Same Streets
← All stories

The Legal Trap of Marriage

A doctor, paralyzed after a carriage accident, finds that her husband legally owns her right to sue for her own injuries.

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 San Jose Mercury declares that the following is a striking illustration of the injustice of our laws in matters wherein married women are concerned. Mrs. Ida K. Andrews, an educated physician residing in Washington Territory, is the unfortunate marital property of a shiftless, good-for-nothing husband, whom she had to support. Finding the field for profitable practice limited in that section, she left her husband and came to California. When she had become established in her profession and was earning a fair living, she wrote to her husband that she would live with him again but he refused, and their ways henceforth were separate. One night, over a year ago, Mrs. Andrews had occasion to visit a patient in the night over an old established road. An excavation had been made on this road, and no warning light or signal placed to denote where it was. Her carriage overturned, and she received injuries from which she became a helpless paralytic. Her means becoming exhausted, she wrote to her husband for support. His heartless reply was that the place for her was in the hospital, and that he would do nothing for her. A few weeks ago a suit was brought by Mrs. Andrews, in her own name, to recover damages from certain wealthy persons who had caused the ditch to be dug in the public road whereby she received her injuries. The jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict for $15,000 damages in her favor. The case, which was prosecuted by Hon. Grove L. Johnson, assisted by Charles T. Jones and other attorneys, and defended by ex-Attorney-General Hart, Mr. Campbell and several other lawyers, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that she had no right to sue in her own name. That is, being a married woman, her husband was the only one damaged, and the only one who had a right to bring suit in the matter. Such is the common law nonsense that has been handed down to us from England—but whether our Supreme Court will approve the same remains to be seen. Mrs. Dr. Andrews has many friends in Walla Walla, where she used to reside, and who will watch with interest the outcome of her case. She ought to win.

“Such is the common law nonsense that has been handed down to us from England.”

— Printed in Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883
Then · 1883143 years apartNow · 2026

This case highlights the 'coverture' legal doctrine, which erased a woman's legal identity upon marriage. It serves as a reminder that financial and legal autonomy for women in Washington was a hard-won battle, not an inherent right.

The original page

Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-06-16. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, JUN 16, 1883, Page 1
Rights
Public domain
Place
46.20552, -118.51743 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗