Opinion

Maloof v. Acornley

  • 9 Mass. App. Div. 69
Court
Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
Filed
Feb 10, 1944
Status
Published
Author
Caer
On the bench
Adlow, Caer
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.3%

The opinion

Caer, J.,

Concurring:

I concur with the reasoning and the result of the principal opinion. To avoid misunderstanding, however, it should be made clear that the opinion does not suggest that the provisions of all statutes may be avoided by waiver or estoppel.

The act relating to married women’s certificates, like Gen. Laws, ch. 110, sec. 5 which requires the recording of a name assumed for the transaction of business (Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 583 ) is one of limited purpose. *72 Kolas v. LaRochelle, 270 Mass. 49, 54 . cf McLearn v. Hill, 276 Mass. 519, 525 . It deals only with the rights of certain creditors against a married woman and her husband. The only consequence of failure to comply with the statute is civil liability. (Allen v. Clark, 190 Mass. 556, 559 ). Rights acquired by reason of such failure may be released (Browning v. Carson, 163 Mass. 255, 259, 260 ). The Commonwealth is not concerned whether there is compliance with the statute; there is no criminal penalty for it to enforce. - Enforcement is solely in the hands of individuals who may profit; therefore their conduct may keep them from acquiring the right to enforce.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.