The defendant Frances Chandler appeals a judgment holding her jointly and severally liable with her husband for payments due on a promissory note that only her husband signed. We reverse.
The defendant Frederick Chandler bought a used van from the plaintiff. Mr. Chandler financed the purchase by signing a promissory note in which he promised to pay the plaintiff $72.08 per month for eighteen months. Mrs. Chandler did not participate in the purchase of the van, nor did she sign the note. However, Mr. Chandler registered the van in Mrs. Chandler’s name. Soon after Mr. Chandler acquired possession of the van, parts of the van began to malfunction, causing Mr. Chandler to spend substantial sums for repairs. After eight months, Mr. Chandler no longer could afford to make the repairs necessary to keep the van operating. At this point, he ceased making monthly payments to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued both Mr. and Mrs. Chandler to recover the balance due on the promissory note, and the trial court found the defendants jointly and severally liable. Mrs. Chandler claims that the trial court incorrectly held her liable with her husband on the note.
In holding Mrs. Chandler liable on a note signed by her husband, the trial court apparently applied the old common law legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person for most legal purposes. At common law, the legal existence of a wife was suspended during the marriage and was merged into that of her husband. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 442-45. Thus, under common law, a wife could not sue anyone for a tort committed against her without her husband’s consent ; neither could she be sued for committing a tort without
*304
having her husband joined as a defendant.
*
Id.
at 443. In courts of law all contracts entered into or deeds executed by a married woman were void, and in courts of equity, a wife’s contracts were enforced only if they involved her own separate estate.
Id.
at 443-44;
First National Bank
v.
Bertoli,
Happily, the legal status of married women has improved in this century. Many modern statutes have abrogated the fictitious unity of husband and wife, and have attempted to accord wives legal rights equal to those of their husbands. Thus, a married woman in Vermont now may enter into contracts, 15 V.S.A. § 61, sue and be sued on such contracts without joining her husband as a party,
id.,
purchase, convey, and own real property separate from her husband, 15 V.S.A. § 64, own personal property and collect the rents and profits from such property, 15 V.S.A. § 66, and sue for a tort committed against her without joining her husband.
Gilman
v.
Gilman,
Under the common law, a wife’s property could be used to pay her husband’s debts. 41 C.J.S.
Husband and Wife
§ 30;
Niles
v.
Hall,
In this action, Mrs. Chandler was not a party to the contract between her husband and the plaintiff. Therefore, she cannot be held liable for the debt her husband incurred under that contract.
Judgment reversed.
Notes
A wife could, however, be a defendant in a criminal prosecution without her husband, since the marriage was “only a civil union.” Blackstone, supra, at 443.