| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Mary E. Barney, by her next friend Maxwell Woodhull, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of New York to the United States Supreme Court. The case involved Mary's right to inherit property from her father Samuel C. Barney who had died in 1847 without leaving a will or any other written instrument that would provide for his daughter's inheritance rights. At issue was whether Mary could claim an interest in certain real estate and personal property owned by her father at the time of his death despite not being named as an heir in any document related to his estate. The US Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Mary on the grounds that she did not have standing under New York law because she was not mentioned as an heir in either a will or deed executed prior to her father’s death and therefore could not prove legal title over said properties even though they were inherited from him upon his passing away without making provisions for them beforehand.
In the case of Mary E. Barney v. David Saunders, Roger C. Weigtman, and Samuel C. Barney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a married woman could sue in her own name for an injury she sustained while living with her husband in New York State at a time when married women were not allowed to hold property or bring suit independently from their husbands under common law principles of coverture. The majority opinion held that since New York had adopted statutes allowing married women to possess and manage their own separate property as well as bringing suits independent from their husbands, Mary E. Barney should be able to bring suit against those who injured her without having to go through her husband first; however, Justice Grier dissented on this point arguing that although such statutes existed they did not apply retroactively so as to allow Mary E. Barney's claim because it arose before these laws were passed by the state legislature and therefore she must still proceed through her husband if she wished pursue legal action against those responsible for injuring her person or property rights