The Price of a Scandalous Partnership
A woman who eloped to Seattle seeks to reclaim her share of a partnership, only to have a judge dismiss the suit as based on an 'immoral consideration.'
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The suit brought by Mrs. Phoebe Bovee against Samuel McClure and Monroe was intended to set aside a conveyance of real estate made by McClure to Monroe. Mrs. Bovee claimed a half interest in the property, asserting they were partners. Mrs. Bovee and McClure eloped together from New York and came to Seattle in 1891. Mrs. Bovee claimed that they entered into a contract to live together and accumulate property and, in pursuance of this contract, they bought a lot in Ballard. To the purchase of this lot, she contributed $1,000—all she possessed at the time. From Seattle they went to King County, where they took up a timber claim. All of this property was held in McClure's name. When the case was called, the court held that she could have no interest in the land and sustained the objection. McClure's attorney moved for the dismissal of the action on the grounds that Mrs. Bovee's entire interest in the pieces of land was given in consideration of the unlawful cohabitation of the parties and the contract was thus against public policy and void. This motion was sustained and a non-suit granted. The judge stated that if this man is too dishonorable to repay this woman the money she has loaned him, it is most shameful. An appeal to the supreme court will be taken at once by Mrs. Bovee.
“If this man is too dishonorable to repay this woman the money she has loaned him, I think it most shameful.”
This case highlights the legal trap faced by women in common-law relationships during the late 19th century, where courts weaponized 'public policy' against them. By labeling their domestic arrangement an 'immoral consideration,' the court effectively sanctioned the theft of the woman’s assets, a stark reminder of how civic institutions historically reinforced financial inequality.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.