diff --git a/convert-anystyle-data/anystyle/10.1111_1467-6478.00057.ttx b/convert-anystyle-data/anystyle/10.1111_1467-6478.00057.ttx index 6e7b937c345a9cc634b556c11557ac1c8111cf9c..8936a618e0b3f960823cf5fa6d2609052e634a2f 100644 --- a/convert-anystyle-data/anystyle/10.1111_1467-6478.00057.ttx +++ b/convert-anystyle-data/anystyle/10.1111_1467-6478.00057.ttx @@ -66,22 +66,7 @@ blank | meta | © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997 text | for women. The overwhelming significance of the interests of corporate | capital, particularly the role of financial institutions, has exerted pressure to - | retain the presumption of indivisibility. - | I will begin with a fraud case, for it reveals how widespread are assumptions - | of wifely passivity. In Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance v. Gosper,50 the - | husband forged the wife’s signature to increase substantially the mortgage - | over her home. A cheque was drawn in favour of the wife and paid into a - | company controlled by her husband. The sum was then withdrawn by him. - | The fraud on the wife came to light only on the death of the husband. - | While two of the three judges agreed that the wife’s equitable interest - | should be enforced as a result of the forgery, the derisory way in which the - | wife was treated by the insurance company, the law firm, and the bank (all - | of which had unquestioningly accepted the authority of the husband) - | highlights the fragility of active citizenship for wives. The husband, a - | barrister, was automatically assigned active citizenship status. The wife, even - | though she was the registered owner of the property, was assigned no status - | other than that of the passive subject, that is, ‘his wife’.51 Kirby P. was the - | one judge to question this assignation: + | (text omitted for legal reasons) | One can see at work in the facts of this case the remnants of an attitude to a wife, as a | mere extension of the husband’s property and financial interests. (p. 35) blank |