Say whaat? The woman's father literally paid good money to have her taken away. Everyone but the woman saw cash changing hands, but she was legally barred from owning property.
Freedom was for men.
If the present “owner” paid “good money” to take her away, doesn’t that mean she was a liability instead of an asset?
If the present “owner” paid “good money” to take her away, doesn’t that mean she was a liability instead of an asset?