other spouse. …