In a message dated 3/22/10 11:13:50 AM, mwooden@juno.com writes: > Need some help, please.  I have run across the following and would like > someone to find out what information is connected with this file: > ELIZABETH JANE BOSLER, husband John, 14 Aug 1852 withdrawn her sole > trader, Bk A pg 15.  This is listed under "Separate property of married > women and Sold Traders 1850-1930."   Was Elizabeth in business?  Was she > separating from her husband John?  Several questions come to mine as I do > not know what "sole trader" means.  Thanks.  Margaret in NW California > She had a business of some sort which she ran and owned. It was her separate property. It does not mean she was leaving her husband. In those days, married women did not own property separate from their husbands unless they went to court and declared the property to be separate and not community. Cathy Marin Co., CA

Cathy, There were many reasons women declared as Sole Traders and were happily married. I expect that many had the same reasons women do today to go into a marriage maintaining their sole and separate property. I would say that one of the main reasons back then was that if a husband was a miner, a gambler, or the such, a woman could love him dearly but want to make sure she had a roof over her head if her husbands vocation or avocation didn't "pan out". I just know that I have researched too many women with good marriages but who filed as Sole Traders; it gave a woman a little more control over her life. The fact that Elizabeth gave up her Sole Trader status indicates more stability in her way of life. marilyn ________________________________ From: "CYLGowdy@aol.com" <CYLGowdy@aol.com> To: norcal@rootsweb.com Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:23:25 AM Subject: Re: [NORCAL] BOSLER In a message dated 3/22/10 11:13:50 AM, mwooden@juno.com writes: > Need some help, please. I have run across the following and would like > someone to find out what information is connected with this file: > ELIZABETH JANE BOSLER, husband John, 14 Aug 1852 withdrawn her sole > trader, Bk A pg 15. This is listed under "Separate property of married > women and Sold Traders 1850-1930." Was Elizabeth in business? Was she > separating from her husband John? Several questions come to mine as I do > not know what "sole trader" means. Thanks. Margaret in NW California > She had a business of some sort which she ran and owned. It was her separate property. It does not mean she was leaving her husband. In those days, married women did not own property separate from their husbands unless they went to court and declared the property to be separate and not community. Cathy Marin Co., CA ----------------------------------------- NORCAL ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ Enter NORCAL. Browse by month. Or click the "Search all archives" link to search by keyword. ----------------------------------------- To post a message to the NORCAL mailing list, send an email to NORCAL@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORCAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Both Marilyn & Cathy are correct. California was one of the first states to allow married women to maintain separate financial status through the Sole Trader Act of 1852. Not only were married women not only to maintain a business, such as a store, restaurant, boarding house, etc., but also to purchase land in their own name exclusively. I came across one land case where the wife became a sole trader because her husband was in financial difficulties, primarily from lawsuits. He sold the family farm to his wife so his creditors couldn't seize the property to collect on his debts. Hope this helps, Anita C. Monterey County Marilyn Demas wrote: > Cathy, > There were many reasons women declared as Sole Traders and were happily married. I expect that many had the same reasons women do today to go into a marriage maintaining their sole and separate property. I would say that one of the main reasons back then was that if a husband was a miner, a gambler, or the such, a woman could love him dearly but want to make sure she had a roof over her head if her husbands vocation or avocation didn't "pan out". > > I just know that I have researched too many women with good marriages but who filed as Sole Traders; it gave a woman a little more control over her life. The fact that Elizabeth gave up her Sole Trader status indicates more stability in her way of life. > > marilyn > >> Need some help, please. I have run across the following and would like >> someone to find out what information is connected with this file: >> ELIZABETH JANE BOSLER, husband John, 14 Aug 1852 withdrawn her sole >> trader, Bk A pg 15. This is listed under "Separate property of married >> women and Sold Traders 1850-1930." Was Elizabeth in business? Was she >> separating from her husband John? Several questions come to mine as I do >> not know what "sole trader" means. Thanks. Margaret in NW California >> >> > > She had a business of some sort which she ran and owned. It was her > separate property. It does not mean she was leaving her husband. In those days, > married women did not own property separate from their husbands unless they > went to court and declared the property to be separate and not community. > > > > Cathy > Marin Co., CA > > > > >

Does anyone know if there a published list of Sole Traders? I know my g-g-g-aunt Amelia Raymond (Reiman) was one but curious to see if there is a listing. Ella ----- Original Message ----- From: <CYLGowdy@aol.com> To: <norcal@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [NORCAL] BOSLER In a message dated 3/22/10 11:13:50 AM, mwooden@juno.com writes: > Need some help, please. I have run across the following and would like > someone to find out what information is connected with this file: > ELIZABETH JANE BOSLER, husband John, 14 Aug 1852 withdrawn her sole > trader, Bk A pg 15. This is listed under "Separate property of married > women and Sold Traders 1850-1930." Was Elizabeth in business? Was she > separating from her husband John? Several questions come to mine as I do > not know what "sole trader" means. Thanks. Margaret in NW California > She had a business of some sort which she ran and owned. It was her separate property. It does not mean she was leaving her husband. In those days, married women did not own property separate from their husbands unless they went to court and declared the property to be separate and not community. Cathy Marin Co., CA ----------------------------------------- NORCAL ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ Enter NORCAL. Browse by month. Or click the "Search all archives" link to search by keyword. ----------------------------------------- To post a message to the NORCAL mailing list, send an email to NORCAL@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORCAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message