In the case of Beardsley v. Beardsley (1890), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Michigan law that allowed married women to control their own property also permitted them to contract debts without their husband's consent. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Beardsley, stating that while the law did allow for separate ownership and management of property by married women, it did not extend so far as to permit them to incur liabilities independently from their husbands. This decision upheld traditional views on marital unity and financial responsibility within marriage during this period.

In the dissenting opinion for Beardsley v. Beardsley, Justice Bradley argued that a wife should have the right to sue her husband for damages resulting from his tortious conduct. He believed that when a woman married, she did not lose her individual rights and identity; rather, they were merely suspended during marriage. Therefore, if a husband committed an act of violence against his wife or caused her harm in any way, he should be held accountable just as he would be if he had harmed any other person. The majority's decision was based on outdated common law principles which viewed husbands and wives as one entity with the man being dominant - an idea which Justice Bradley strongly disagreed with.