delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question which we deem it necessary to consider on this appeal is, whether a married woman can enter into a co-partnershijj under our statutes. It is *23 manifest that at the common law she possessed no such power, but that she was under such disabilities as to prevent her entering into any contract which would legally bind her. Although these disabilities have, in a measure, been removed b)r legislative enactments, so as to secure to her sole and separate use the property she may have at the time of her marriage, or may acquire thereafter by purchase, gift, grant, devise,' bequest, or in course of distribution, with power of devising the same as a ffme sole, yet there are still disabilities which the Legislature have not thought proper to remove, and to which she is still subject. During her life-time she cannot dispose of her property except by a conveyance in which her husband joins. She cannot enter into any contract which will bind her at law, unless it be in writing and executed jointly with her husband. In so far as her disabilities have not been removed by statute, they remain as at the common law. There is no statute in existence in this State which either directly, or by implication, authorizes her to form a co-partnership. The contract of one partner respecting the partnership business binds all the members of the firm, and if a married woman could enter into a co-partnership, the anomaly would be presented of her being bound at law by the acts and contracts of others, when, under the statute, she cannot so bind herself except by her contract in writing, executed jointly with her husband. Section 7, of Article 45 of the Code, empowers a married woman to carry on trade as a feme sole, with a capital not exceeding one thousand dollars, and makes her money and property, to that extent, liable to attachment for any claim or debt incurred by her. The grant of the power to carry on trade or business in that mode and to that extent is by implication a denial of the power to carry on business in any other mode, or to any greater extent. Married women have no power, under our laws, to enter into contracts of co-partnership, nor as members thereof would *24 their contracts be binding upon them, and, consequently, would not bind the other parties to them. Co-partnerships, consisting in whole or in part of married women, are inconsistent with the policy of the legislation of this State, and it is manifest that their existence would materially interfere with the marital rights of the husband.

It appearing' that the co-partnership, plaintiffs, in this cause consists of three persons,’ and that two of them are married women, the contract, which is the basis of this suit, is, consequently, not binding upon the parties, and the Court below properly refused to permit it to be read in evidence to'the jury, and correctly instructed them that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.

Judgment affirmed.