.f^" 
 
 — c
 
 ^nvo.^,3.,r^ 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 r^
 
 i
 
 
 ymm 
 
 .u
 
 rT.) 
 
 TITK T. VW OF 
 
 II . — : AN 1> AM) W IFK. 
 
 ^jU
 
 TTir T.AW 
 
 in - i;a N i> A \ h w 111 
 
 n 
 
 Mll*AND ANU Tin: LMTlll* vrAH-'s. 
 
 DAVID STl'.WAHT. 
 
 im AALTiMaaB ft*a. Acraua or " m >M iM tK ash mtoks. 
 
 sviocEn Willi «x)MPaxy.
 
 I 
 
 11^:^ 
 
 ComimirT. i«»^ 
 Bv OAVII) MKWART.
 
 
 PKEFACi: 
 
 This rolnmo and thnt of tho author on '• Mrtrriapre 
 and Divon;*'" aro intoiuU>d lo covit to^otlH-r tlio whole 
 Hul>j<*«t of iiiarria^t* and inarria^o ri^litn. of tho rela- 
 tioii of parfiit and child, owiii^ to its liaviii;; its Hoiirco 
 ill iiiarriiiKc, inort' would liave Ikh'II said liad tho 
 iiia.H.H of law ri'latiii>( tu tho iiuiiu Huhjii-t proved less 
 fornildahlc. 
 
 Marrinm> ri^fhtM have wonderfully <-hanuid during 
 tho jm.Ht twcnty-flvo year*, ami in no tw<» Mates liavo 
 the elian^i^H Ixwn preelnijly the Maine. Yet it in |K)h- 
 -il'le, from tho authorities, to fornudate ruleH muIII- 
 ."•ntly (^•ncral to l»o of ^n'at aMMiMtancc everywhere, 
 iiid it ha-s l)oon tho author's obJtH-t to ^rive sueh rules 
 rather than tho law exactly a-s It exiNt.s in any j»anicu- 
 i ir State. 
 
 I liseuHMionN of dinputoil quextions have lM^>n, as far 
 
 ^ |K)HNihle, avoided, a haro statement of tho points 
 
 iiade on tile dilferent sides, with tite authorities, Iteing 
 
 jiven. As may Ik? MtH?n from the mode of citation, 
 
 lie cjises have been iX'rHonally examined Jiy tho au- 
 
 iior. Harely, however, are tlie wonln of tiio judges 
 
 -noted, it iH'in^f deenu'd Ixntor to state results in tho 
 
 amplest amd le:ist technical lan>;ua>ro. I/oose expros- 
 
 -lons on the part of jndj^es liav done as mm-h to c<>n- 
 
 fus«> this complicated subj*^'! as loose le^rislation. 
 
 Indee*!, words have Ik-oii used njost rei-klcssly : for 
 
 a widower's estate 
 
 vamplo, in tho statute^ o^ Uliji'^Ui* *^ ^^'i
 
 Vl PREFACE. 
 
 ill his wife's realty is oalletl " dower" ; and untold con- 
 fusion has ri'sultetl from a failure, in n|K'aking of niar- 
 rifil wonion's " sv.'par.ito " proin^rty, to In-ar in mind 
 the distin<-tion la'twivn "tHjuitaijlo " and "wtatutory " 
 separate jiroperty, Nothinj? «t)ul«l Iw more anomalous 
 ihiin the condition <if the law of husltand and wift> in 
 Maryland. Pennsylvania, and most of tlu' older State<«. 
 <;reat superiority, in this rcsi>oct, is noticcaldc in the 
 laws of many of the Middle and Western Stales, whieli 
 have iKfU ably and intelligently revised or «v.diJled. 
 
 Analysis, in a law >>ook, is secoml in imi>ortanco to 
 nothinir; and. however faulty the analysis adopttnl by 
 the author may 1m\ it has l>eon. in the treatment of the 
 suliject, riiiiilly adhered to. lyopic, however, like 
 everythini; i-l-e, fails to (-arry one safely through the 
 intricacies of the law of husband and wife. In tlic 
 intioductor^- chapter, the divisions of the work are 
 given and explained. Certain i-hapterx, such as that 
 on Houuvsteail I*ro|M'rty, In-long only indirnily to tlie 
 subject, and are not exhaustively treated. Kvery i>ains 
 hivs Iteen taken, however — even n little reix'titlon has 
 l)een d<H«med iH'rmi.H.sible — to enable the busy lawyer 
 to lind (piickly any iK>lnl that is treated nt all in this 
 book. 
 
 DAVID STKAVAHT. 
 
 B.vLTi.MoiiK, June 12, ISSo.
 
 COXTKXTS. 
 
 Pabt I. — Introductory. 
 CIIAPTKR I. 
 
 TIIK SDBJErr nKKINKD ANP niVTOKn. 
 
 ) 1. Ilunbnnd, wifo. rhlMrfn, th«» miirrl<-<l xtuH'. 
 
 I 2. The r«'liitlon <if hn-tbimd and w\U: 
 
 I 3. Tli«' <'titiit.-« of hiiHl.iiii.l hikI wiff. 
 
 ) 4. Tlio KtHtUH "f murrl. .1 woman. 
 
 { & The n-lutlon <>{ par. iit uiid clilld- 
 
 riiAiTKU ir. 
 
 HOrm-KS, INTEnrUKTATIOX, ANP (ONFI.KTS. 
 
 AUTICLK I. — SoCnCKS OF TIIK T..VW. 
 
 ) «. ThP common Uw and English ntututos. 
 
 I 7. The rivll liiw mid oo<lea. 
 
 { 8. Thr i-qiilty system. 
 
 I 9. Stntntos. 
 
 { 10. The rcHUlUng qa«»stloni«. 
 
 Ahticle II. — Interpuktation or tiik T.aw. 
 
 { 11. Intprpretfttlon In (jencral, 
 
 { 12. Uiilcs of Intprprplullon. 
 
 I 1?. <l<Mi«Tal stiitutos do not afToot hnshand and wifp. 
 
 } H. Married women not.s do not iifTe.t niarrliiKe relation. 
 
 { 15. rroperty iirts do not nfr<'<t personal status. 
 
 { 16. Strlot and llheml Interpretation. 
 
 { 17. Prospective Interpretation. 
 
 { IS. Local Interpretation.
 
 Viii CX>NTENTS. 
 
 Ahtici-k III. — ^A•^^ AM» Preskxt Law. 
 
 ) 19. Pro<ip«H'tlvi' »n«l rftHMpoctlve Htnliitea. 
 
 I 30. All «tiitii'.-^ i-ri-nn f'lHr pr'<«p»-'-llv<'. 
 
 I :l I 
 
 I ZL. I 
 
 J 2a. Jk iri-i"' '.:% • .tJi ui.-.., I uii.ii. . i» i^ 
 
 AiiTici.1-: IV.— Hum K a.m> Fokkiox Law. 
 
 I iv y -•■ 1 ■>»• niiwt Im- pnivcd. 
 
 I 3t. titllcl u( UlWA. 
 
 I -• 
 I2S. 
 |3». 
 
 I ». 
 
 i ai. 
 
 I r. 1 ■ n»- 
 
 I «. —- 
 
 I »1 , f w II. 
 
 J »i. 
 
 I ST. » ■ ""•'•• 
 
 1*\KT 11. TlIK RkLATION of HfRBAXP AXU "WlTE. 
 
 <n.MTr.u III. 
 
 TlIK VNITV OK m'SllANH AXD WirK. 
 
 Ahtki.k l. — TlIK FirTioN ok I'xitt. 
 
 I St. I><'fliio<l nii<t •■spUtnot. 
 { S. MlnrvlUuiotiuii rratilUuf. 
 
 AnTK I.K II. — COXTHAfTS BFrTWRKX HUSBAXD AXP 
 WlKK. 
 
 I 40. CAiMmi nm^Uii* v»l|iUtr of. 
 
 I 41. vt ..,,,,,,,. .1) Uw. 
 
 I 4a. I Ilea.
 
 CONTENTS. iX 
 
 ) 44. AntPnnpUal. 
 
 ) i.\ IIu»»mn.l «n<« wlf.- im «loM..r nn.l ir.dlti.r. 
 
 AiiT. TTI. — WuoNos Bctwkkn llrsnvNO am. Wike. 
 
 I jC. Cliowlrtwl. 
 f 4H. «1vll wronirn. 
 { 4'». <'rliiiln«l wrnnK*. 
 
 AuTin.K IV. — WIM.X lUrrwKKN IIishank am. Wikk. 
 
 I JO. Kff'H-t of, KfniTnlly. 
 
 I M. Ml!i«'ll»nM>ii« point* ii« I'.. 
 
 .\RTin.K v.— Srrrs Betwken in'snANi» axi> Wife. 
 
 I .li s.-<>p«« itt thH nrtli-I«». 
 
 I .W. Killi - '"'"" '"'f' 
 
 I M. Sii ■ 
 
 I ,W. Htil' M i)f mnrriii«««. 
 
 I Mo. I)«-(<'iiw« In nullw. 
 
 I M. TcnUinony of Iui«»>mu1 tir wlfi*. 
 
 (HArrKU IV. 
 CONJfd.M, lUUinx ANP oni.IOATloNS. 
 
 AiiTin.K T.— The Sevkhai. rovjufiAt. Ku»iits am> 
 
 (HU.IOATIONS. 
 
 , ... . ..njiiirnl HkIiU nn.l i.»itl«ntlon« <W-fln«><l. 
 
 I :.*. UUlit '.f l'»v.-. ht.n.ir, <<tr. 
 
 I .V«. Ulk'liJ nf iniitriinonlal oohnMt*tlon nnd lnt«Tconr»<'. 
 
 I m. Hl«»<t to (Jx fumllv h..m«-. nn.l n-miliit^ houwhold. 
 
 I 01. HIb>>i I<. "<" fnnillv nnmo. 
 
 . n2_ H ' iial rnnt««ly Bn<t r*«tralnt. 
 
 « ,n i; ■utl rhunttoenienU 
 
 ) 01. IC. rt. 
 
 ) fvV uiKliin. p'Twoiil m'rvlcwi. 
 
 ) no. I.ln»<lllty In tort. 
 
 } nr. Mn'.llliv In mntrnrt. 
 
 { (». Muhlllty In ••lime.
 
 \ CXINTKNTS. 
 
 I AX OthrT pcnmiinl liKlitK nnct llnbllltloK. 
 
 I TO. rrniMTty ligliU and llAl>Ultl«>a. 
 
 i 71. Itlff liu and obllffHtlons m to children. 
 
 AUT. II.— .\tTIO>S AUISIX(» FKOM COXJUOAI. RlltltTM 
 AXD Oni.KIATIOXS. 
 
 I 71 f<\i\tn for romlnitlon of conjiiKiil rUflit*. 
 ) 7X Hiilm f..r.liv..ri .•. 
 ( 71. Mult»f«.r 
 
 '>iin<1 in lolniHl, do. 
 
 CII-VITKIt V. 
 
 CX>XJrc»AI. AOKX^T. 
 
 AllTUI.K I. — .^UKXCY IlhrrWKKN Hd^banp AXnWMK 
 IN IJKNKIIAU 
 
 I MS. In Inw Mid In tmrt, 
 
 I «. Wx-WoM of the nuliJiH-t. 
 
 A«TI('LK II. — AOKNCV OK llfsllVNK r<>u WUK. 
 
 \ M. Appointment of husbiind. 
 
 I «a, s. • •■ ■ • ■ ■ 
 
 I ««. Tr 
 
 I K. r... . 
 
 I M. Rptrciai tnatanf^cn anri Uiiutmtionii. 
 
 AllTiri.K III. — AOKNC'Y OK WlKK mn IlrsnAND. 
 
 I <o. Ar'- ■■• .f wife. 
 
 I 00. V !ni!i|iiir out of liiitthnnd'H nhs^ncc, otc 
 
 I 01. in f wlf.'H «nnl of nullnifltjr. 
 
 } Oi S<-.i|..i of wl(< 'k iiiKliorlty. 
 
 I 03. Wtff lu husbond'R iis«.>nt In btulneas.
 
 CONTEXTS. 
 
 I M. Wlfi- ax liUHbuiid'ii ugont In hoii<wholi1. 
 
 I 95. Wlfi- lut hiiHlmiul'H ii««'iit for iieoi-ssjirli'^. 
 
 I 96. Authorltlex om to nereHoarit's. 
 
 { 97. I'riMjf of wlfe'H lateiicy for huslmn ' 
 
 { 98. iX-tc-rmliiuUou of wife's aj^ency fur Im^i 
 
 CIIAITIIH VI. 
 
 POSTNUPTIAL SKTTLKMKNTS — I>KAI.IXOS. 
 
 AnTICLE I.— POSTSUPTIAL. SKTTUKMKXTS IX (iKXERAL. 
 
 I 90. Tt?rtii "po«tnii|>tlul st'tUemPtit " defliietl. 
 { lOa Viill'l, void, aii<l voliltailc (H'tUemeiits. 
 I lOU On what vullility depvuda. 
 
 ARTICI.K II. — KkUM ok POSTXCrTIAL Sktti.emkxts. 
 
 I lOS. Wlipn formiilltli-nnri? neri'Mury. 
 I 103. Vurlouit forniit of ■M-ttlemiMit.t. 
 
 Article III.— CossinKRVTiox in Pohtxittial Skt- 
 
 TLEMEXTH. 
 
 I I(M. X<'c«ii«lty of mimUlorntlon. 
 
 ) lav KliKlHof >.. 
 
 { 100. A>U<)iiii' itlon. 
 
 I IffT. Kfftft of ; .!!. 
 
 ) ION. MlAcellanvuiM |m>iiiu oh to conKlilprntlon. 
 
 AllTICLK IV. — FllAl'I* IX TosTXriTIAL SeTTLEMEX-TS. 
 
 I 100. Krnu<l In liiw an>I In fiiot. 
 
 I 110. Kriiud li.-nvccii the purtU'S. 
 
 { 111. KriiUd ikKiUiiHt (-riKlltoni. 
 
 {112. Kvltleuce of frttUil. 
 
 Article V. — Riohts of Cueditous. 
 
 I 11.1. FniudiiliMit convpyancos (U'flned. 
 
 ) in. Ktatutt's prot«'Ollng creditors. 
 
 { 115. Who arc prot«'ct«Hl an creditors. 
 
 {MS. RlichlH of pxIstlnR cr<-dltorH. 
 
 I 117. HiiclitM of Rul>H<-qufnt creditors. 
 
 I 118. Property ejcenipt from creditor's rights.
 
 s^ii CDNTKNTH. 
 
 AllTULK V!. — POSSBSHION OP HUSBANP AND WllK. 
 
 I lU a. !Vim«iwlcin of haiibiuui «nJ wUc gemrrmlly. 
 ) tIB. l»n-«uinpUoiu» Inuu. 
 I 13X. CUaiiKe of, >■ rtellverv. 
 ) ta. RplviiUoii of, Ml fruu<L 
 
 .Vim(I.K VII.— KkMKI.IKM HKSfKtTISO Postmttial 
 .Strm-KMK.NTH. 
 
 I 122. In RvneraL 
 I la Of p»rU««, flc 
 I 131. Ofrrrdllom. 
 
 AUTICLK III.— rAHTHTLAIt KiMW OP S»nTUKMKXT!*, 
 
 •Ity. 
 
 1 1 
 
 J r.-al r«t*tP. 
 
 A '— 
 
 i IS. I 
 
 Paht TTI. — Estates of HrsiiAy 'v. Wirs, 
 fllAlTKK VII. 
 
 ESTATK-S OK IirSBASn AM' WIKK, IN OKXKRAI- 
 I IS. Trrm •'♦^ii' 
 
 I IW. J-t..t. nil, f 
 
 j ir. . , r..|H rty H»bl«. 
 
 friAITKR VIII. 
 
 lltSBANn's KSTATK IN HI"* f'WN PnOPKRTT. 
 
 1 110. A husband*! ctute, bow Umltc^ bj" marrtace.
 
 OOXTKXTS. xiil 
 
 CHAITEH IX. 
 
 HrSBAXD'8 ESTATEH IX WIFE'S KEALTV'. 
 
 I HI. l'n<l<«r r«>fnmi)f» Uw. ^ftI'*m<»nL<t, and matiite*. 
 
 I IC DiiiiiiK i*<iviTiiir«-. iukI HftiT iliatli or divuive. 
 
 I 143. Ill wKi-'R i-9tnl*^ of liihfrltaxK-t*. 
 
 I 144. Ill wifi-'n llfi- cnUt)"!. 
 
 ( I4&. Ill wife's rtuoteUntU. 
 
 Aitf II. — IIu»ba>M)'h Ehtate Dcrino Covf.bti-re 
 
 JCKE UXORIH. 
 
 ( 14& IliutlHUid'a eatAte ilurliig ooTerture<l<-fIn<-<l. 
 
 I 147 Iiirldi-iitn of llip i>aUU4r. 
 
 I I4>«. Wtff'ii (•■t«(4ii whk-li ar* aabject to tlila entate 
 
 i I4». VJTfrl of iwttl<>ni*>iitii on thl« o^tut*-. 
 
 I lU. Effrct of atatuu-a uu Ihla t-atate. 
 
 AUTICLE III.— CURTEhY. 
 
 I ISI. I><-fliilili>n« of rtirT»««T. 
 
 I I'Vi. Cuiuni<ii>-t»M r>-<|uli>lti nof riirtoajr. 
 
 I l.'A MiirrluK*' n'-<-<-»H«rv l<i n1v«» rurtoiiy. 
 
 ( l.%4. Hlrth uf >iMu<- nM-cfmary lo rIvp oiirtoxy. 
 
 I I.VW H^lalii of wMv n<-r<f>aary t« rlvo rurt<-<<y. 
 
 ( ISa. Death fif wife iiei-eniuiry to iflve rurteiiy. 
 
 I LIT. I'roixTtv In which c-urt<-«y exLitn. 
 
 I I.W. IiicMenlA of ifttAte of riirt«-sy. 
 
 I 130. HarrinK and defratlnit uf ciirttiiy. 
 
 I l«l. Curt»-iy under Htatuten, iretiemlly. 
 
 ( l«l. KfTi-i't of marr1e<l wonn'ii arlM on rurt<>ey. 
 
 { lei R«troiipvcUve ctTt^ct of Rtatiiti-«. 
 
 CHAPTEH X. 
 
 iirsnAxn's estates in wife's i»ers<in.vi,tv. 
 
 Art. I. — Ilrsn.vNp's Estate is Wife' 1*brsjoxalt\' 
 
 ly <iENK«AI-. 
 
 I Ita. At common law. 
 ) 1«M. In i-qulty. 
 ) l«VV I'nder ntatutea. 
 B. A W.-».
 
 
 «n. 
 
 
 in. 
 
 17.\ 
 
 .Vrtici.k 
 
 IV 
 
 XiV CONTKNTS. 
 
 AKTUI.kII. — PKIISONAI.TY IN POSSESSION, 
 
 ( xm, n«-fln<HL 
 
 I ifT. I'tMsewilon hy wife. 
 
 f lAH. p »— ft lon by htuhniKl. 
 
 I l>ci. PfjMmiilon by thirl iwraoii. 
 
 i 17a Boaband'a rlftiu in. 
 
 ARTICLK III. — ("Hoskm in A<TH>N. 
 
 C'lintti-lii oot of p»»»«-«nUiii. 
 K<iricl«, stock, n(>li'«. •■!<■. 
 I^-KhtIi-x. •Ililrlhinlvc >)inr<-ii. <'t«-. 
 UeiUBlndt-ni, tMM«<ll>lll(l<-«, <■!<'. 
 ) 17&. Husband'a rl«bt» In. 
 
 Rki>!'«tion T<i Po«««KhsIOX. 
 
 I ITT. How fnr ■ (wnuinnl rlglil. 
 
 I ITH. Th« tnt<-ntton mxt (111- Mil. 
 
 I 17^ (icttlncc p<m««m1ou or rwcflvliif paynip'iL 
 
 I l«). Hubntltutkin. 
 
 I I'-l. AmU'inu'iit. 
 
 I K R^li-aM. 
 
 I ina, bulk 
 
 CIIAITIIK XI. 
 VriFK's KSTATK IS IIKIl OWN rilOI»KHTV. 
 
 AicTici.K I. — <;knkii.vi.i.y. 
 
 I 1*4. \Vlfi''<»(ii'inTi«l |>ri>i»<-riy. 
 I IHi, \VI(i''» m-panitf prnju-rty. 
 
 ARTICLK TI. — PARArilKRNM.I.V AN1> PlN-MnXEY. 
 
 I t'Wl. rnrnphornnlla ciffltunl. 
 
 ( 1«7. Inrlrlfntii nf pnniph<*rnAlU. 
 
 I 1«. I*1ii-mim« y d.-flni-*!. 
 
 ( Un. locklauu of plu-iuoiu-y.
 
 CONTENTS. X" 
 
 Articlk III. — Wife's Equity to a Settlement. 
 
 I im. I>«*Aiiition. 
 
 } 191. By whul court pnforoo<l. 
 
 { IK. On who««- itppMi-ailnii fiifnrr««d. 
 
 I V.O. Out of wliut |)fii|><Tly ••rif«irr«-(L 
 
 ( l!M. I'nder whi4t ••lr<MiinHtnnc'«-<» ♦•nfrirced. 
 
 ) l!t\ Oh whom thi- «-(tli-iiii-rii i.s aiailti. 
 
 I ItKl Aiuouiit uf the iM-ttliiiifuL 
 
 ('ii.vrrKU xir. 
 
 •wife's EgriTAnui sepauatk estate. 
 
 I!C. Dtftilf'l. 
 
 lift. Crciitl'ni of. 
 
 IIW. S«-ttlor'>i liitont to oTflU'lc tniMfmiii!. 
 
 am. Wonlii wlilrh hHuw Micli liiii'iit. 
 
 301. Trcwiit uikI fiitUD- haHiudiK 
 
 3DC X«?ci-iwlty of trusttM-— IfuiUximl u.m tniMtpe 
 
 an. Wlft^V control ovi-r. 
 
 3>(. Ri-ntmlnt'i on uJIcniitloii oiid ntitlclpntlori. 
 
 yi\ Wife's iKiwff to fllxiww.- of tiitfr ii'i>.«. 
 
 inn. Wlfr'H (MiWiT loroiitnu-t coni-tTiiliiK — UuIi'S. 
 
 317. WIf«''ii jMiwiT to roiitrHot coHotTiiliiit — Di'olslona. 
 
 aw. Wlfi'*)! powtr to will. 
 
 300. Wlfc'n liirhlM III Inrn'iiW' — Iti-nts, proflta, etc 
 
 210. Ki'IiumII M of wife coiirfrnliiK. 
 
 211. R<'infil|i-H iiifiilii'<t. 
 
 212. KUrliis iif hii^rmiKl mill I1I1 rn-dltors over, 
 
 213. llow \imt or <'XtiiiinitHlie<l. 
 2H. EfTVTt of ilfiitli ii|M»ii. 
 2I.V EITk-ct of illvurrp upon. 
 211. Kfrit't of tuutliTii iitututi'N iipiiii. 
 
 rii.viTKi: .xrir. 
 
 Wilis NTATITOUV .SKPAK.VTK ESTATE. 
 
 Akt. I. — Wife's St.\ti*tory Sep.vuate E.state in 
 
 (iENEUAU 
 
 I 217. Statutory Rpp«ir«t<> p«tat«* il<'flii«*il. 
 
 { 21s. Tlic Ktntiitfs rtfsorlhefl. 
 
 I ;ii). " rropctiy," '■ pcraoual rights," etc., UeflnetL
 
 ^^.j COSTKNTS. 
 
 AUT. ll.-SOVRCKSOF STATITOBY SEPARATE PBOPKBTY. 
 
 I -rst. M'hJch of BcquWtlon. ic«>ner»U>-. 
 
 { 21. owi. •'I »l Un>e o( ni»rrUi«e. 
 
 I in Ar»iulr«l In any oiMiner. 
 
 { ra. Af<iulrtMl by purrba**. 
 
 ) 34. Arqulr«Hl by nlft ..r crunt 
 
 » S: A^^uir..! ..r .1- '- . '"^"-t. J^nt. dlMrlbu.ion. 
 
 I SJB. A ' ' ' T ' .'Kf. 
 
 I zr. A 
 
 I jsi ,^ -or inwlf. 
 
 I 23*. Ac^quln^ by ••^Hiiriict. 
 
 I 2W. At-qulnMl by lort. 
 
 I 231. Ac«iulr«l jointly with hoaband. 
 
 ABTIt'LE 11I.-1N<">KM^ oK STATITOBY 
 I'BOrK.BT^-. 
 
 >«K.rAHAri. 
 
 . . vie. 
 
 I 231 N.>ct"iiirfty nt Inrfiuory - Prool of t tli-. 
 
 J jo^ V .. >. . r ,.„.l .-..ntr % . r. it.-ii.T«Uy. 
 
 I 2U. 1 
 
 I SSk. J 
 
 I 337 Wlfr'a rontnu'ln ronormlng. 
 
 I 3»! V ■ • ' ,.i« Rs «K,uHnhl» chi»nf<-« upon. 
 
 ! Z^ . .. tn unilf-r Btatulory •uihorlty. 
 
 I «nx \' _ ■ .'f. 
 
 ) Z4\. \VUi''!» n-nu-IW"* ronr<Tnln«. 
 
 I 2«. li»hll»tl<'<i of. 
 
 I :4.\ lUgbt* of huabanU nml liU .-rMllt«>n» In. 
 
 rn.vPTT.n xiv. 
 
 TTIFE'S EJrr.VTK IN IirsHANU'S BKAI.TY - I->Wr.R. 
 
 AHTi. i.K l.-NATruK A>n In. inK>-n*«r IHiwkb. 
 
 ) 244. MoonlnK "' «ho wonl " tlower." 
 
 I :4.V Origin and hlMory of <1'iwi>r. 
 
 J 246. iX'w ' '"^ '"*■ 'I'-fl"'^ 
 
 J 247. IVi-^ stntuli-s. 
 
 I 24v rot. 
 
 ,.s to Jywcr.
 
 CO>fTENTS, X\ U 
 
 240. R<>qiilHlt(><i o{(luwor. 
 
 IV). Murrliu(i< iw n reniil^ltf of itowc-r. 
 
 1M. Huntiuiicl'H ilciitli OH a n-qiiwtlU' «>f dower, 
 
 i'li nu!tt>uii<rii wlnlii an n rifiutallf of dower. . 
 
 2M. KIihIh of proiHTty inihj<>*t U) ilowi-r. 
 
 iVt KIihN of <ittiit<tt initiJi-<-t to dow«T. 
 
 2X5w iHw ill- «lot<- |><tl non ililxt, 
 
 iVl. I><JW<T III «'<|lllt<lJ)l<> <1lUlt •». 
 
 257. Diiwi-r In purtiicmhlp <i«liit««. 
 
 2.V1. iHjwi-r niul othiT ••iiciiiiilinuiciii— I*rloritl<»^ 
 
 23l>. I)ow«-r uiiil piirrhiuu' nioiu-r. 
 
 am. T>.,w.r In 111' ..... 
 
 ;iil. I>.i« rlriin I foroclo»ur«>. 
 
 » '.SC I><..\. r lnf.ir - r- 
 
 'Jtrv. IKiwi r tM-for<> oiMlKnnwiit. 
 
 , y\t. AwUciK"! «l"wcr— IncldiMitn .if. 
 
 AuTH i.K. II. — Hajirin*! am> Kkkkatino ok Ikjwer. 
 
 { yvi. fj<'niriillr, rwlouii modon of. 
 
 J ajd. .' ■ •' ' ■•■ mi-nt or iurr'»ompnt. 
 
 I -jir;. i n-nt or iikTi'i'ini'iit. 
 
 J 3i;h. a . fori' mid ifiirlnit I'ovt-rturo. 
 
 I aaa. Art of »•!(«• <lurlnK i-oviTtur<-. 
 
 I 270. Holoniioof dowiT, Ki'iKTnlly 
 
 ( 271. Ili'li-ioto of dower, piirtli-1. coimliltTnt loll. 
 
 J 27i ll.-l.iis.'of dow.T, •■fr<-<t of. 
 
 I 273. Joliiliirp, li-Kul ntid fqiiituhlf. 
 
 I 274. I)«'vl»o In Mill of dowir. 
 
 } 27\ Wldow'm'U>ctlon. 
 
 I 270. Entopiwl. 
 
 I 277. IJmlintlonn nnd liirhra. 
 
 { 27S. T>«'dli-iitlon to piihllr iipii-n. 
 
 ) 27U. T<-rniliiittloii of liiiHliaiid'B (>iUat«>, »t«^ 
 
 ( 'Hi. \A-Kn\ procfcilliufH. 
 
 ( 2SI. Hlvorrt'. 
 
 J 'JC llniikruptcy of hiiHl)an<L 
 
 AuTHI.K hi. — ASSIONMKNT OK DoWKR. 
 
 t 28-1. Tho widow's riKht to iiii iu»tKtiiiu-nt. 
 
 ; 2H|. Who miiHt iuwIrii. 
 
 ,> 2VI. A)«iKiiiiii-iit without Hiilt — Of imd nirnlnst common rl^hL 
 
 { 2%V. AwilKiiineiit by suit — At cuaunon law.
 
 XviM CONTEXTS. 
 
 I 2»T. AwUfnwnt *>r nuH— At Inw umlcr iit*tut<>Si 
 
 J Sri. Asslennjiv ' • -"'■ ' ;.!i'.- 
 
 I 2». rr<Hif>'fr; 
 
 ) 2a0. >jiti>piK-l> 
 
 i 291. WItlitw'M rliitil lutliiMcr In iiiaiikloii houae. 
 
 I aC. A<«lRT>in<>nt by tnft«it atul IkiuikIa. 
 
 { 20. A<nU(iiniciit In rrnt.i itml proflta. 
 
 I "SA. AA.HlKiini<'ii( In i;ri>'>.H Kiitiu 
 
 I Si. Willow's rlifhl In linpnivpinpntJ*. 
 
 ) ax. Wlilnw'tt rliilit to <l.imac«-ii l.i law. 
 
 I Z/7. Wldow'n ii;;:it to iM-rounl of mtiinr prnfltn In equity. 
 
 I aw. KflT'M-t of axHlKninrnt 
 
 I ao. KnTi-t't of fXo-Muvc iLvilznmpnt. 
 
 I 3DQ. KflTirct of fvlcUon from iuwU[n<<<l land*. 
 
 fH.VlTKU XV. 
 
 WIKK's KSTATI IV ill>iuvvii'«, i-r u-M (\ \ I rv. 
 I sou UencnUly. 
 
 CIIAITKH XVI. 
 
 KSTATKH OK 1II°SIIA.M> AM> WIKK I.N ritOPKllTY OK IM>rir 
 OK THKM. 
 
 ) 3PZ. Propt'rtr nwnoil hy boUi lifforo iruurljiirn. 
 
 I .la I"rop«Ttr %-<irtlnir In tlii-ni itfti-r nuuriiun*. 
 
 I 3W. Tenancy by the rntlrcty nt ronunon Inw — Oration of. 
 
 { 3u* Trnanry by Ibn ciitln-ty at common law - rrop«Tly Riihjcrt la 
 
 I »». Tenojiry by the pntlr»'ly nt common law — Inrldpnta of. 
 
 I aC. KITiH-t of K'ntiilif* n'fiTTlnir to joint r>«tnt«"^ 
 
 \ XK KfTix-t of ni irrli-<l woiiicn">i swparute prtip«Tty acts. 
 
 ) 309. KfTiH-t i.f (llvorrr. 
 
 I Sid Joint and common •■^tnt"-^ of biinhnnit an<l wife. 
 
 I ni. PenioiuU prup< rty helonirlnif tt. t.oth. 
 
 <n\m:u xvii. 
 
 inMMINITY ritnrKHTY. 
 
 } ^2. Charartorlvlco. nrlifln. nnd history of community By«t<>in. 
 ) UX bt«iutcs ri-luLliig to community prup<Tiy.
 
 CONTKNTS. 
 
 ? mt. "VThnl Is nnrl Is not rommnntty propprty. 
 
 I :il!i. Rlifhts of husband ilnriiiK rovfrturt- ovlt. 
 
 { ^1<V. HlBhtsof wlfi- ilnriiiK (•ov«»rtnrf oviT. 
 
 ? ^7, niRlils of rrc'lUors of lin^biind ami wife a»-i?r. 
 
 { TIH. TMspositloii of. on divorce or deutU. 
 
 } 3ia CoulUct <if luu-s us to. 
 
 CTTAPTF-U XVI IT. 
 
 nOMKJ*TKAI> niOPKIlTY. 
 
 { TCIt. Pnrprwr nnd poH<-y of hoTn«"sirail and t-iemptlon luws. 
 
 J .T2I. <'oii«lriink>n of hoin«iil»'ud Intrs. 
 
 } 122. The pnrly rntltli'il ton boaiH"»tt»iiiL 
 
 ) XSl. Thi- lioTii-stcnd <lifln<vL 
 
 ) Ki. In TThul «-stnt^s tin- hotnt-rtr^il mny t-TWt. 
 
 I XZk How th(* homrMPad Is o)>tJiJn(<<1. 
 
 I xn. Itow Ihp honn-stinrt may hf Uwt. 
 
 J ."CT. NiiTtin» nf t!jo honii-wtonil •!rtnt<', nnd Inr-ldonts. 
 
 ? K*. nietits <if hHshjiiid m n!id oviT thi' horrvi-sTraiL 
 
 J :Cn. llUlits of wlfi- In und ovnr tht' hom«-st<-iid. 
 
 ; xa. ]JuUII)tl<-s of the bumesli-jid Co rJuiuis uf creditors. 
 
 PvitT IT. — The Statts or ^I.vhrikd AVomf.x. 
 rllAl'TKIl XIX. 
 
 TMi: STATTS or M.\KK1KI> >VeiM KX. O KN F.ll AI.l.Y. 
 
 } SSL nonornl n«If iit mmtnon law, no li^Knl t>xlst«»nr«'. 
 
 { .tC. CiipniiJli-s C)f wifv iititindnnivl hy hnshnnd. 
 
 ) Xa. riipiiiMll"-* of wlfv illvom-il >i mrxjwi r/ f*'>m. 
 
 } XH. riipiiHlli-s nf wife of hir«hand civilly di^d. 
 
 I XV>. riipm-ltli-s <if wife of birshand not tnii jtirlx. 
 
 { XK. riipiiHtl«-s nf \vif(> nctlnif In rppresontatlve position. 
 
 ; XC. riipi\cHl.«s of wlfi' In •■<inity. 
 
 ) S-TS. fapiicltlcs of wlfi- under statiitPS. 
 
 j 33a EfiTeft of uddlUoniJ disability of Inlaacy, et(x
 
 CO.VTKXTS, 
 
 rilMTKK XX. 
 
 WII,I„S OK MAKIIIKU WOMKV, 
 
 ( *#1. T<-»t:inii-iitury law iit nppllcil lo iiinrrl<-<l womnn. 
 
 I ."Ml. Wi'N i>r m.irrli-<| wnrm-ii <tt i-niiiiiiiiii Liw.iffiiiTnllv. 
 
 I Srl WIllHof iii:irrl'M| woiii'-ri at oimiiUMi luw. <'Xo-|>tk>ikS 
 
 I MU WIIU of iimrrhtt n'uiiicii tii <><iulty. 
 
 ) Mt. Wlllfif .•.|ii|t.i».|.. «,-p;ir:ii.' pr<.|».rtv. 
 
 ( M-X W ■ ' ..tututoii. 
 
 I .-Mfi. \\ rfy. 
 
 J .117. \\...... , :......: A l.ttliiKiilAlifd. 
 
 !*!■*. KfTwt of liuMmiurs rorwi-n{ I > u-tf«''« will, 
 
 { its. Mutual -.rllN of liit!(l>uii<l and wife. 
 
 J .ViO. t; f ■ < 'If of iiiarrf.Mt M-omcru 
 
 I ^'<t. U A III liy iiinrriiil woniAii. 
 
 I SC \\ ' f r- her ni:irriiMn>. 
 
 ( 3VI. V -'ilir.ioii uf iiiuniace* 
 
 I XA. I'.. I 
 
 rii \ri-i:ic xxr. 
 
 f«»VTUA<TS <IK MAKKIKM WOMKN. 
 
 .VkTUI.K I.— TiIK <;K>KI«VI, I*IMN<iri,KS. 
 
 I XW. nv wopI "roiitruct " ilflliii><l anil <'xplftlinHl. 
 
 ( .V*. Ijiw of contnu-t.s ilh hIT«i-I<-<I hy roviTtiir-'. 
 
 { 357. t'omrarl.H of niurrlftl woinrn ut coninion luw, gi-norally. 
 
 ) ViH. Contnu-tK of utarrlft women at ronimon law, rsceptlons. 
 
 I a59. Contrnrts of nuirrli-il wmiu-n In «Hiulty. 
 
 I SHX Conlnu-t.HrhurKlnK <-<|iiltalil)- iM-|mnit*> propiTty. 
 
 ) Ml. Contnu'tnof inarrUHl womi-n undi-r ntutiiti-r 
 
 ( SIC Conlr«<'tii ctuirjrtnit Htutntury iu»paniti> pn>p<Tiy. 
 
 } ,*a. 0>ntriu-tsof m.irrlol wonn-n a* ac ■iit.M. 
 
 ) XH. C'ontriu-tHof niarrli'd women tlirouKli affiMilA. 
 
 I 3fti Coutrarts of niarrliMl women niiuK- before ninrrlacf . 
 
 I ML Contnu-t.s of marrli-il women ronflrmed afttr covi-rturv. 
 
 ) 3K7. i'onlnietH hetween liuslinnd and wife, 
 
 ( KM. Invalid i-ontntclii, whether void or voldiUile.
 
 rOXTKNTS. XXl 
 
 ArTU-I.K it. — TiIK STATrTKS rONSTRITEP — TlIKIR 
 EFFKfT. 
 
 I ViO. OtMM'rnl Rtiitiiti>B not n-ferrlni; to mi\rr1f<1 wnnir-n. 
 
 { Xn. Miirrli'il wKminV M)-pnrii(e propt-rty uct«. iri-iuTully. 
 
 I ^I. PropiTty nrtK — ConirnriH In p<iMtty. 
 
 i XZ Propi-rty iwU— rimtnictM by Impllontlon. 
 
 { S73. Proporty iwts — Conf riu-t« nn<1«'r *'xprf«« piiwtTn. 
 
 { .T7-1. StatuU'ii Pxprftmly authorlr.liiK or prohlhltliiij. 
 
 ? ^.V Stntilt<f» fxprc-KMly niitliorlrlnif all contract.^. 
 
 } Xd St«lulo« rcrjiilrlnK forninlltlon. 
 
 { .T7. I>oonl ami pxtm tiTrltorliil ptTort. 
 
 J 'C*. Primpi-cttvo ami rctrKspi-f-tlvi- ••fT<H't. 
 
 ; .T« a. TliP wtaluK-n In tho <hir<T<nt Mtat«»n. 
 
 AuTHi.K ITT. — SPKmAi, Kinds ok < '(>ntii.\<ts. 
 
 { 37H. CV)ntmrffl in prrmfutm and In rrm. 
 
 } rwn. Kxf-ontory ami cxiTutod contriu-ts. 
 
 { Shi. KzpriMwand Implli-*! (vintrm-ts. 
 
 { ^Z. ('(iiitnict.M nui<l<' alune uml Jointly with liu*i))un<l. 
 
 \ •'W. PiirrhiuM'jt ami r«Ii>^. 
 
 { WL CovonantH and honiK 
 
 { W.\ PromlHuory noton. 
 
 ? .1^ Rplc>a«<'« and rpcclpta. 
 
 { WT. Ront, ri'palrs, and fiinilly <>xp<>nii>>ii. 
 
 5 W«. BnhmNsloii to arlill radon. 
 
 { W9. Ktnploymont of lUffnt.s. 
 
 } !W». T.tnbnitlPH an ntorklioldor. 
 
 \ ?m. Contrarts as Mnr<'ty. 
 
 } rwC ront>iict« an trader. 
 
 \ 3£0. MLBOcllaiicoiw rontnwtN, ff. 
 
 CTIAITKH XXII. 
 
 nKEPS OK MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 } SVI. At common law. 
 
 ; ."ew. rndorstatntcs. 
 
 { XXi. Ofdowpr. 
 
 f .HT. Of oqnilahio Rpparnto prnporty. 
 
 { SnR. Of statutory separate propert.v. 
 
 { 890. Joinder of husband.
 
 Lll CONTKNT^i. 
 
 I •fW. Ex<»ontlon l>y wifr. 
 
 { ♦•!. C«Ttlfl<-iit«-' of iiL-kiiijwlod<tment, oto. 
 
 i ¥f2. Conflrntallon of liivnild ili-<>d hy wiff. 
 
 ) 4<«. ConrtriniUJon of Itiviilld d<-«-<l lir siatiiti'. 
 
 ( ¥tl. Ooiiflrntutl-iii of IiivhIM iImhI by Kjully. 
 
 ( ♦».). riHI»«'<whtii'Til iif iii;irrii<l woiii^-ii'.mI.smIii. 
 
 I if^i. Murrteil woinniiN |>o\*-LrH of ttlt«»nu-y. 
 
 { Mr. AKTT-i-montH of iiiurrli-'l «rorm«n to gUi- iIihnIn. 
 
 { MH. ML-^vUiiU'-oiis |Mtlnb« us t'» dtr«>Ua of iniirrh-d wonira. 
 
 riiAiTKU xxnr. 
 
 hX-nHTri.N AOAINST M.VUIllKI" WOMKV. 
 
 «». P>tn|>|M-U ittv»«»««U. 
 
 iUK l>topp<U«Kiiliwt in«/Tt.-<l wnMiii>ti — f4<'tii-nil riilfj^i 
 
 •III. I->toi>p<'l!» by r<>r^ir<t iurtl'i«t in'irrlc<l wniii'ii. 
 
 All. F><fop|M-Nhy <trH«|ii«attiM niulTli-«l M-iiiiu-ii. 
 
 41.^ r>lu|>p< {"^ III ;mi<j tl>'Hn<-<l. 
 
 Hi. RMo|>p<:N (n jfiit iiirulit<[t iiturrV-<I niiiiifti -la<-tuTul roIOk 
 
 •IIV K.'»K»pr>^N tn f-tl' - firtltrirf-. 
 
 ■IKU Kf«»o|i|«l'i I., y III - F'lil-u- r-'tin-sa'tiinHoiin. 
 
 iXl. r>lo|«|«ils ii»,./»«.t -sll> iw-.-. .i<4iil<-m-orM«»-. 
 
 II*. ^>^>f»|»••l« In futft — r^nn- tort>. 
 
 419. K(T>i-l <if (Mirtl 'i|nitl<iii lit liimlmiiil. 
 
 t 0>. I'vMvpiH-ls iifu-r <IUwjlatl<ui of iiiiirrtiiK*'. 
 
 <jrviTF:r{ xxrv. 
 
 mrn-s <»i- .makiciko wmmkn. 
 
 f r21, n^n^nt} r><»n«J»t^r«tl«i(i>v 
 
 ( A'l. AutMiup(*Ml turtv 
 
 i Cn. i>»<i>U|>t«itl lort^. 
 
 ) f?!. T>»rt!iroi»n«'»'»<-<t mtlt ••'•iirni'T. 
 
 ) i:^ UuhUUy for. liuw viitun-<il. 
 
 rFr.\rTr;ir xxv. 
 rnt>tf> oi' >iArir{ri;i> \nmmf:x. 
 
 J -rSl. >rntTf.'<t w cnK-nV lliihlllty fur rrfm*-. 
 { l?7. Prixifof uv;irrU.'<l woiuiMi's giiil:.
 
 (•OXTKXTS. XXiil 
 
 <irAi"n:u xxvi. 
 
 sins or MAIUdKD WOMKN. 
 
 Aicr. I.— Mils <<|- Maiikii:i» Wu.mkn, i.v (jK>Kit<vL,. 
 
 { ^2S. rrt Uinln.iry iioto. 
 
 { 4^ Ri^hu uiid rcincdlifi (U.stini^lshoil. 
 
 ( -1.1). KfTcrt ot ijinrrluf(<- on pcnilliiK huI'.h. 
 
 { -lau Suits of iiiurrl.'<I women at conuiion law. 
 
 I jni Hiilts <»f initrrU-cI wotiicii In iMiulty uinl tiy Mntut(». 
 
 { -t.'n. Sult'i Iw-twct'ii liiLS>>itii<l nnil wife. 
 
 I -I'M. KlTi-ct uf (liK.s<ilutJ(>n of iiiiirrliir;)! on pi-inllnif Kiiltii. 
 
 { iVt. I^iw of fornni itnvcrnM rcuivillcH. 
 
 { +'IH. Ijiw of tlnit.' suit )>roiiglit Kuvems rcnuHllcs. 
 
 I 4.T7. Cost*. 
 
 AuTicLK II. — Svrrs} nv Mahuiko Womkx. 
 
 I ^-TS. Mo<Io« In wlilrh mnrrlixl wonii-n limy .sm.'. 
 
 t rVk. Suit!* Jointly with hiiMlMtml. 
 
 {410. Suits by trusti'f or nixl frii-nrl. 
 
 i -l-ll. SiiitH hy niurrlf<I woniun uluno. 
 
 { -442. Tlip niimt-N of n<-tlon. 
 
 f 4 IS. Thi- <l.fi-nR»-». 
 
 { 44^. rii'Rof i-<iviTtnr* niTAlnst mrirrlcd vcomon. 
 
 I 44.1. rii'H of Itmltittioiis iiiriiliist nnirriiMl women. 
 
 { 4lfi. S|)e<'ltil proceediiiiCM of nii>rrl.-il wonii-ii. 
 
 { 447. Tile ownership of the proceeds of suit, 
 
 Akticlk III. — SfiTs Afj.viNsT Maurikd "Womkx. 
 
 J 44S. Mo<lfs In which roftrrled women may bo sued. 
 
 { 4r.i. Suits Jointly with liushiitiil. 
 
 { 4.'iO. Suits with tniKtee or ne.\t friend. 
 
 { 4.*>1. Suits iiKtdiist murrled women ulone, 
 
 J A'lS. The servlee of pro<'ess. 
 
 } 4.S.'!, The c-uuses of lU-tlon. 
 
 { 4">4. The defenses. 
 
 I 4"m. The plea of coverture by married wompn. 
 
 { 4."ifi. The plea of limitation!! by married women. 
 
 { 4.)T. E:Te<-t of Judf^ment aRalnst niHrrled women. 
 
 J 45.S. Kxecutlon, etc., of the Ju:I;;ment. 
 
 { 459. .Special proccedlnpi against married women.
 
 XX fv fi>NTKNTS. 
 
 \inni.K IV. — Manaukmkxt ov Srrrs. 
 
 I -lA). Thf powtTtiif Ihi- buHtmno orcr tin* suit. 
 
 ( -li'.l. Th" w If.'-i «<-jiarali' !>iilt, ili-fciiM-, vie. 
 
 { -I Tl Marrl<-<l wnnii-n'n npixilntniftit of atturripyn ■( l»w. 
 
 I 4fSl, C'unip«-tuutUoii uf ouutWU woiui-n'i atlornvvv 
 
 CHAITKK XXVII. 
 
 MAKUIKIi WOMKN TIIADKILS. 
 
 AUTIt UK 1. — .'MlllU'KS OK t'Ar.Vl-ITY !•> TliAl'K. 
 
 I 1M, ^'narrmi of rapai'tty' to trad*, grnrmlr 
 
 I •I.Vi. I ■ " miTH. •' tnwli-." ■• i>u«iiii"t^ VI. 
 
 i 4<U. ' ' >4Uiit bi ct« Uljr deatl. vu:. 
 
 »♦,:. .... . ::u 
 
 I 4IM. (.'apnrliy In i><]iiity. 
 
 I 4SJ. Cnpnr-lty t>y htunnti'Vn rrin!«<»nt. 
 
 J •fro. < - : r.iporty lu-t^ 
 
 » ri. c 
 
 I 47JL (..J .,.,■... -...>..i. -— ^1- ......' ■|iilrpn»-iiCn. 
 
 AltTHLK II. — IXCIOKXTS OV fATAilTY TO TUAHI'U 
 
 i <7X. now far (teprndrnt on imarrffi uf capaciiy. 
 
 MT*. 1 • 
 
 J 4TV : 
 
 I nv. 1. 
 
 I 4TT. ltu[ht.<i of bu.siHuid'n cnnliUink 
 
 i <TS. HlKhta iiiKl Il;thn!i|«« «f liunlmmf. 
 
 117% MiiriiiMl will. '^Intnulc 
 
 { -I .a Miirrl.<l »•«. r^ 
 
 I i'\. >Iurrlf<l Willi ... . ii><mit«»n«, »t«rkliiil<l' " • '■• 
 
 cH.vm'KU xxviir. 
 
 JIAHUIF.P WOMKN IN It KI'Uf^liXTATI VK CArACITIES, 
 
 ) ♦<! Tlu' (]Uf!«tion<i Involved. 
 
 { -ivT. .^imc genrntl rule*. 
 
 I iM. MnrntHl women lu xenti^ 
 
 I 4>S[. MnrrttHl wum«-n a.i tnuteen. 
 
 ) 4S«i. MarrliHl womon iu« cxfx-uirlcea, ato; 
 
 { i'C. Muriieil wuiuea as (fuanUaoa.
 
 TIlKKAWoriirsiiANDAXDWiri:. 
 
 r.\itT I. iNxnonrrToRY. 
 
 II. TiiK Hkuvtion «ik HrxBAXP ant* Wifi:. 
 
 III. TiiK INtatks ok HrsiiAND ani> Wikk. 
 
 IV. Tin: STATrs oj- Mahkiko Womkn. 
 
 Paut I. — Inthopuctouy. 
 Chat. I. Thk SnuK.fT I)K.i-iXKn and l)ivi:iKn. 
 
 II. .S<>rHlH>. iNTKHPIlKT.iTIUN, ,VM) CoXFLILTS 
 
 OK THK Law.
 
 HUSBAXD AXD WIFE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THK SUBJECT DKFINKD AND DIVIDED. 
 
 J 1. Husbaiul, wlfo, children, the marrlerl state. 
 
 2 2. Tlio rckitloM of husband and wife. 
 
 i 3. The: estates of husband and wife. 
 
 5 4. The status of married woman. 
 
 § 5. The relation of parent and child. 
 
 g 1. Husband, wifo, children, the marriod stats. — After 
 a valid marria^^c betwcoii t!uui, man and woman are 
 husband and wifo, and their oflspring are legitimate or 
 legal children. Those continuing conditions which 
 determine the legal position of luisband and wife with 
 regard to eacli other, their cliildren, and the rest of the 
 community, constitute tlie status of marriage, or the 
 marriage or married state. Tlie married state may be 
 conveniently divided into, (1) the relation of husband 
 and wife; (2) the estates of husband and wife; (3) the 
 status of married women ; and (4) the relation of parent 
 and child. 
 
 ij 2. Tha rolation of husband and wifo. — Husband and 
 wife are, hy the law, bound together in a peculiar r.ia:.- 
 ncr, with special oliligations and rights with regard to 
 each other, which constitute the relation of husband and 
 wife. This relation may be conveniently divided into, 
 (1) the unity of husband and wife and its consequences ;
 
 §2 3-5 SUBJECT DEFINED AND DIVIDED. 4 
 
 (2) the mutual rights and obligations of husband and 
 wife and their consequences ; (3) dealings of husband 
 and wife, the one for the other; and (4) dealings 
 between liusband and wife. 
 
 ? 3. Estates of husband and wife. — Husband and wife 
 stand in a iieculiar position with regard to their own and 
 each other's property — the conditions of tlioir tenure 
 constitute the estates of husband and wife. Tliese may 
 be conveniently divided into, (1) husbands estate in his 
 own property ; (2) husband's estate in his wife's realty, 
 
 (3) and personalty ; (4) wife's estates in her own jirop- 
 crty ; (5) wife's estate in her husband's I'calty, ((>) and 
 personalty ; (7) estates of husband and wife in tlieir 
 joint and common property — joint and common estates 
 of husband and wife. 
 
 ? 4. The status of married women. — Besides having 
 special riglits and obligations witli regard to tlieir hus- 
 bands, growing out of tlie relation of husband and wife, 
 wives stand in a jieculiar position in tlio communitj% 
 the conditions of which, tlieir disabilities, privileges, 
 rights, and obligations, constitute the status of married 
 women. This may be conveniently divided into, (1) 
 coverture and its effect generally ; (2) capacity of mar- 
 ried women to hold and enjoy property ; (3) wills of 
 married women ; (4) deeds of married woman ; (5) con- 
 tracts of married women ; ((j) torts of married wonion ; 
 (7) crimes of married women ; (S) suits of married 
 women; (9) married women as traders; (10) married 
 women as trustees, etc. ; (11) estoppels against mar- 
 ried women. 
 
 ^ 5. Relation of parent and child. — The rights and 
 obligations of husljand and Avife with regard to their 
 oft'spring constitute the relation of parent and child.
 
 5 SUBJECT DEFINED AND DIVIDED. g 5 
 
 In a cortain sense this relation therefore belongs to the 
 subject of husband and wife ; but it is customarily 
 treated separatelj', and will not be discussed in this 
 volume.
 
 SOURCES OF THE LAW. 6 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 SOURCES, IMERPRETATION, AND CONFLICTS. 
 
 Art. I. Sources of the Law, ^g 6-10. 
 
 II. Interpretatiox of the Law, ?? 11-18. 
 
 III. Past and Present Law, ?§ 19-23. 
 
 IV. Home and Foreign Law, g§ 24-37. 
 
 Article I. — Sources of the Law. 
 
 i 6. The common law and English statutes. 
 
 5 7. The civil law and codes. 
 
 i 8. The equity system. 
 
 i 9. Statutes. 
 
 J 10. The resulting questions. 
 
 ;j 6. The common law and English statutoc. — The pom- 
 iiion law of England, inelnding many Biili.sh statutes 
 in force before ITTO,^ forms the basis of the law in nearly 
 all the United States, and is here still in force so far as 
 it is consistent with the principles of republican gov- 
 ernment and with the statutes of the various States.^ 
 This is so in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
 Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Ken- 
 tucky, Maine, Marjdand, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
 Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 
 Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 
 Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.^ Some of these 
 S:ates were originally colonized by the English,* others 
 by statute have made the common law their own.^ 
 But the common law is unknown in I^ouisiana,® and it 
 is doubtful whether it is in force in Iowa.'' It is, of 
 course, in force in England.* Thus, the law courts in 
 the United States are bound by the common-law fiction
 
 7 SOURCES OF THE LAW. § 7 
 
 of the unity of husband and wife,^ and an estate like 
 curtesy exists, though not created by statute.^" 
 
 1 See Alex. Brit. Stats, in Md. ; Siblf.v ?•. Williams, 3 Gill & J. r,2, 
 r>1 ; Hriiiley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348, 3o;j ; Stevens v. Eiiders, 13 jS'. J. J.. 
 271, 273, 274. 
 
 2 Pawlet V. Clark, 9 Craiich, 2S2, 333; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 
 Peters, ot)\, 6.".!); Van Xess v. PacarU: 2 Peters, 137, 144; Pollard v. 
 Ha«<in, 3 How. 212 ; Carter v. Balfour. 19 Alu. 814, h2'j ; Grande v. Koy, 
 H<"nip. 10.'>. lo:» ; Cal. Code, i 44(W ; Colo. (i. L. 1><77, p. i:C, ? 156 ; Wil- 
 ford V. Grant, Kirby, 114, 117; Fla. Dig. Issl, p. 108,^7; Xeal v. 
 Farmer, 9 (;a. .V).5, .jWJ ; Pluinilcigh v. Cook, 13 111. iKi, 671 ; Dawson it. 
 Shaver, 1 Hluekf. 204, 20i! ; Gorliam v. Luckett, 6 ilon. B. 6:18, 645; 
 Collev V. Jlerrill, 6 Me. 50, 5.5 ; Ale.x. Brit. Stats, in Md. ; Going i\ 
 Emery, 16 Plek. 107, 115, 110; 20 Am. Dec. 64.5; Stout )'. Keyes, 2 
 Donif. (Mich.; 1S4, 1.H.S ; Wheelock v. Cozzens, 7 Miss. 27:i, 2,S3 ; Keaume 
 V. Cha:iil)vrs. 22 Mo. ::o, 51 ; Nev. C. L. 1873, ^ I ; State v. Moore, 26 
 X. n. 44S, 455 ; Stevens V. Enders, 13 N. J. L. 271, 273, 274 ; Waterford 
 i: People, 9 Barb. 161, 166 ; State r. Huntlv, 3 Ired. 418 ; Belts v. Wi.se, 
 11 Ohio, 219, 221 ; Kep. of .ludges, 5 Hinh. 5!i5. 601 ; R. I. R. S. 1882, 
 p. 771, j 3 ; State r. Kutfliffe, 4 Strob. 372, 397 ; Jacob v. State, 3 
 llnmph. 493, .514 ; Tex. H. S. 1879, i 31iS ; State i-. Brings, 1 Aiken, 226, 
 2J9 ; Commonw. v. Lodge, 2 Gratt. 679, 580; Wis. R. S. 1878, p. 3.5, i 13. 
 See Am. Law Reg. Sept. 1882. 
 
 3 Cases in note 2 ; Bish. First Bk. ?5 43-60 ; 1 Burge Col. & For. 
 L. pp. .507, 568. 
 
 4 State V. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, a5.5-357. 
 
 5 Grande v. Foy, Hemp. 105, 108, 109. 
 
 6 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 43:1, 449. 
 
 7 O'Ferralln. .Siniplot, 4 Iowa, .381,391. 
 
 8 See Blackstone's Commentaries. 
 
 9 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. :n9 ; post, ? 39. 
 10 Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36, 51. 
 
 § 7. The civil law and Codes. — The civil law of Rome 
 and the Codes form the basis of the law of France and 
 Spain/ and therefore prevailed in tlie Feneli and Span- 
 ish colonies; 2 it was thus once in force in Arkansas,^ 
 Iowa,* Michigan,^ Mis.souri,'' Texas,^ and other States ;» 
 but these have by statute adopted the common law ,9 
 and Louisiana alone has a .system of her own based 
 upon the civil law.'" Still the civil-law idea of the 
 duality of husband and Avife'^ has been long accepted 
 in courts of equity,'- and has been generally adopted in 
 modern statutes ;'3 and in the new States like Texas, in 
 regard to matters occurring before the adoption of the 
 common law, has latelv been enforced.'* So the civil-
 
 § 8 SOURCES OF THK LAW, 8 
 
 law system of community proiierty exists in California, 
 Louisiana, Nevada, and Texas.'' 
 
 1 Schouler Husb. & W. ? 5. 
 
 2 Bii Poncpnn, Ju.-isd. 74, 70. 
 
 3 Oraiide v. Foy, Hc-mp. 105, \0K 
 
 4 O'Forrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381, 384. 
 
 5 Du Ponceau Jurisd. 74. 
 
 6 Du Ponceau Jurisd. 79. 
 
 7 Bish. First Book, ? 57. 
 
 8 Soe Bish. First Book, U 47-5'? ; Du Ponceau Jurisd. 74-82. 
 
 9 Ante, | 6. 
 
 10 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433, 449. 
 
 11 1 liurge Col. & For. L. 202 ; p>,.it, i 39. 
 
 12 Post, U 8. -"55. •»2, 197-216. 
 
 13 iVwf, ?? 9,. Xi, 43, 217-243. 
 
 14 Lee i-. Smitli, 18 Tex. 141, 14.S. 
 
 15 Discussed, post, ?J 312-^519. 
 
 ? 8. The equity system. — Courts of equity, by virtue 
 of their jurisdiction over trusts, have always taken cog- 
 nizance of trusts for the separate use of married women, 
 and have recognized to this extent the separate existence 
 of the wife. This jurisdiction has been gradually ox- 
 tended to the general relief of married women.'- Tlius, 
 when at law a married woman could not hold property 
 at all, she could be protected in the enjoyment of suc!\ 
 as was .settled in trust for her sole and separate use in 
 equity;* so a contract between husband and wife is 
 absolutely void at common law, but may be valid in 
 equity.* In Pennsylvania equity and law are adminis- 
 tered by the same court, and the distinction between 
 law and equity does not, therefore, to such an extent 
 prevail.^ 
 
 1 See Harvev, 1 P. Wms. 124; TuUett t>. Armstrong, 1 Beav. 21, 
 22 ; Stur^s r. Ch'ampuys, 5 Mont, & C. 103. 
 
 2 Maoq. Hush. * W. 2'<4. 2S5 ; 1 Bish. M. W. J? 16-22 ; Schoul. Husb. 
 <fe W. J IW ; Pybus v. .Smith, 4 Brown Ch. 4So. 
 
 3 See Chew i-. Beall, 13 >rd. M% 360 ; post, \\ 197-216.
 
 9 SOURCES OF THE LAW. | 9 
 
 4 See Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 398, 390 ; post, ? 42. 
 
 ."5 See Pollarrl v. Shaaffer, 1 Dall. 210, 214 ; Bisblng v. Graham, 14 
 Pa. St. 14. 18 ; Miller, 44 Pa. St. 170 ; Tvson, 10 Pa. St. 220 ; Rees v. 
 Waters, 9 Watts, 90, 94 ; Rawle " Equity in Pa." 87. 
 
 g 9. Statutes. — Each State has full control of the 
 domestic condition of its domiciled inhabitants, and 
 inaj^, so far as there is no prohibition in the Constitu- 
 tion, through its lejKislature, change and establish the 
 riglits, liabilities, disabilities, and status of husbands 
 and wives.i In tlie United States, Congress has no 
 power to pass laws on this subject Avhich will be en- 
 forced in the several States. ^ So unsatisfactory has the 
 cominon-law system of liusband and wife been found 
 that all tlie States have availed themselves of their 
 aforesaid power to change tlie law, and now statutes 
 are the most important of all the sources of the law to 
 be consulted. A reference to the compiled l&ws of 
 each State witli access to which this book is written is 
 appended.^ It would be interesting to trace the his- 
 tory of tlie law in the several States, but the scope of 
 this work does not allow this to be done.* 
 
 1 stone V. Gazzam, 46 Ala. 269, 274 ; this is nowhere denied. 
 
 2 Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82, 93 ; Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 
 195; -State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. :«9, 39.5-400; Sewall, 122 Mass. 1.56, Ifil ; 
 Hopkins, 3 Mass. 1.5S, 1.59 ; Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217, 228 ; Doc. Lonas v. State, 
 3 Ili'isk. 2S7. :« I ; Frashor )•. State, 3 Tex. App. 26.3, 275 ; Cook, 56 Wis. 
 396 ; 14 N. W. Rep. 33, 30, 443. 
 
 3 Ala. Code, 1876 ; Ark. Dig. 1874 ; Cal. Civ. Code. 1881 ; Colo. G. L. 
 1S77; Conn. G. .S. 1875; Del. R. C. 1874 ; Fla. Dig. 1881 ; Ga. R. C. 1878 ; 
 111. R. S. 18S0 ; Ind. R. S. 1881 ; Iowa, R. C. 1880 ; Kan. C. L. 1881 ; Kv. 
 G. S. 1S81 ; La. Civ. Code, 1875 ; Me. R. S. 1871 ; Md. R. C. 1878 : Mass. 
 P. S. 1882; Mich. R. S. 1882 ; Minn. St. 1878 ; Miss. R. S. lasO ; Mo. 
 R. S. 1879; Neb. C. S. 1881 ; Nev. C. L. 1873 ; X. H. G. L. 1878 ; N. J. 
 Rev. 1877; N. Y. R. S. 1882; N. C. Bat. Rev. 187:; Ohio R. S. ls80 ; 
 Oreg. G. L. 1872 ; Pa. Pi-rd. Dig. 1872-1876 ; R. I. P. S. 1882 ; S. C. G. S. 
 18S2 ; Tenn. R. 8. 1873 ; Tex. R. S. 1879 ; Va. Code, 1873 ; Vt. R. L. 1880; 
 "VV. Va. R. S. 1879 ; Wis. R. S. 1878. 
 
 4 See, for Interesting discussions of the law. Day v. Gould, 31 Cal. 
 631, 637-646; Wells r. Cay wood, 3 Colo. 487, 490-193 ; Jackson v. Hub- 
 bard, :« Conn. 10, 15, 16 ; Martin r. Robson,65 111. 131 ; Cooper v. How, 
 4'i Ind. 393, 400 ; Tong v. Martin, 15 Mi'-h. 60, 66, 67 ; Albin v. Lord, 39 
 K. H. 196, 201 ; Whit'' v. Woger, 25 N. Y. :328, 3-30-332 ; Radford v. Car- 
 vile, 13 W. Va. 573, 581-674.
 
 ^} 10-11 IXTEEPRKTATION OI' THE LAW. 10 
 
 ^ 10. The resulting questions. — 1. Since the law is in 
 part unwritten and in pai't statutory, the question 
 arises, how do the two combine? "What do the statutes 
 mean ? How are the laws of liusband and wife to be in- 
 terpreted ? ' 2. Since new statutes are constantly chang- 
 ing the law, the question arises, when do these changes 
 take effect ? Does this case depend on past or present 
 law?-' 3. Since every State has its own law, the ques- 
 tion arises, what State's law applies ? Does this case 
 depend on home, or on some foreign, law?'* 
 
 1 rost, i>c ii-i"- 
 
 2 Post, U 19-23. 
 
 3 Post, U 24-37. 
 
 AKTICLE. II. — IXTERPRETATIOX OP THE LaW. 
 
 § 11. Iiiterprc'tatioi) in general. 
 
 5 12. liules of interpretation. 
 
 i i:<. (Jeneral st.itiites do not afT.'Ct liiisband and wife. 
 
 i H. Marri.'tl women acts do not afToct marriage relation. 
 
 i 1.5. Prop-.Ttyaets do not alToct personal status. 
 
 5 16. Strict and liberal interpretation. 
 
 5 17. Prospective interpretation. 
 
 § IS. Local interpretation. 
 
 2 11. Interpretation in gonoral. — The main difficulty 
 in the admiiiistra.iou of the law of huslmnd and wife 
 lies in asceriaiuing tlie meaning and cfTect of statutes.' 
 Tliese are often carelessh' and ignorantly (h-awn, and 
 not according to rule, so that it is verj^ diflicult lij^ rule 
 to determine what they mean.''' Still certain rules may 
 be formulated which will serve for guidance in the 
 great mass of cases,^ and the more special effect of par- 
 ticular statutes will be considered under tlie various 
 titles.! 
 
 1 And yet the words "interpretation" and "construction" are 
 not in the" index of Schonler's " Husband and Wife." or Kelly'.s 
 "Contracts of Married Women," the latest books on marriage 
 rights.
 
 11 INTEUPRETATIOX OF Till: LAW. J 13 
 
 2 Seo Sedg. Const. Stats, pp. 2G3-271 ; 2 BIsh. M. W. ?§ n-Z7 ; Ste-v- 
 art M. & 1). ?J 51, 53, 57, 8!), !tl, 97, 216, 228, :151. 
 
 3 J»(Wt, ?? 12-18. 
 
 4 See index "Statutes," " Construction," and the various titles. 
 
 § 13. Rules of interpretation. — No statute is complete 
 in itself but it combines with the pre-existing law;' 
 and tlius ari.ses the following rule: (1) All provisions 
 of law statutory and unwritten, at wliatever several 
 dates established, are to be construed togetlier as con- 
 tracting, expanding, enlarging, and attenua':ing one 
 another into one harmonious system of jurisprudence.* 
 A statute inaj'^ be general and refer to all persons with- 
 out mentioning liusband and wiTe, or it may particu- 
 larly refer to husband and wife ; and in the latter case 
 may refer to one or more of the divisions of husband 
 and wife — tlie relation of husband and wife, tlie estates 
 of husband and Avife, the status of married women ;^ 
 and thus arise the following rules : (2) no general stat- 
 ute affects the law of husband and wife;* (3) married 
 M'omen acts do not attect the relation of husband and 
 Avife ;* (4) property acts do not affect the personal status 
 of husband and wife.* The groat majority of husband 
 and wife statutes are remedial and enabling, and to 
 construe them strictly would bo to defeat their pur- 
 pose; on the other hand they are in derogation of the 
 common law, and should therefore be strictly con- 
 strued ; hence, arises the following rule : (o) statutes 
 l-elating to husband and wife are construed -strictl;; so 
 far as they give new rights or impose new obligations, 
 but liberall}/ so far as they secure the onjoj'ment of 
 rights or the enforcement of obligations.' .Statutes are 
 passed which contain no provision as to when they 
 shall take eti'ect ; hence arises the rule : (6) all statutes 
 are prospectively construed.^ Statutes are passed 
 Which make no distinction between rights, etc., in and
 
 § 13 INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. 12 
 
 out of the State ; hence arises the rule : (7) all statutes 
 are locally construed ;3 other rules have been laid 
 do\\ni, such as : (8) there can be no repeal by implica- 
 tion ;'* (9) married women separate property acts are 
 declaratory of equity, and are construed in accordance 
 with the principles thereof;" (10) statutes fi;iving new 
 remedies, etc., do not take away old ones;''^ (II) stat- 
 utes whicli take away capacities, etc., are strictly con- 
 strued.'^ 
 
 1 See Canal v. Railroad, 4 Gill & J. 1, 152. 
 
 2 See Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 5S,T>? ; 1 Elsh. M. V/. ? 3.1 ; 2 Bish. 
 M. W. a 11, 12 ; and the rules infrcu 
 
 3 Ante, ii l-i- 
 
 4 Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. 1, 17 ; 2 Am. Rop. 5S6 ; post, J 13, 
 
 5 Walker v. Reamy, 30 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; post, i 14. 
 
 6 Albin v. Lord, .3!) X. H. 196, 202 ; post, i 15. 
 
 7 Abshire v. State, .53 Ind. 64, 67 ; post, ? 16. 
 
 8 Post, ?J 17, 19-23. 
 
 9 Po««, ?? 18, 24-37. 
 
 10 See Mnvor v. Magruder, 34 Md. 381, 383, 387 ; Berley v. Ram- 
 pacher, 5 Duer, 183, 186. 
 
 11 Ric-hnrdson v. Stodder, 100 Mass. 528, 5.30 ; Snvder v. People. 26 
 Mich. 10!, IO:i ; 12 Am. Rep. 302: Albiii i'. Lord, 31 X. H. 106, 20:!. 204 ; 
 Batchelder v. Siirenit, 47 X. H. 262, 2r,.5. 266 : Peake >•. I.a Raw, 21 
 X. J. Kq. 2S2 ; Jobiison v. C'limniins, 16 X. J. Eq. 97, 105, 106 ; Ynle r. 
 Dederer, IS X. Y. 265,272, 279 ; Balliii v. Dillayo, .■!7 X. Y. 35, 37 ; Walker 
 V. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414. 
 
 12 Herzberg v. Sachse, GO Md. 426, 432. 
 
 13 .See Ingoldsbv v. Juan, 12 Cal. 575 ; Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. .3S1 ; 
 Bodley r. Ferguson, 30 Cal. 518. 
 
 J 13. Gsneral statutes do not affect husband and wife. — 
 No general statute atfects tlie law of luisband and wife ; 
 to change such law a .statute must expressly refer to it.' 
 Thus, statutes enal)ling persons generally to contract, 
 will; or testify do not enable married women to make 
 contracts 2 or wills,^ or husband and wife to testify for 
 or against each other.* So statutes relating to forfeit- 
 ures for treason,' to bastardy proceedings,* and to 
 insolvency,' have been held not to apply to married 
 women. So s':atutes referring to joint tenants do not
 
 13 INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. § 11 
 
 affect the holding of husband and wife by entireties.^ 
 But a statute holding the purchaser at a mortgage sale 
 liable for the difference in case of non-payment and 
 resale, was held applicable to married women ,9 and so 
 liave bank acts as to the liability of stoclvliolders.io 
 
 1 See Dano r. M. O. 27 Ark. .5&4, 567 ; Phillips v. State, 15 Ga. 518, 
 521 ; Kiuffer v. Ehler, IS Pa. St. :588, .'iHl ; cases infra. 
 
 2 This is so plain that it has never been questioned: See Robert- 
 son V. Burner, 2-1 Miss. 242, 244 ; post, i 363. 
 
 3 Cutter v. Butler, 2.t N. II. .%<:! ; Baker v. Chastang, IS Ala. 417, 
 422 ; Fitch r. Braincrtl, 2 Day, 1(>3, liK) ; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 
 5:!0 ; Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cush. .562, 56;{; post, i 34.5. 
 
 4 StaplPton I'. Crofts, is Add. & E. N. S. .-Jfi-, 36!) ; Alcock, 12 Eng. 
 L. & Eq •■{•54, 355; Lucas v. Brooks, IS Wall. 4:)6, 4-52 ; Jones. 6 Biss. 6S, 
 fiit ; Sumner v. Cooke, 51 Ala. 521 ; Lincoln v. Maduus, 102 III. 417. 421 ; 
 Mitchinson v. Cross, 5S 111. 'Mr,. :v,'.) ; Buss r. Steanihoat, 14 Iowa, 363, 
 .374: McKeen v. Frost, 46 Me. 23;), 24S, 2.50; Dwell v, 46 Me. 377, 3S0; 
 Turpin i'. State, 55 Md. 462, 477; Peaslee v. MoLoon, 16 Gray, 488, 489 ; 
 Kfllv V. Drew, 12 Allen, 107, 10!» ; Anon. 58 Miss. 1.5, 18 ; Bvrd v. State, 
 57 Miss. 243; M Am. Rep. 440; Dunlap v. Hearn, 37 Miss. 471, 474; 
 Young V. CJilman, 46 N. H. 4S4, 4S6 ; Corson, 44 N. H. .5^7, .58S ; Long- 
 endvke, 44 Barb. 366, .370 ; Schultz v. State, 32 Ohio St. 276, 2S0 ; Gibson 
 V. Com. 87 Pa. St. 2-53, 2.56; State v. Workman, 15 S. C. 540, 546 ; Staf- 
 ford, 41 Tex. Ill, US ; Gee j'. Scott, 48 Tex. 510, 514 ; 26 Am. Rep. 331 ; 
 r'ram, 33 Vt. 15, 20 ; Manf-hestcr, 24 Vt. 64!!, a50 ; but see Jlerriam v. 
 Hartfonl, 20 Conn. .354, .363 ; Berlin, 52 Mo. 151, 153 ; jwst, i 56. 
 
 5 Martin v. Com. 1 Mass. 347, 391. 
 
 6 Wilbur t-. Crane, 13 Pick. 2S4, 2!)0. 
 
 7 Relief v. Schmidt, 55 Md. 97, 9S. 
 
 8 Flading v. Rose, 58 Md. 13, 20 ; post, ? 306. 
 
 9 Fowlerv.Jacob.Md.Ct. App. Oct. 1SS3; Md. Law Rec. Oct. 4, 1S84. 
 10 The Reciprocity Bank, 22 N. H. n, 15 ; pott, ? 369. 
 
 ^ 14. Married womon acts do not affect the marriage 
 relation. — Married womon acts, or acts expressly re- 
 ferring only to the disabilities or tlie property rights of 
 married women, do not aftect the relation of hu.sband 
 and wife ; they change tlie status and rights of the lius- 
 band only so far as is necessary to secure to the wife 
 the enjoyment of her riglits.^ Thus, in spite of a mar- 
 ried women act the husband and wife are bound, as 
 under the common law, to cohabit ;2 the hu.sband is 
 liead of the familj*,' and is bound to support his wife,* 
 and is entitled to her person* and labor.^ If the act 
 H. & V.'. — 2.
 
 §•14 INTERTPETATION OF THE LAW. 14 
 
 secures her earnings to her, she is still her husband'.s 
 helpmeet,' and cannot charge for servnces to him.^ A 
 statute enabling her to liold and to convey properly 
 does not necessarily^ enable her to be lior husband's 
 grantee 9 or grantor.'" A statute enabling her to con- 
 tract or sue generally does not authorize contracts 
 AviLli'i or suits against'- her husband. A statute secur- 
 i'.i;^ to her her separate property does not wholly 
 exclude her husband from the enjoyment of it;" she 
 cannot forbid him her house,'* or restrict him to the 
 use of a certain chair,'^ or remove her property from 
 his custody;'^ he is not guilty of trespass for entering 
 her premises,'" or of trover,'^ or larceny," for taking 
 hor goods; nor is his liability for her contracts-" or 
 torts ^' thereby removed, 
 
 1 In addition to cases cited infra, see cases post, ? 15. 
 
 2 See Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 6T ; Schindel, 12 Md. lOS, 121, 
 312, 313 ; Sn vdor v. People, 2G Mich. IO(i, 110 ; 12 Am. Kop. 302 ; Walker 
 I'. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; pout, i 5!). 
 
 3 Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 471, 485 ; post, ? 00. 
 
 4 Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106, 10) ; 12 Am. Rep. 302 ; jiost, I W. 
 
 5 Raybokl, 20 Pa . St. 308, 311 ; post, U 62, 63, 65. 
 
 6 Seitz J'. Mitchell, 94 V. S. 5S0, 5S4 ; McLemore v. Pinkston, 31 
 Ala. 267, 270 ; Mitchell i'. Seitz, 1 McAr. 480 ; Hear v. Havs, 36 III. 2'SO, 
 2^1; Farrell >\ Patterson, 43 111. 52, 51); Connor v. Berrv. 46 111. 370, 
 372 ; Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 111. 18, 24 ; McMurtrv r. Webster, 48 III. 
 i:i, 124; Marsluill r. jMike, .il Ind. 62; I'uncan v. Roscll.', l". Iowa, 
 501, .503; Merrill r. Smith, :57 Me. :!!)4, 3!IR ; (Jlover )■. .Vh-ott, II Mich. 
 471,482; Hfiidorsiiii r. \Varmack,27 Miss. H30, 8:i5 ; Apple r. (Janong, 
 47 Miss. 18'J, l:i!t ; Ilovt >\ White, 46 N. H. 4-i, 47 ; Quidort r. Pergeaux, 
 18 N. .1. Eq. 472, 4MI ; Kidcr r. Hulse, 33 Barb. 2W,270 ; Syme I'. Riddle, 
 8S ^'. C. 463, 465 ; Raybokl, 20 Pa. St. 308, 311 ; jnst, 'i 65. 
 
 7 Mewhirter v. Hatten, 42 Iowa, 288, 292 ; 20 Am. Rep. 618 ; post, 
 ?65. 
 
 8 Hazelh.iker r. Goodfellow, m 111. 238, 241 ; Mewhirter v. Hatten, 
 AZ Iowa, 2ss, -Jill, 2:13 ; 20 Ain. Hi'i>. 61'^ ; Grant v. Green. 41 Iowa, iS, 91, 
 '.i2 ; Glover r. Aleott. II .M-ch. 471, 4-s3 ; Brooks v. Schwerin, M K. Y. 
 343, :>1S ; Reynolds r. Robinson, 64 N. Y. 589, 5113 ; post, 'i (>5. 
 
 9 See Trader?'. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14 ; tn/ra, n. 10; pos^ H3. 
 
 • 10 White V. Wager, 25 N. Y'. 328, 3.32 ; infra, n. 10 ; post, § 43. 
 
 11 This is disputed : that she can : See Bank v. Banks, lOl U. S. 240, 
 244, 245 ; Kinkead, 3 Hiss. 405, 410; Wells v. Cay wood, 3 Colo. 4S7, 4J4 ; 
 Hamilton, 8!i 111. ;H9, 351 ; Robertson, 25 Iowa, 3.50, :j5o ; Allen v. 
 Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374, 375; Jcniie v. Marble, :i7 Mich. 319, ;t2l, 323; 
 Ransom, 30 Mich. 328, 330 ; Rankin v. West, 25 Mich. 1 ;)o. 200 ; Burdeno
 
 15 IJfTEEPEETATION O" THE LAW.' § 15 
 
 V. Ampcrse, 14 Mich. 01, 97 ; Albiii v. Lord, H9 N. H. 196, 203, 204 ; 
 ZimmermaJin v. Erhurd, 58 Uow. Pr. 11, 13 ; Woodwortli v. Sweet, 51 
 N. Y. H, 11. That she cannot, see Iloker v. Boggs, 63 111. 161, 163 ; 
 Knowles r. Hull, 99 Ma-ss. 562, .5W. SB'i ; Lord r. Parker, 3 Allen, 127, 
 12.); Aultnian v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260, 2(>4 ; Savage v. O'Neil, 42 
 Barb. 374, 379 ; White v. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, 330, XM. See post, i 43. 
 
 12 Smith t\ (iorman. 41 Me. 40ri. 40S ; Libbv v. Berry, 74 Me. 286, 
 238 ; Bariou 32 Md. 214, 224 ; Freethy , -ii Baib. 641, frl5 ; post, ? 54. 
 
 13 C"nle r. Van Riper, 44 Til. 58. 63 ; Snhinrtel, 12 Md. 108, 121 ; Snvder 
 r. Pcopli', 2(1 Mir-h. 106, 109; 12 Am. Rep. 302 ; Walker v. Reamy, 36 
 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; post, U 59, 60. 
 
 14 Col? T. Van Riper, 44 111. 5S, 63 ; Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. lOG. 
 110 ; 12 Am. Rep. ;i02 ; jjost, 'i 9. 
 
 15 Walker v. Reamy, .36 Pa. St. 410, 414. 
 
 16 Schindel, 12 Md. lOS, 121. 
 
 17 Snvder r. People, 26 Mich. 106, lOS, 111 ; 12 Am. Eep. 302 ; 
 Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; pnst, 'i 48. 
 
 18 Walker v. Reamy, 38 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; post, i 48. 
 
 19 Thoma.s, 51 111. 162, 16.", ; >p;st, ? 4'.X 
 
 20 Connor i<. Berry, 46 111. "."0, ."ITS ; P.erley r. Rampacher, 5 Duer, 
 133 ; contra, IlawartJi v. Warm.ser, 5S 111. 48,"49. See post, I 67. 
 
 21 Clioen )'. Porter, 66 Ind. 194, 196, 199 ; MrElfresh v. Kirkendall, 
 36 Iowa, 224, 2J7; Eders v. Rcok, 1* Iowa, »fi. s7 ; K rguson v. Brooks, 
 07 Me. 2.51, 2.')7 ; Baum v. Mullen, 47 >'. Y. 577, -578; Fowler r. Chi- 
 chester, 26 Ohio St. S, 14; JIoQUeeii 1\ Fnli?liam, 27 Tex. 463, 467; 
 contra, Martin v^ Robson, 65 IJJ. 129, i;J0, 139; 16 Am. Rep. 578. See 
 post, i 66. 
 
 ^ 15. Statutes relating to estates of husband and wifa 
 do not affect thoir personal status. — s;atutes relating to 
 estates or propert3^ rights of liusband and wife do not 
 affect their jier.sonal status or relation.i Thus, a statute 
 authorizing conveyances between husband and wif^^ 
 does not remove their incaijacity to contract together 
 personally;^ and a statute securing property to a mar- 
 ried Avonian as if unmarried does not remove her per- 
 sonal disabilities;^ for instance, to contract.* Many oT 
 tlio illu.strations under section 14 also support thi.j 
 rule.
 
 ? 16 IXTERPRETATIOX OF THE LAW. IG 
 
 2 See Jenne r. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 321 ; post, ? 43. 
 
 3 Albin r. Lord, 39 N. H. 19G, 202 ; Ballin v. Dillaye, 37 X. Y. 3.5, 37 ; 
 f Jlyde I'. KeisttT, 32 Pa. St. 8.5, 8.S ; jMst, ? -13. 
 
 4 See Xorris v. Lantz, LS Md. 260, 2C1 ; Sturmfoltz v. Frickey, 43 
 Md. 4U9. 471 ; (rroene f. Frondhof, 1 Disn. .'MM, 50.5 ; Kavanaugh v. 
 Brown, 1 Tc.x. 4>I, 4S4 ; jMjst, CoxTitACTs of Makkied Womkx, J 370. 
 
 I 16. Strict and liberal interpretation of marriage stat- 
 uto3. — S.atutes i-elating to hu.sband and wife are con- 
 strued .strictly so far as they give new rights or impose 
 new obligations, but liberally so far as they secure the 
 enjoyment of rights or the enforcement of obligations. 
 The first clause of this rule seems to be the eftect of 
 the true ajjplication to marriage statutes of the familiar 
 rule that statutes in derogation of tlie common law are 
 .strictly construed.^ Thus, a statute giving riglits in cer- 
 tain kind.s of property does not affect other property,'^ 
 the Maryland statute .securing to a married women 
 property acquired by gifi, grant, devise, or bequest does 
 not affect in-operty acquired by descent,^ or a legacy 
 which at coinmon law would have lapsed.* A statute 
 enabling a married woman to make specified contracls 
 does not enable her to make any not specified;* nor 
 does one enabling her to will, to sell,* or one giving 
 Iior power to hold and dispose of during her life, to 
 will;' nor does a right to hold carry with it a right 
 to buy and mortgage for the purchase money.* The 
 second clause of the above rule seems to be the effi?ct 
 of the true aiiplication to marriage statutes of the famil- 
 iar rule that enabling and remedial statutes are liberally 
 construed.* Tiius, wlien a statute enables a married 
 woman to trade, she may trade on credit and make 
 executory contracts;'" when one enables her to man- 
 age her property as if single, she may employ an agent 
 to manage it ; " when one gives her certain property, 
 the increase of such property is likewise hers ; ''^ when 
 one empowers her to administer alone she has full
 
 17 IXTERPRETATIOX OF THE LAW. j^? 17-18 
 
 power to perforin without reference to her husband all 
 acts relating to the administration.'^ 
 
 1 S^edK. Const. Stats, p. ic^' and notes ; Cole v. Van Riper, 44 HI. .58, 
 C,:i; Brookings v. Wliite, 4t Me. 47!), 4S1 ; Lord t'. Parker. 3 Allen, 127, 
 121); Kdwards ?•. Stevens, 3 .Allen, :U5; Tong v. Marvin, 1.5 Mioh. fiO, 
 7.? ; Brown r. Fifield, 4 Mich. .522, :i26 ; Sullivan r. La Crosse, 10 Minn. 
 :is6, KX) ; Blackman v. Wheaton, V.i Minn. 326, 331 ; Eckert v. Renter, 
 83 X. J. L. 266, 26S; Hurd v. Cass, !t Barb. 366, 368: Berlev v. Ram- 
 paclicr, .5 Duer, 1S3, 186; Freethv, 42 Barb. 641, 642; Dewes v. Good- 
 .■iioui;li, 56 Barb. .54, 58 ; Perkins, 62 Barb. .531. But see Cal. Civ. Code, 
 ^5004. 
 
 2 See 2 Bish. M. W. ? 17. 
 
 3 So the statute was amended and "d;>seent" added: Md. Acts 
 1874, ch. .57 ; see Abshire v. State, .53 Ind. 64, 67. 
 
 4 Williams r. Bailee Circuit Ct. Carroll Co. Md. May, 1875, Md. 
 Law Record, Jan. 14, 1882. 
 
 5 Stnrmfelta v. Frickey, 43 Md. 561, .571 ; Robertson v. Bruner, 24 
 :Miss. 242, 244. 
 
 6 Brown v. Fifleld, 4 Mich. .322, 326. 
 
 7 Harker, 3 Har. (Del.) 51, 59. 
 
 8 Running r. Pike, 46 Me. 461, 463 ; poxt, ?} 223, 327, .■?73. 
 
 Sedg. Const. Stats, pp. 270, 271 ; De Vries v. Conklin,22 Mich. 2.55, 
 251; Lee r. Bennett, 31 Miss. 113, 125; Dunbar r. Mever, 43 Miss. 67', 
 <a.5: Corn r. Bahcock, .57 Barb. 2.*2 ; 42 X. Y. 613; Goss r. Cahill, 42 
 B irb. 310, :!15 ; Power r. Lester, 17 How. I'r. 4i:?, 416 ; Uwir, P.i. St. 106, 
 10) ; Ber«"y, 70 Pa, St. 408, 418. 
 
 10 Youni? r. Gori, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, 14. 
 
 U Southard r. Plummer, 36 Me. 64, 70, 71 ; post, U 82, 84. 
 
 12 Williams v. McGrade, 13 ■\Iinn. 46, ,52, .53. 
 
 13 Huls r. Buntin, 47 III. .3!i6, .300. 
 
 ^ 17. Prospective construction of statutss. — In the ab- 
 sence of express provision statutes are a])plied only to 
 acts taking place, and riglits arising after their jiassage.' 
 
 1 Considered 1u\iy,po.H, ?| lD-23. 
 
 ? 18. Local construction of statutes. — In the absence of 
 express provision statutes are applied only to acts tak- 
 ing place witliin, or persons domiciled within, or prop- 
 erty situate within, or suits instituted within, the State 
 where tliey are passed. ^ 
 
 1 Considered fully, ^jos?, ?? 24-36,
 
 19 PAST AND PRESENT LAW. 18 
 
 Article III. — Past and Present Law. 
 
 i 19. Prospective and retrospective statutes. 
 
 J 20. All statutes prima /ac(C prospective. 
 
 i 21- Retrospective statutes, validity of. 
 
 J 22. Retrospective statutes, vested rights. 
 
 { 23. Retrospective statutes, curative acts. 
 
 g 19. Prospective and retrospective statutes. — Past auci 
 present law may be administered side by side. Thus, 
 in 1877 a court decides that the law gives a husband no 
 curtesy in his wife's lands because she holds them as 
 statutory separate property under the Act of 18G0 ; ' and 
 in 1880 the same court dacides that a husband has cur- 
 tesy because the marriage took pla39 and the property 
 v.-as acquired before the Act of 1860.^ In one case tlie 
 Act of 1860 governs, in the other the law which has been 
 repealed is applied. This is because there are certain 
 rights existing at tlie timo a statute is parsed wliich it 
 cannot change,^ others that it will be construed not to 
 change unless the intention to do so clearly appears.* 
 A statute wliich changes or attempts to change existing 
 rights is called retroactive or refrosjiective; one wliich 
 applies onh^ to rights arising, or which might have 
 arisen subsequently to its passage, is called prospective.^ 
 It may therefore be an important consideration, in 
 determining the law of a marriage riglit, Avhen tlio 
 marriage took place, and when, in the case of property 
 rights, the property was acquired.^ 
 
 1 Mason »•. Johnson, 47 Md. 317, 357, 3.t8. 
 
 2 Porter v. Bowers, .to 5[d. 213, 21.'5, 216. 
 
 3 Potis V. Parker, 22 Tex. 701 ; post, ? 22. 
 
 4 Elliott V. ]!f ichols, 4 Bush, 502, 503 ; post, J 20. 
 
 h 8ep .Stewart M. <fc B. ?5 228, 451 ; Coolev Constlt. Lim. 371, 462, 
 71. 1 : 1 P.ish. M. it I), 'ii (;7fM.76 ; 2 lUsli. M. W. ',\ 36-51 ; Satterloo v. 
 Miitthewson, 2 Peters, 4!3, 414; Noel r. Ewiner, 9 Ind. 37, 55-53 • 
 i:iliott, :« Md. 357, 362 ; Buller v. Palmer, 1 Hiil, 321, ;J29, XX). 
 
 6 See .Sutton v. As'cew, 6'> N. C. 172. 176, 177 : 8 .Vm. R"p. 500 ; Wes- 
 son V. Johnson, 6J N. C. 18J, 192 ; Philips i\ Disney, 16 0:xio, 62J, 651.
 
 19 PAST AND PRESENT LAW. § 20 
 
 g 20. All statutes prima facie prospective. — Some stat- 
 utes expressly state when they shall take effect and 
 how far they shall apply to existing rights ;! in such 
 cases there is no room for iuLerpretation.^ But statutes 
 which do not contain express provisions of this kind, 
 are presumed to apply only to rights arising after their 
 enactment," and not to destroy existing rights : if these 
 are vested, because such construction might nullify- the 
 statute ;* if valuable only, because it is deemed unjust 
 to take away, to a person's damage, rights acquired in 
 reliance on previous law.^ Thus, a statute giving 
 wives a new right in "all "their husbands' jiroperty 
 will apply only to subsequent wives or subsequent 
 liroperty ; "^ and a statute giving a wife separate prop- 
 crtj^ will not deprive a husband of his freehold estate 
 jure uxorisJ But this rule — Nova const itutio fiitur is 
 formam imponere debet, non prmteritis^ — has no foun- 
 dation when a statute is both constitutional and reme- 
 dial, and such statutes should be given the 'O'idest pos- 
 sible, application;' and it seems it does not apply to 
 statutes changing the procedure.'" Nor Avill it be al- 
 lowed to modify the rule that the rights of an heir, 
 distributee, deAnsee, or legatee depend on the law exist- 
 ing at the time of the intestate's or testator's death.'i 
 
 1 MeLellan v. Nelson, 27 Me. r29, 130. All " that have been or 
 sliall be": Plumb v. Sawyer, "21 Conn. :i51, :<.>5. The English "Mai- 
 ried Women's Property Act 1882," carefully does this. 
 
 2 Baugher v. Nelson, 9 GUI, 233, 303 ; 52 Am. Dec. 094. 
 
 3 Stewt. M. & D. II 128, 4.51 ; Cooley Con.st. Lim. 62, 370 : 2 Bish. M. 
 W. ?? 36, 51 ; Plumb i\ Sawyer, 21 Coiin.iil, 3.55 ; Noel ?•. Ewing,!i Ind. 
 37, 00, -57 ; and see TuUer, 79 111. 09 ; Knoulton v. Redenbaugh. 40 Iowa, 
 114 ; Cumberland r. Washington, 10 Bush, .564 ; Kugers v. Greenbush, 
 &S Me. 395 ; Hopkins v. Frey. 2 (Jill, 3.59, 3ft5 ; Herbert r. Gray. 3S Md. 
 529, .531 ; Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass. 215,217; Harrison i'.' Metz, 17 
 :Mich. .^77; Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss. 377; State v. Auditor, 41 
 Mo. 25 ; Colony v. Dublin, 32 N. H. 4:52 ; Baldwin v. Newark, 3S N. J. 
 L. 1.5s; Drake v. Gilmore, 52 N. Y. 3S9; Merwin v. Ballard, 66 N. C. 
 308; Allbyer v. State, 10 Ohio St. .5'i8 ; Haley ;■. Phila. 6-8 Pa. St. 45: 8 
 Am. Rep. 153 ; Graham, 13 Rich. 277 ; Clawson v. Hutchinson, U S. C. 
 323; Danville r. Pace, 25 Gratt. 1; 18 Am. Rep. 6G3 , Sturgis v. Hull 
 48 Vt. 302 ; State v. Atwood. 11 Wis. 42-2 ; Marsh v. Higgins, 9 Com. B. 
 551, 567 ; Moon v. Durden, 2 Ex. 22, 41-13.
 
 g 21 PAST AXD PRESEXT LAW. 20 
 
 4 Court must prive statute constitutional meaning: Burson, 22 
 
 Pa. St. 164, 167 ; Bradbury v. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. iSt. ISO. ^eepost, ? 21. 
 
 o Court will not construe statute against public policy : Cuyahoga 
 
 r. McCaughy. 2 Otiio St. 152, 155 ; Phillips v. Eyre, Law K. 6 Q. B. 1, 
 
 2?. See post, i 24. 
 
 6 See Plumb v. Si.wver, 21 Conn. 351, 355 ; Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 
 37,55-57; Sutton v. Askew, 66 N. C. 172, 176, 177; 8 Am. Kep. 500; 
 3Ioon r. Durden, 2 Ex. 22, 38 ; wite, ? 19. 
 
 7 Meyers v. Gale, 45 Mo. 416, 41.'^ ; post, i 146-150. 
 
 8 Moon V. Durden, 2 E.x. 22, S3, 42. 
 
 9 See Ironsides, 31 Law J. Adm. 123, 131, 132. 
 
 10 See Shouk v. Brown, fil Pa. St. 320, 327 ; Wright v. Hale, 6 Jur. 
 N . S. 1212 ; 30 Law J. Ex. 40, 42, 43 ; }> «^ ? 321. 
 
 11 See Cooler Const. Lim. 3.50, 445,446; 2 Bi.sh. M. W. | 43; Ware 
 V. Owens, 42 Ala. 212, 215 ; Marshall i'. King, 24 Miss. 85, 'JO ; post, i 21. 
 
 I 21. Eetrospective statutes, validity of. — Legislatures 
 have power to pass retrospective laws unless prohibited 
 by paramount law.^ It has been said that when such 
 laws take away valuable rights they eontlict with the 
 fundamental principles of common right and common 
 reason and are therefore void;- but the better opinion 
 .seems to be that they are valid unless prohibited by the 
 written law — by the Constitution ;3 so that, in England, 
 the rule against retrospective laws is said to be merely 
 a rule of construction.* The United States Constitution 
 renders void all e.r post facto laws,' but this provision 
 applies only to criminal laws,^ so that not even a legis- 
 lative divorce,' or a law prohibiting marriage after 
 divorce,* can be an ex post facto law. It also prohibits 
 all laws impairing the obligation of contracts,^ and this 
 of course applies to contracts by or between husband 
 and Avife;'" but it does not apply to marriage," or 
 marriage rights,^^ for marriage is not a contract, but a 
 status of which marriage rights, liabilities, capacities, 
 and disabilities are the conditions.'^ Some State Con- 
 stitutions expres.sly forbid "retrospective laws,"" but 
 it seems that this prohibition does not attach to all 
 retrospective legislation, i^ but only to such as is deemed 
 unjust,'^ or, perhaps, as divests vested rights." In all
 
 21 AST AXD PRESENT LAW. § 21 
 
 the State Constitutions,^* and now in tlie United States 
 Constitution,^' it is provided tliat no one sliall be de- 
 prived of his "property" without due process of law. 
 But under this prohibition every riglit is not property ; 
 it applies not to inclioate and contingent rights, -° but to 
 vested rights only,-* and gives rise to the familiar rule, 
 "no statute can divest a vested right,"-- But all these 
 constitutional provisions may be waived by a party 
 intended to be protected ,^3 even against creditors,^* un- 
 less tlicy have actual liens. ^j Thus, even if curtesy is 
 a vested right which cannot be taken away,^ a husband 
 may assent to his wife's liolding her property separately 
 under a retrospective statute, and his creditors cannot 
 attach liis curtesy for his debts.''' Such waiver will 
 be iiresumed when tlie act results in the party's bene- 
 fit,^ and a court will declare the statute void only on 
 the application of the party whose rights have been 
 divested.® 
 
 1 Watson V. Mercer, 8 Peters, 8S, HO ; infra, n. 3. 
 
 2 KlotchcT 1'. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 13.5, 136 : Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 
 Peters, (1-7, C.V! ; Martin, 13 Ark. IDS, a)C ; Goshen v. Stonington, 4 
 Conn. 20 1, 22-') ; 10 Am. Dec. 121 ; BaiiKlicr r. Nc'Ison, 9 Gill, 299, 306 ; 52 
 -Vni. Dec. ('..14; Thistle v. Frostburs, 10 M'l. 12i», 144; Medford v. 
 Lcanicil, 16 Mass. 21.5, 217 ; Williams v. Robinson, 6 Cush. 3:», 3.^5; 
 Merrill v. .Sherburne, 1 N. H. W.i, 213 ; 8 Am. iJec. 52 ; Tavlor v. Por- 
 ter. 4 Hill. 140. 149 ; 40 Am. Dec. 274 ; Bloodfjood v. Mohawk, 18 Wend. 
 9. .56 ; 31 A m. Dec. 313 ; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137, 1.59 ; Cochran v. 
 Van Surlav, 20 Wend. .365, 373; .32 Am. Dec. 570; Dav v. .Savadge, 
 Hob. Ho, 87 ; Bonham, 8 Coke, 114, 118 ; London v. Wood, 12 Mod. 669, 
 6*7. 
 
 3 Watson r. Mercer, 8 Peters, 88, 110 ; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 
 Peters, 413, 414; Glenn. 47 Ala. 204, 207, 2'iS ; Elliott, .3S Md. .3.57, :362 ; 
 J'.augher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 299, .305, .307; .52 Am. Dec. 6:M ; Butler v. 
 }' dmer, 1 Hill, 324, 329, 330 ; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202, 208, 209, 
 211. 
 
 4 Ironsides, 3] Law J. Adm. 129, 131 ; Moon v. Durden,? Ex. 22, .37, 
 42 ; Marsh i'. Higgins, 9 Coin. B. 551, 567, 56J. 
 
 5 V. S. Const, art. 1, U 9, 10. 
 
 6 Watson v. Mercer. 8 Peters. 88, 110 ; Soeietv v. AVh^eler, 2 Gall. 
 104, 138 ; Baugher i: Nelson, 9 GUI, 2i)9, 305 ; 52 Am. Dec. 694. 
 
 7 Stewart M. & D, ^ 191, 198, citing Starr v. Pease, 8 Conn. .SU, 545, 
 546, and other cases. 
 
 8 Elliott, 38 Md. 357, 362 ; Stewart M. & D. |? 200, 415, 4-32. 
 
 9 V. S. Const, art. 1, ? 10.
 
 I 22 PAST AND PKEiE>*T LA\V. 22 
 
 10 Moreau v. Detchemeiuly, IS Ho. 522, 627. 
 
 11 Stewart M. <t D. i liM, citing Pennoyer v. Neflf, 95 U. S. 71-1, 731, 
 T.tj, and oilier cast;s. 
 
 12 Moore v. Maj'or, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 50 Am. Dec. 473 ; post, U 1G2, 217. 
 
 13 See fully Stewaif. M. & D. U 1, 16, 17. 
 
 14 Socif-ty V. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 10.5, 1.39 ; Edwards v. Pope, 4 III. 4r..-), 
 433; Whitman v. Hapgood, 10 Mass. 4:?7, 4:i3 ; Woiirt v. Winnirk, 3 
 N. H. 473, 477; 14 Am. Dec. 384 ; Cuyahoga v. McCaughy, 2 Ohio St. 
 152, 155. 
 
 15 Cooley Const. Lira. 371, 402, n. 1 ; 1 Bish. M. A D. ?? 070-676. 
 
 16 See CuvahoEca v. McCaughy, 2 Ohio St. 152. 155 ; Phillips v. Eyre, 
 Law R. 6 Q. B. 1, 24 ; ante, i 20. 
 
 17 Cooley Const. Lim. .371, 462, n. 1 ; cases cited supra, n. 14. 
 
 IS Cool,-y Const. Lim. 351, 435 ; see e. g.. Md. Const. 1867, Decl. of 
 Kights, art. 23. 
 
 19 Fourteenth Amend. 1 1. 
 
 20 Smith v. Packard, 12 Wis. 371, 372. 
 
 21 Westervelt ?>. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 232, 20S, 209, 211; as to what rights 
 are vested : See 2><>'st, '( 22. 
 
 22 Hinton, PhUl. cX. C.) 410, 415; cases cited posi, ? 22. 
 
 23 Parsons v. Armor, 3 Peters, 413, 425; 2 Bish. M. W. ? 34; cas?9 
 infra, notes 27-29. 
 
 24 Meyers v. Gale, 45 Mo. 416, 418 ; Lefever v. Witmer, 10 Pa. St. 
 505, 506. 
 
 25 Phumb V. Sawver, 21 Conn. 351, 35.5 ; Clark, 20 Ohio St. 128, 13R ; 
 Lefever i-. Witmer, 10 Pa. St. 505, 506. 
 
 26 Po.s^ l 162. 
 
 27 Clark, 20 Ohio St. 128, 1.36. 
 
 28 Miller, 16 Mass. .59, 61 ; State v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185, 197. See 2 
 Bish. M. W. ? 35 ; post, I 22. 
 
 29 Sticknoth, 7 Nev. 223, 236, 
 
 I 22. Retrospective statutes, vested rights. — A more 
 prior state of things is not a Tested right.^ All mar- 
 riage rights are not vested ; thus, a man's right to his 
 wife is not, for she may be taken from him by legisla- 
 tive divorce ; ^ and so conjugal rights, causes for divorce, 
 personal incapacites of husband and wife, may be 
 varied by the legislature at will.^ The term " vested 
 right " can in fact be predicated only of property not of 
 status.^ A vested right is an immediate right of present 
 enjoyment or a present fixed right of future enjoy- 
 ment -/^ other rights may be equally valuable, but they 
 are not vested.^ Property includes its increase,'' but not
 
 23 PA-.T .VND PRESENT LAW. §22 
 
 ramedies.^ Sometimes lien creditors of, or purchasers 
 from, husband or wife, have vested rights which cannot 
 Ije disturbed.^ Riglits arising out of marriage are or 
 are not vested as follows : — 
 
 1. Personal rights arising from the status of husband 
 and wife,'" or the status of parent and child,'' are not 
 vested rights. 
 
 2. A hufibancPs rights over his own property are 
 vested. Thus, a statute cannot take away l;is right to 
 convej^ l^roperty he possessed before its passage,'^ or 
 give his wife dower in such lands, '^ or give his Avifc a 
 part of such land^ in lieu of dower.'* A husband's free- 
 Iiold^'«?'e uxoris in his wife's realty is vested.'^ So, it is 
 said, is liis curtesy initiate,^^ but the contrary is the 
 prevailing doctrine.'^ So is his common law right to 
 his wife's personalty in possession,'* and to money due 
 for her services,'^ but not to her future labor.^o His 
 right to her choses in action is not vested, but contin- 
 gent on his reducing them to possession,^ though there 
 are authorities to the contrary.^^ ^ husband's rights 
 as heir or next of kln-^ are contingent on his wife's 
 daath, and may be modified any time before her 
 death.^' 
 
 3. A wife^s rights on her own property are vested : 
 thus, a statute may enable a wii'e to convej'^ the reversion 
 in her realty.^ A wife's inchoate dower is not a vested 
 right ;^ it may be taken away any time before tlie hus- 
 band's death ; 2^ it may be taken for public uses without 
 compensation to her;"'® still, it has been held a vested 
 right,"^* and a right arising from contract.^" A wife's 
 dower, therefore, depends on the law in force at the 
 time of her husband's death ;^' though of course, a 
 Gtatute giving dower cannot affect property of the hus- 
 band already assigned^"-' or seized in execution.^^ A 
 \\afe's rights as heir or next of kin,** contingent on her
 
 § 22 PAST AXD PRESEXT LAW. 24 
 
 husband's death, may be modified any time before his 
 death. ^^ 
 
 4. HushancVs and wife' a rights in their estates by 
 entireties are vested.^* 
 
 1 Ironsides, 31 L. J. Adm. 129, l.U 
 
 2 Unless such divorce Is specially prohibited: See Stewart M. 
 & D. \\ li«i, li)7. 
 
 3 Because the rule " No statute can divest a vested right," is 
 based on the clause '■ No one shall be deprived of property, etc. ;'' 
 Ante, i 21. 
 
 4 See Stewart M. & D. ?{ 194, 228. 461 ; ante, ? 21. 
 
 .5 2 Kent Com. 202 ; 2 Bish. M. W. ? 38 ; Stewart <fe Car. Husb. <t 
 W. pp. 127, lis, as to his right as her trustee, see Carpeuter v. Brown- 
 ing, 98 111. 282. 
 
 6 See 2 Bish. M. W. ?? 45, 46. 
 
 7 George v. Ransom, 15 Cal. 322, 324. 
 
 8 See Rerlprocitv Bank, 2!) Barb. 309, 3,S2; Shonk v. Brown. 01 
 Pi. St. 320. 327 ; Tate v. Stooltzfoos, 16 Serg. & R. 35, 3S ; 10 Am. Dec. 
 546. 
 
 9 Consult Plumb i-. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351,355; Bridgforl i'. Rid- 
 dpl, 55 l;l. 2(11. 2(Hi; Furrell v. Patterson, 43 111. .51, .58 ; McCaffertv, 8 
 Blackf. MS, J.t) ; Coinly v. Strader, 1 Ind. l:M, 135 ; Davis r. OTerrall, 
 4'Treciii', lf)S, :t5s ; oivcii v. M:irr,27 Me. 212,222-224 ; Curtis r. Hobart. 
 41 Me. 2::u, 232; Davis i'. Nfwton, •'. Met. 537; Coombs »•. Read, li! 
 Gray, 271, 273; Mevers r. Gale, 45 Mo. 416, 418; Cunningham r. 
 Gray, 20 Mo. 170, 172, 173 ; Clark, 2(1 Ghio s;t. 128, i:«i ; l,ef»ver >: Wit- 
 mer, 10 Pa. St. .50.5, 506 ; GlUespii; v. Warford, 2 Cold. Gil, (:J4 ; Green t. 
 Otte, 1 Sim. 250, 2.52. 
 
 10 Supra, notes 1-4. 
 
 11 IT. S. V. Balnbrldge, 1 Mason, 71, 80 ; People r. Turner, 55 111. 280, 
 284, 285; 8 Am. Rap. (545 ; State v. Clotter, 33 Ind. 409, 412 ; Bennet, i3 
 N. J. Eq. 114, IIH 
 
 12 Noel !'. Ewing, n Ind. 37, 55, 57, 62, 63. 
 
 13 Sutton t'. .\skow, 66 N. C. 172, 177 ; 8 Am. Rep. 500. 
 
 14 Noel I'. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37, 57, 61. 
 
 15 Rose V. Sanderson, .38 III. 247, 250 ; Beale r. Knowles, 45 Me. 479, 
 480 ; Mevers r. Gale, 45 Mo. 416, 418 ; Prall v. Smith, 31 X. .1. L. 244, 246 ; 
 Lefever V. Witmer, 10 Pa. St. 505 ; Burson, 22 Pa. St. 164, 167 ; Mellinger 
 IK Bausman, 45 Pa. St. 522, .529. 
 
 16 2 Bish. M. W. i 43 ; Mellinger r. Bausman, 45 Pa. St. 522, 523 ; 
 Wlnue. 1 Lans. 508, 513 (reversed 2 Lans. 21). 
 
 17 Hathon v. Lvon, 2 Mieh. 93, 95 ; Winne, 2 Lans. 21,26 ; Sharpless 
 V. West, 1 Grant, 257, 260; Porter, 27 Gratt.599, 606; Stewart M. & D. 
 il -H-^ ^51. 
 
 18 Farrell v. Patterson 43 III. .52, 58 ; Buchanan v. Lee, 69 Ind. 117 : 
 Sharp r. .Maxwell. :J0 Miss. .5S!), .591; Bovco v. Cavce, 17 Mo. 47, 4'»: 
 Ryder r. Hulse, 33 Barb. 264, 270 ; Quigley v. Graham, 18 Ohio St. 4i. 
 45 : Mellinger r. Bausman, 45 Pa. St. 522, 529 ; Hawkins t'. Lee, "2 Tex. 
 &i4, 547, &18. 
 
 19 Sno Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 188, i')7 ; Henderson r. V.'ar- 
 mack, 27 Miss. 830, 835; Bruckett v. Drew, 20 N. II. J4'.,41". ; Kller r.
 
 25 PAST AND PRESENT LAW. g 23 
 
 Npw York, 4d N. Y. 47, 56 ; 10 Am. Rep. 327 ; Raybold, 20 Pa. St. "?:3, 
 311. 
 
 20 2 Bish. M. W. ? 51. This Is a matter of status, not a property 
 rlgbt. 
 
 21 Clark v. McCrearv, 20 Miss. 347, 3">4 ; Duncan v. Johnson, 23 
 Mi.ss. 130, 132 ; Ilenrv v. Billey, 2:. N. .T. L. 302, 304, .»5, 307 ; Goodyear 
 t'. Rumbaugh, 13 Pa. St. 4«V 4sl ; Jldliiii^iT v. Bausman, 45 Pa. -St. 
 52'2, 52:»; McV^iUffh, 10 Phila. 4r,7. 4.-)S , 2 Bish. M. W. 2H5, 4G ; post, 
 \ 105. See Archer v. Guill, 67 Oa. 195. 
 
 22 Jackson v. Sublett, 10 Mon. B. 467, 470 ; Punn v. Sargent, 101 
 Mass. 336, ;«!) ; Dasli v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477; 5 Am. Dec. 2!)1 ; 
 Norris v. Bevea, 13 N. Y. 273. 2.SS ; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202, 
 20.S, 20!) ; Rvfler r. Hulse, 24 N. Y. 372 ; O'Connor v. Harris, 81 N. C. 
 27a, 285 ; iJost, I 16.5. 
 
 23 Stewart M. & D. f( 457. 
 
 24 Noel r. EwinfT, !» Inrl. 37, 60 : Hill ?-. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422. 427 ; 
 Marshall r. King, 24 Miss. 8.5, iio ; Sleight r. Read, 18 Barb. 159, 164, 
 165 ; Melizet, 17 Pa. St. 440, 4->4 ; 55 Am. Dec. 577 ; Cooley Const. 
 Lim. (35!)) 445, 440 ; 2 Bish. M. W. J 41). 
 
 25 Farr v. Sherman, 11 Mich. 33, 34 ; Tate v. Stooltzfoos, 16 Serg. & 
 R. 35, ;« ; 16 Am. Dec. 546. 
 
 26 Powell V. Monson, 3 Mason, 347, 3.55 ; Ware r. Owens, 42 Ala. 212. 
 215 ; Boyd r. Harrison, 36 Ala. .533 ; Noel v. Ewing, !l Ind. 37, 55, 57, 6;J ; 
 StroriK I'. CJlem, 12 Ind. 37, 40 ; Frantz r. Harrow, 13 Did. 507 ; I.ucas %'. 
 Sawvcr, 17 Iowa, 517, 521 ; Yancv v. Smith, 2 Met. 1 1\ v. i 40'^, 411 ; Bar- 
 bour, 46 Me. !), 14; lieiif v. Horst, 5.5 Md. 42, 45 ; Masi-i' ''. Young, 40 
 Miss. IGl, 16!) ; Merrill r. Slicrburiic, 1 N. H. llii), 204 ; 8 Am. Dec. 52 ; 
 Moore v. Mavor, 4 Saml. 456 ; 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; Norwood v. Marrovv,4 
 Dev. & B. 442, 4.50; Philips r. Disney, 16 Ohio, 6:i9, 6.M ; Weaver v. 
 Gregg, 6 Ohio St. W7 ; Jlelizet, 17 Pa. St. 449, 455; 55 Am. Dec. 578 ; 
 Stewart M. & D. J 451 ; poKt, I 262. 
 
 27 Boyd v. Harrison, 36 Ala. 533 ; Lucas v. Sawyer, 17 Iowa, 517, 521 ; 
 Philips V. Disney, 16 Ohio, 6.39, 6.54. 
 
 28 Moore v. Mayor, 4 Sand. 4.5G ; S N. Y. 110, 112. 
 
 2!) Royston, 21 Ga. 161, 172 ; Russell r. Rumsev, m 111. 362, .'.72 ; 
 Dunn T. Sargeunt, 101 Muss. .336, 340; Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paigp, 
 .31)1 ; 22 Wend. 4!is. ,-,i:'., .-.iii ; Lawrence v. Miller. 1 Sand. 516 ; 2 Conist. 
 245 ; Sutton V. AskfW, till N. C. 172, 177 ; 8 Am. Rep. 500. 
 
 .30 Johnson r. Vandyke, 6 McLean, 422, 428. Cr)ntrn,'Rr<yA v. Har- 
 rison, 36 Ala. 533 ; Norwood 1\ Marrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442, 450." 
 
 31 Boyd V. Harrison, 36 Ala. 533 ; supra, n. 27. 
 
 32 Davis r. O'Ferrall, 4 Greene, 16S, 3.5S ; Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. "7, 
 40, 41 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 451 ; sxipra, n. 9. 
 
 33 Kennerly v. Missouri, 11 Mo. 204, 206 ; suprn, n. 9. 
 
 34 Stewart M. & D. § 4.57. 
 
 35 Lucas v. Sawyer, 17 Iowa, 517, 521 ; supra, notes 24, 27. 
 
 36 Almond v. Bonnell, 76 111. 5,36, 540, 541. 
 
 ? 23. Retrospective statutes — Curative acts. — The leg- 
 islature may, it seems, without infringing tiie various 
 constitutional prohibitions/ i^.^ss acts curing defects in 
 
 H. & W. — 3.
 
 ? 23 PAST AXD PRESENT LAW. 26 
 
 the formation of a marriage," and thus legitimate chil- 
 dren,^ and give marriage property riglits from the 
 beginning.^ So it may by retrospective laws cure and 
 confirm conveyances defectively acknowledged or exe- 
 cuted ;'' but whether this rule applies to deeds of mar- 
 r'o I women* is disputed." On tlie one hand, it is said 
 tin; a married woman's deed is but an execution of a 
 power,^ and if defective is not voidable but is abso- 
 lutely void; 8 that an act malcing such a deed valid 
 would simply divest her of lier property ; '" and that 
 such acts are therefore " void." On tlie other liand, it 
 is said that a law wliich carries out the intent of a party 
 cannot be said to divest her of her rights ;i'' tliat one 
 who in good faith executes a defoctiv(> deed assents 
 beforehand to its being ratified, and waives, as she 
 can, the constitu;io:ial protection;'^ and that acts rati- 
 fying such deeds are valid,'* except as against creditors 
 with liens or subsaquont purcliaiers.'^ If a married 
 woman's deed is good in equity, it can, of course, be 
 made good at law.'* Tlius, in Maryland an act curing 
 a defective deed l)y husband and wife of the husband's 
 land was held to malce the deed valid as to tlie hus- 
 band, but not to bar tlie wife's dower ;'3 while in Cali- 
 fornia a married woman's void iiower of attorney was 
 cured and the conveyance thereunder made valid.-* 
 But the legislature cannot divest estates by correcting 
 mistakes; cannot, for example, make a husband's or 
 ■wife's will valid after his or her death.=^' When a law 
 provides that marriage and recognition by the father 
 of an illegitimate child shall logitimizo such child, the 
 child may be born before, but the recognition must 
 take place after, the passage cf the law .22 
 
 1 Ante, 5 21. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. ? 4". 
 
 3 Harrison, 22 Md. 408, 4ns ; Stevenson's Heirs v. SulUvant, 5 
 Wheat. 207, 2oJ ; Rioe v. Efford, i Hen. & M. 225.
 
 27 H03IE AND rOIIEION LAW. § 23 
 
 4 GoshPD V. iStonington, 4 Conn. ^O''. 224 ; la Am. Bee. 121 ; cases 
 cited .Stewart M. ct 1). i -J 7. 
 
 .■> fjrov.' ('. Till. 11 yiL &;;, an; 23 Am. R3:>. rs; Journeay v. 
 Uil>so 1, oii Pa. 8t. 5;, iiO. 
 
 6 Discussed, p-jst, 1} 20'2, 2.r.. 
 
 7 Seo Cooley Const. Lira. 37G, 379, -{63, -172 ; cuses cited infra. 
 
 8 See post, \ 205. 
 
 9 Grove ?'. Todd, 41 Md. 633, (HI ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; p^M, ?? 236, 231, 270. 
 
 10 Al ibiima v. B;)vkii, 3S Ala. 510, 513 ; Russell c Ramsey, 3.i 111. 
 3r.:, 37J-:i74 : • irove cTo'1 1, 41 Jld. ^V., 611 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; Shonk v. 
 Brow. 1, 61 1\l. .St. 320, 32i 
 
 11 ^«^e, 2 22. 
 
 12 .Alabama ?'. Eoykin, 38 Ala. 510; Russell v. Rumsey, 35 III. 
 3f):, 372 ; Laii- /■. Soulard, 15 III. 124 ; (Jrove v. Todd, 41 Md. 633. 641 ; 20 
 Am. Rep. 76; Slionk t'. Urowii, 61 Pa. St. 32i), 32S; Ortoa v. Noouan, 
 2-1 Wis. 102, 104. 
 
 13 Stiite t>. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 1*5, l;>7 ; Cooley Const. Lim. 378, 471 , -:7:. 
 
 14 Ante, \ 21. 
 
 15 Detitzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 13S, 145. 
 
 16 Rand-ill c. Krci!?er, 23 Wall. 137, 141 ; reverse Watson v. Mercer, 
 1 Watts, :tv. ; s PeN-rs. ss, 110 ; Dentzd v. Waldie, :!OCal. i:«, 14-^ ; Dow 
 V. Gould, 31 Cal. 654, 656; CliesMut v. Shane, 16 Ohio St. 5lii, 60 1, 610; 
 Tate V. Stootzfoos, 16 Serg. & R. 35, Ti. :« ; 16 Am. Dec. 546 : Barnet, 15 
 Serg. A R. 72, 73; 16 Am. Dec. 516 ; Underwood v. Lilly, 10 Serg. & R. 101. 
 
 17 Cooley Const. Lim, 379, 472 ; ante, J? 21, 22. 
 
 18 Cliesriut r. Sliane, 16 Ohio St. 590, 60:», 610; overruling Good v. 
 Zercher, 12 Ohio, 3t>4, ;i68. See supra, note 16. 
 
 1!) Grove i'. Todd, 41 Md. &33, 611 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76. 
 
 20 Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 13S, 145. See Randall v. ICrei^er, 35 
 Wall. 137, 14U. 
 
 21 Alter, 67 Pa. St. 341, .345 ; 5 Am. Bop. 4?!. 
 
 22 Stevenson v. Sullivant, 5 Wheat. 21)7, 25) ; Rice t\ EfiTord, 3 Hen. 
 & M. 225. 
 
 Article IV. — rio:ii:i .\xd Foz^eiox Law. 
 
 § 24. Foreign la.v recognized bj' comity. 
 
 2 2.5. Foreign law must be proved. 
 
 I 26. Nature of conHirt of laws. 
 
 i 27. Story's rules. 
 
 J 25. E.Tect of marriag3 settlement. 
 
 J 29. Matrimonial domicile defined. 
 
 i 30. ice (fo/H/cZ/fi — status. 
 
 5 31. Lex d'jinicUii — iiioviCilsH. 
 
 § 32. Eflfect of change of domicile. 
 
 ? 33. Lex rel sitce — immovables. 
 
 i -U. Lex I )ci ac< Its — valiJity of acts. 
 
 J 3.5. ie.c/ort — procedure. 
 
 J 36. Wills of married women. 
 
 8 37. Contracts of married women.
 
 § 24-26 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. 28 
 
 ? 24. Foreign laiV raso^nized b/ comitj. — Every State 
 has the rigiii to Uself djx'riiilu' tli3 candition and 
 rights of persons and things withhi its territory, and it 
 is only by comity that it allows such condition and 
 rights to be aS'estsi by foreign law.^ Therefore a court 
 will never enforc? a foreign law which is inconsistent 
 Avith the fundamental policy or institutions of its own 
 State.^ In some .S!:a'es the statute law provides in what 
 cases foreign law shall bo administered.* Since the par- 
 ties may regulate their property rights as they please 
 by marriage settlement,* courts will rarely refuse to 
 enforce such rights a , regulated by foi-cign law.» So it 
 can liardly be said tliat a statute giving a married 
 woman power to contracl; fully is inconsistent wiili any 
 i'.i nda:nental policy.'' 
 
 1 Minor v. Canlwoll, "7 JIo. 350, .S54. 
 
 2 SMiiPV 1'. Whit '. !J Ala. 728; Siiifnrd v. Thompson, IS Oa. 5.>t, 
 !'fi\ ; Husihes r. Klinsffiulcr, 14 La. An. 'M'l ; Wil-so i i'. ('arson, VZ M<1. 
 S4. 75, 7fi ; Prentiss »'. Savage. 13 Ma.ss. 20, 24 ; Insjnihani r. Uover. 13 
 :.Li8S. 14*5 ; 7 Am. Dec. 132 ; Tappiiti v. Poor, IS M iss. 41 i, 422 ; Mjihor- 
 11 -T !'. Hove, '.» Sme Jos & M. 247, 274 ; Holmes i: llcy nolJs, •'ij Vt. 3a. 41. 
 
 3 Cistro V. lilies, 22 Te.x. 47!t, 4:>7. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ?? 32-43 ; p-«^ 5 2S. 
 
 a 2 Bisli. M. W. ? .V7 ; W'nvl r. Busyo, 7 Mon. B. 133, 144 ; Schefer- 
 lingr. Hniriuan, 4 Oliio St. 241, 2.';0. 
 
 fi Wright !'. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 4S, 51, 52 ; Holmes t. Reviiokls 
 55 Vt. 3), 42. 
 
 g 25. Forei^ law mu3t ba provoi. — Courtrs d.-> not take 
 judicial notice of foreign law, but such law must be 
 proved ;' otherwise the law of the forum- or the com- 
 mon law' is applied. 
 
 1 See fully Stewart M. & D. ? 119. 
 
 2 Drake v. Olover, .30 Ala. 332, .3SS ; Hydrick i-. Burke, 30 Ark. 124 ; 
 ■\Vorthington v. Ha!ina, 23 Mich. 5:30. 524. 
 
 3 LichtenbergT v. Oraham. 50 I-i'i. 'i^\ ; Sto^^^s r. Macken, 62 
 B;trb. 145, 143 ; King v. O'Brien, 33 N. Y. Super. 4.), TA. 
 
 \ 23. Nature of conflict of ]aw3. — A man domiciled in 
 Maryland and a wiiman domiciled in New York may 
 marrv in Pennsylvania intending to live in Delaware :
 
 29 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW, ? 27 
 
 they may have property in Illinois and Texas ; they 
 may move to California and there acquire more prop- 
 erty ; they may make a contract in Maine and sue or 
 be sued on it in Massachusetts. Since the law in 
 each of these States differs materially from that in each 
 of tlie others, it becomes of tl\e first importance in a 
 particular case to know what law applies. As a gen- 
 eral rule the law of the domicile of the wife before 
 marriage,! of tlie place of the marriage,^ and of the 
 place of temporary residence,' is immaterial ; and the 
 law of the husband's actual* or intended » domicile at 
 the time of the marriage, or subsequently acquired 
 domicile^ settles the status of the parties' and their 
 cliildren,8 and their rights over movables ;3 while the 
 law of the State where it is governs immovable prop- 
 erty,!" the law of tlic place when an act is done deter- 
 mines the validity of the act,'! and the law of the State 
 where the suit is brought regulates all matters of form 
 and procedure.!-' But a marHago settlement may de- 
 termine what law shall apply as to all property rights.!^ 
 
 1 Dicey Dom. 268. 
 
 2 Land, U Smedes & M. 99, 100 ; State v. Barrow, 14 Tex. 178, 186. 
 
 3 Le Breton v. Nonchet, 1 Mart. (La.) 60, 68, 71, 7-'! ; 5 Am. Dec. 736. 
 
 4 Dicey Dom. 20), pjst. J 23. 
 
 5 Glenn, 47 A la. 204. 207 ; post, ? 29. 
 
 6 FUS.S, 24 Wis. 256, 263, 204 ; 1 Am. Rep. 180 ; post, ?? 29, 32. 
 
 7 Dow !'. Gould, 31 Cal. 629, 051, fw2 ; post, i 30. 
 
 8 Ross, 129 Mass. 213, 247 ; post, 1 .30. 
 
 9 Kraeraer, 52 Cal. 302, 305 ; post, k 31. 
 
 10 Vertner v. Humphreys, 14 Smedes & M. 130, 142 ; prist, ? 3.3. 
 
 11 Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374, ;»1, 332 ; 2s Am. Rep. 241 ; post, ? 34. 
 
 12 Stoneman v. Erie, 52 N. Y. 249, 4:!2 ; jnst, i 35. 
 
 13 Stewart M. & D. ?? S2-4"s ; Besse v. Pellochoux 73 [II. 255, 289, 
 290 ; 24 Am. Rep. 242 ; post, i 28. 
 
 ^ 27. Story's rules. — So many eases' refer to Story's 
 rules'- that these are given here in full : — 
 1. Where parties are married in a foreign country,
 
 § 27 HOME AND FOKEIGX LAW. 30 
 
 and there is an express contract* respecting their righls 
 and property, present and future, it will be held equally 
 valid everywhere, unless under the circumstances it 
 stands prohibited by the laws of the country where it 
 is sought to be enforced.* It will act directly on mov- 
 able property everywhere.^ But as to immovable prop- 
 erty in a foreign territory, it will at most confer only a 
 riglit of action, to be enforced according to the jurisdic- 
 tion rei sitre.^ 
 
 2. Where such express contract" applies in terms or 
 intent only to present property, and there is a cliango 
 of domicile, the law of the actual domicile will govern 
 the parties as to all future accjuisitions.* 
 
 3. Wliere there is no express contract, the law of the 
 matrimonial domicile will govern as to all the rights of 
 the parties to their present property in that place, and 
 as to all personal property everywhere, uijon the pri:i- 
 ciple that movables have no ■•iitus, or ratlier, that they 
 accompany' the jDerson everywhere.^ As to immovable 
 property the law rei .ntce will prevail.^" 
 
 4. Where there is no change of domicile the same rule 
 will apply to future acquirsitions as to present propcrtj'." 
 
 5. But where there is a change of domicile, the law of 
 the actual domicile and not of the matrimonial domicile 
 will govern as to all future acquisitions of movable 
 property ,^2 and to all immovable property the law rei 
 
 SitCB.^^ 
 
 [6. The real matrimonial domicile is the place where 
 at the time of riiarria^e the parties intend to fix their 
 abode, sucli intention having been carried out.^'] 
 These rules apply only to property rights. 
 
 1 See p. g., Kraemer, 52 Cal. 30^, SO'i ; Besse v. Pellochoux, 73 111. 
 205, 283, 2;»0 ; 2-1 Am. lieyi. 242 ; Towiies r. Dnrbin, 3 Met. (Ky.) :«2, 3.") i, 
 3.=i7 ; Newcomer v. Ori^m, 2 Md. 2:)7, :»o ; Onlronniix v. Rcy, 2 Sani. 
 Ch. 33, 4.1 ; Castro v. lilies, 22 Tex. 47a, 4')7, 4»8 ; Fuss, 24 Wis. 256, 2ji, 
 284 ; 1 Am. Rep. 180. 
 
 2 Story Con a. Laws, JH84-188.
 
 31 HOME A^^D FOKEl(i>- LAW. ? 28 
 
 3 Discussed In Stewart il. & D. 5 42. 
 
 4 Stewart M. <fe D. J 4- I ante, I 24. 
 
 5 Fuss, 24 Wte. 256, 2G!, 211 ; 1 Am. Hep. ISO. Consult posf, ? 2S. 
 
 6 €a.-,:ro r. lilies, 22 Tex. 470, i'fj, 4:i8. Consult post, U 28, 3-5. 
 
 7 StoivaJt M. & D. § 42. Cons\x\t post, i 28. 
 
 R B'-sss V. Pellochoux, 73 111. 285, 289 ; 24 Am. Rep. 243. Consult 
 post, i 2 J. 
 
 « 5Iason v. Fuller, 36 Conn. 160, 102 ; p;st, ?? 31, 32. 
 
 10 Frierson v, M'illiams, .57 Miss. 451, 462 ; post, i 33. 
 
 11 5Il:ior r. Cardwfll, 37 Mo. ."50, :i5fi. 
 
 12 Fuss, 24 Wis. 250., 233, 264 • 1 Am. Rap. 180 ; post, ? 32. 
 
 13 McDaniol r. Grace, 15 Ark, 455, 473 ; post, { I 32, 33. 
 
 14 S-^oStorv Coua. Laws, U is:), 199.- LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Pai?e. 
 2ei, 2S3; po!it,lZi. 
 
 \ 23. Eff33t of marriage settlemaat. — Marriage settle- 
 ments have no olTjct upon the s;tatii>i of the parties/ but 
 dc'ter:xiine only all or a part of their property rights.' 
 To effect immovable property settlement must be in 
 matter and form in accordance A\ith the l-ex rei sita'.^ 
 But if valid in the .State where it is made, it is valid 
 everywhere, and regulates of the movables designated 
 no matter where they are situate/ unless, of course, it 
 is proliibited in tlie State where it is souglit to be 
 enforced.* It will b3 construed witli reference to the 
 law of the intended niii.riinonial domicile at the time of 
 tlie marriage, if such in.eutioii has been carried out ;^ if 
 not, the actual domicile of the husband at such time;" 
 and such is the rule for determining whether it includes 
 subsequent acquisitions.* T'le effect and construction 
 of a marriage settlemant is not varied by a subsequent 
 change of domicile.* The parties may make it part of 
 the contract that their rights shall be subject to some 
 otlior law, in which case tlieir rights will l)e determined 
 with refereuce to .sueli other law.^'^ All property rights 
 not included witliin a settlement depend upon the same 
 law as if tliere were no .settlement." 
 
 1 Stewart M. &D. ^? 32, ISl. 
 
 2 Di-'cy Dom. p. 273, citing Story Cond. T.aws, ? 143; Westlake 
 Couil. Laws,J371; FQ-.y^bevt v.Turst, Prvc. Cb. 207; Anstruther v.
 
 I 29 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. 32 
 
 Adair, 2 Mylne & K. sn ; "Williams 3 Boav. 547 ; Este v. Smvth, IS 
 Beav. 112 ; Zi Law J Cli. 705 : Duncan r. Canriaii, IS Beav. 12-( ; 21 L.vw 
 J. Ch. 265 , Bvam, 1!) Beav. hi ; Watts r. Shrinipton, 21 Beav. il7 ; Van 
 fJrutten v. Digb.v, SI Beav. Sfil ; Bank v. Outlibeit, 1 Rose,4ff? ; JlcOor- 
 niick V. Garnett, 5 De Gex, il. & G. 27S ,* considered fully in Stewart 
 M. & D ?? 32-i:?, 181-191. 
 
 S Bessp r. PeIloc*JOtix, 73 111. 235, 2S9, 290 ; 24 Am. Dec. 242 ; ante, 
 5 27 ; post, i 33- 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ? 42 ; ante. J 27. 
 
 5 >J«<e, §? 24, 27. 
 
 fi Davenport v. Karne, 70 111. 4fi5 ; Le Breton r. Miles, 8 Paig'p, 2m, 
 2'li; Dunean r. C'annan, IS Beav. liS ; 23 Law J. Ch. 265; Dicey Doni. 
 PI). 273, 274 ; Stewart M. & D. i 41. Consult po.st, ? 2J. 
 
 7 See State r. Barrow, 14 Tex. 178, 186. Con.sult /xwf, J 23. 
 
 8 Dicey Dom. p. 275 ; a>j<e, ? 27. Consult />ox<, J 23. 
 
 n Di'-er Dom. p. 276, citing Duncan v. Caiman, 13 Beav. 123 ; 23 
 I„iw J. Ch. 265. 
 
 m Dicey Dom. p. 275, citing Este v. Smytli, 23 Law J. Ch. 705; IS 
 Boav. Hi 
 
 tl Dicey Dom. p. 275, citinsr 4 Pliillimore Inter. Law,?47B ; Hoare ?>. 
 Hornby, 2 Yomi!<e & C. 121; ,\nstriitlier r. Adair, 2 Mylne & 1C513, 
 Duncan v. Caniian, 18 Beav. 123 ; 2:? Law J. Ch. 255; see ante, | 27. 
 
 § 29. Matrimonial domicile dofinod. — The term "matri- 
 monial domicile " used in this article may mean ^ (1) 
 The actual home of t!ie man at the time of tlie mar- 
 riage ; (2) the intended joint homo of the man and 
 woman at the time of tlie marriage; (3) the homo ac- 
 quired by tlie husband subsequent to the marriage. 
 
 1. Actual domicile. One's domicile 13 one's per- 
 manent homo.' The permanent home or a husband 
 and wife — of the family — is their matrimonial domi- 
 cile.^ The husband's domicile is in law the domicile 
 of his wife;^ the husband has the right to fix (lie 
 family home;* naturally, then, the husband's homo 
 at the time of the marriage usually becomes the 
 home of his wife and family. Therefore, wlien the 
 lev doinicilii^ is applied to determine the condition 
 and rights of husband and Avife, it is generally tlio 
 law of the actual domicile of the husband at the 
 time of the marriage.^ Thus A, a man domiciled in 
 P'ngland, marries (anywhere) B domiciled in France. 
 Tlie rights of the parties to movable property held by
 
 33 HOME AND FOKEIGN LAW. g 29 
 
 either of them are regulated by the Uiw of England, the 
 man's domicile, just as if B also had been domiciled 
 tliere.' 
 
 2. Intended domicile. If at the time of their marriage 
 both parties intend to at once make their common 
 home away from the husband's actual domicile,^ and 
 tliis intention they fortliwith after their marriage carry 
 out,9 tills home is deemed their original matrimonial 
 domicile, and the law of this place is applied in all case^ 
 in which that of the husband's actual domicile would 
 otlierwise have been.^" Thus, A and B, domiciled in 
 Maryland, marry with the intention of at once settling in 
 Illinois, wliich they do ; their respective rights to their 
 movables owned at the time of tlieir marriage are regu- 
 lated by Illinois law." 
 
 3. Nero domicile. A husband and wife who have a 
 matrimonial domicile according to one of the above 
 rules, may change their home (this being within tlie 
 discretion of the husband i'^) and acquire a new matri- 
 monial domicile, the law of wliieli will regulate some of 
 their rights dependant upon domicile wliile the law of 
 the old domicile will continue to regulate the rest.'^ 
 Thus, A, a man, domiciled in Missouri, marries B, domi- 
 ciled in Micdiigan. Wliilst in Missouri they make two 
 tliousand dollai-s, in trade. Tliey afterwards settle in 
 California and while tliere domiciled make one thou- 
 sand dollars. Their rights over the two thousand dol- 
 lars are goverTied by Missouri law but their rights 
 over the one tJiousand dollars are governed by Califor- 
 nia law." 
 
 1 Discussed in Stewart M. & D. ?? 222, 223; Dicey Dom. pp. -il, 
 44, :531. 
 
 2 See Dicey Dom. p. 269 ; 1 Bish. M. & D. ? 404. 
 
 :5 Stewart 51. & D. J 221 ; Cheevor v. Wilson, 8 Wall. 108, 124. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ? 253 ; Hair, 10 KicU Eq. 163, 17£. 
 
 5 See post, ?? 30, ?.\, 34, 3S, 37.
 
 I 30 HOME AND FOREIGN I.AW. 34 
 
 Haydcn v. Nutt, 4 La. An. GS, 67, 6"< ; State r. Barrow, 14 Tex. 
 17S, 186 ; Bicey Dom. p. 269 ; cases cited infra. 
 
 7 Dicey Dom. p. 269. As to movables, see post, I 31. 
 
 8 Huyden ;•. Nutt, 4 La. An. Gd. 67, 6S. 
 
 9 Kayden r. Xutt, 4 La. An. 66, 67 ; State v. Barrow, 14 Tex. 178, 
 180 ; Dicey Dom. p. 27t, 
 
 10 See Glenn, 47 Ala. 204. 207 ; Mason r. Fuller, 36 Conn. 160, 162 ; 
 Davenport x\ Karne, 70 111. 465 ; Arendell, 10 La. An. .566, 567 ; Havdcii 
 )'. Nutt, 4 L;i. An. 66, 07; Mason v. Homer. 10.5 Mass. 116, livi; Vert- 
 ii^r )'. Huniplirevs, 14 .Smertes & M. VMS, 142 ; Land, 14 .smedes & M. 9!l, 
 ion ; Lelireton r. Miles, 8 Paige 261, 265 ; .State v. Barrow, 14 Tex. 178, 
 1»6. Not settled in England: Dicey Dom. p. 269. 
 
 11 See Stfite r. Barrow, 14 Tex. 178, 136. 
 
 12 Stewart M. & D. ?? 221, 25.3. 
 
 13 See Kendall v. Coons, I Bush, 5.30, 531 ; Gldnev i-. Moore, 86 N. C. 
 434, 491 ; Fuss, 24 Wis. 256, 263, 264 ; 1 Am. Rep. 180 ; post, I 32. 
 
 14 Dicey Dom. pp. 270, 272 ; iMst, li. 31, 32. 
 
 § 30. Los domicilii — Status. — .Status generally de- 
 pends upon domicile.' 
 
 1. The status of husljand and wife depends on the 
 law of the matrimonial domieile.'^ TIuis, no state but 
 tliat of the matrimonial, or of the wife's separate dom- 
 ieile, can cliangc (by divorce) the status of a husband or 
 a wife ;* a husband's marital riglits depend on tlie law 
 of the matrimonial domicile ; * as does his liability to be 
 sued for his wife's antenuptial del)ts,^ But a husband's 
 right to correct and restrain liis wife is ratlier a matter 
 of police regulation, and depends on the law of the 
 forum.s 
 
 2. A married woman'.s capacities or disabilities are 
 determined by the law of the place where the act is 
 done,' tliough logically they should depend on the law 
 of the matrimonial domicile.^ Thus, generally the va- 
 lidity of a married woman's contract depends on the 
 law of the place where it is made,* but the validity/ of 
 Iier will on the la^v of her domicile."' 
 
 3. The status of parent and child depends on the law 
 of the parent's domicile.^' But a parent's right to chas- 
 tise a child is rather a matter of police regulation, and
 
 35 HOXE AXD KOIIEIGN LAW. ? 30 
 
 depends on the law of the forum,i- as does a parent's 
 liability in bastai-dy proceed! ngs.^^ 
 
 4. Legitimacy depends on domicile." The legitimacy 
 of a child born or begotten during the existence of an 
 alleged marriage between its father and mother de- 
 pends on the validity of their marriage.i^ If born out 
 of wedlock, the law of the father's domicile at the time 
 of its birth determines whether the child becomes, or 
 may become, legitimate in consequence of the subse- 
 quent marriage of its parents.'^ But a child may be 
 recognized as legitimate and yet be held incapable of 
 inheriting real estate under statutes of inheritance.'^ 
 So a special act of a legislature declaring a child legiti- 
 mate has no extraterritorial effect. '^ But in determin- 
 ing the legitimacy of a child born before the marriage 
 of its liarents, the domicile of the motlier,'** the place of 
 the child's birth,2« and the place of the celebration or 
 consummation of the marriage'^' are immaterial. 
 
 1 Stewart M. * D. U 113-117, 220 ; Dicey Dom. pp. 159-168. Unless 
 it is a penal status, or is contrary to the policy of the law of the 
 forum: Uicev Doni. p. Wl; si'i- Westlake Inter. L. J? :5:)7-107 ; Story 
 Contl. ly. 55.Tb-10fi ; 4 Phillim. Inter. L. JJSfio, ;<83, 522-564; Wharton 
 Conll. L. U *4-126 ; Koss, 12,» Mass. 24:i, 246. 247. 
 
 2 De Greuchv r. Wills, Law R. 4 C. P. D. 362. 366 ; Dow v. Gould 
 31 C'al. 62!), a5I, 652: Kellv v. Davis, 28 La. An. 773, 774; Land, 14 
 Smedos & M. 'JU, 100. But see Bank v. Williams, 46 Miss. 618, 624 ; 12 
 Am. Rep. 319. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. 55 201, 212-22:3. 
 
 4 Land, 14 Smedes & M. 99, 100. 
 
 5 De Greuchy v. Wills, Law R. 4 C. P. D. 362, 364, 366. 
 
 6 Dicev Dom. p. 193 ; citing 4 Phillim. Inter. L. i 486 : 1 Bish. M. & 
 D. 5 407 ; Wharton Conll. L. ? 120 ; I'olydore c. Prince, Ware, 402. 
 
 7 Milliken v. Pratt, 125 ZWass. 374, 3'^1, 382 ; 28 Am. Rep. 241 ; Graliam 
 V. First National Banlv of Norfolk, 84 N. V. 393, 402 ; 38 Am. Rep. 528. 
 
 8 Because it is a part of her status: See Story Confl. L. ? 136 
 p. 233 ; Dicey Dom. pp. 159-16.S. 
 
 9 Post, ? 37. 
 
 10 Post,iSG. 
 
 11 See Gambier, 7 Sim. 263, 270. 
 
 12 Dicey Dom. p. 169 ; Sherwood t\ Ray, 1 Moore P. C. C. 3.5.% 398 ; 
 .To:i:istone r. Beattie, 10 Clark & F. 42, 114, 115; Nugent v. Vetzera, 
 L.IW R. 2 Eq. 704.
 
 ? 31 HOME AND FOREIGX LAW 36 
 
 n Kolbe r. People, 85 111. nr,G. ."."7 : Diimes v. State, 7 Wis. 672, 673. 
 But see Graham v. Monsergh, 22 Vt. 54:5, 545 ; Egleson v. Battles, 20 
 Vt. 548, 5.^1. 
 
 H Boss, 129 Mass. 243, 247 ; seo II >rv3y v. Ball, 32 Ind. 9% 93 ; 
 S'ott V. Key, 11 La. An. 232, 237 ; Smith v. Kelly, 23 Miss. 167, 170 ; n'l 
 Am Dec. 87 ; Don, 4 Drew. I'M, I'M; Skottowe v. Young, Law R. 11 
 Eq. 474, 477 ; Shaw v. Oould, Law R. 3 H. L. 55, 70. 
 
 15 Dicey Dom. p. 18L See Stewart M. & D. ?| 45, 106-12L 
 
 16 DIcev Dom. p. 181 ; citiner Udiiv v. XJdiiv, Law R. t S. & D. App. 
 441 ; Re Wright's Trusts, 25 Law J. C'h. fiJl ; 2 Kay <fc J. 5)5 ; see Don. 4 
 Drew, 194, 197 ; Doe v. Vardill, 5 Burn. A C . 438, 4.55 ; 11 Eng. C. L. 26'; ; 7 
 Clark & F. 895, 898, 925; Shaw v. Ciovild, Law R. 3 H. L. 55, 70 ; Skot- 
 towe V. Young, Law R. 11 Eq. 474, 477 ; Lingen, 45 Ala. 411, 414 ; Spott 
 V. Kev, 11 La. An. 232, 237; Barnum, 42 JId. 251, ;»5, 307, .325; Ross, 129 
 Mass." 243, 246-2.56; Smith v. Kellv, 23 Miss. 167, 170; 5.5 Am. Dec. 87; 
 Smith V. Derr, 34 Pa. St. 126, 128 ; Honey v. Clark, 37 Tex. GiC. 
 
 17 Don, 4 Drew. 1!M, 197 ; 27 Law J. Ch. 9.8, 100 ; Skottowe v. Young, 
 Law R. 11 Eq. 474, 477; Birt whistle v. Vardill. 2 Clark * F. 571, 57:!, 
 .577 ; Doe v. Vardill, 5 Barn. & ( '. 4:f5, 4.54, 455 ; Shaw v. Goul<l, I.iw H. 
 3 H. L. 5.5, 70; Lingen, 45 Ala. 411, 414, 415; Tlarvey r. Ball, :« Ind. 9s, 
 91; Smith v. Derr, 'M Pa. St. 126, 128. Contra, Ross, 129 Mass. 24:5, 
 250 ; Scott V. Key, 11 La. An. 2.32, 2.37. 
 
 18 Barnum, 42 Md. 251, .305, 307, :52.5. Contra, Scott ti. Key, 11 La. An 
 252, 237. 
 
 19 Wright, 2 Kay & J. .595, 610 ; Munro, 7 Clark & F. 842. 
 
 20 Wright. 2 Kav & J. 595, 610, 61 1 ; Udnv v. Udny, Law B. 1 S. «fe 
 D. App. 441 ; Munro, 7 Clark & F. 842 ; Dicey Dom. p. 185. 
 
 21 Munro, 7 Clark <fe F. 842 ; Dicey Dom. p. 186. 
 
 2 31. Lex domicilii — Movables. — The mutual rights 
 of husband and wife to each others movables are 
 determined by the law of the matrimonial domicile, ' at 
 tho time of the marriage, if the movables are owned at 
 such time,'- and if they are subsequently acquired, at 
 tlie time of sucli acquisition.^ Thus, the resj^ective 
 rights of husband and wife domiciled in New York to 
 tlie wife's interest in an intestate's personalty distrib- 
 uted in England depend on New York law.* So when 
 tlie Louisiana real estate of a married woman who is 
 domiciled with her husband in Maryland is converted 
 into personalty, the husband's marriage rights on such 
 pei*sonalty attach according to Maryland law.* So, A 
 and B have their matrimonial domicile in England, and 
 there make two thousand dollars in trade. They then 
 move permanently to Virginia where they make one
 
 37 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. § 82 
 
 thousand dollars in trade. Their respective rights to 
 the two thousand dollars are governed by English 
 law,* but, to the one thousand dollars by Virginia law.'^ 
 Whether property is moval)le or immovable depends 
 on the law of the place where it is lound,^ though there 
 is authority to the effect that it depends on the domicile 
 of the claimants.^ Still courts will sometimes refuse to 
 apply any but the local law.'" The rights of the sur^ 
 vivor in the movables of the deceased dei^end upon 
 law of the matrimonial domicile at the time of the 
 deceased's death.'' 
 
 1 Actual or intended : Ante, i 29. Matrimonial domicile defined : 
 Ante, I 2IJ. 
 
 2 Kraemer. 52 Cal. .302, 305 ; Newcomer v. Orem, 2 Md. 297, SKff, ; 50 
 Am. l»ce. 717 ; Dicey Dom. p. 2(W, citing Stein, 1 Rose, 4ffJ. 481 ; tielk- 
 riff )'. D;ivis. 2 Rose, 2;il ; Story Confl. I^. 'i 1.S4 ; Westlake Inter. L. 
 1 Sfifi ; 4 I'liillim. Inter. L. ?? 47(M7!J; Savigny Contl. L. i :?79, pp. 240- 
 247 ; 1 Foelix Inter. L. J (lO. See ante, i 27. 
 
 3 Ilinman v. Parkis, Xi Conn. ISS, 107 ; Townes v. Durbin, 3 Mot. 
 (Ky.) -m, :«7 ; Beard v. Rtisve, 7 Mon. B. 13-'., 142 ; Gale v. Davis, 2 
 Mart. (La.) 304; King v. O'Brien, 33 N. Y. Super. 4 i, 56 ; Stokes v. 
 Machen, :« Barb. 145, 149 ; Gidnev v. Moore, 86 N. C. 4^4, 491 ; Fuss, 24 
 Wis. 2.-)6, 263, 264; 1 Am. Rep. ISO; see 2 Bish. M. W. J 509; 1 Blsh 
 M. it I). ? 405 ; ante, ? 27 ; pout, i 32. This point is not settled in Eng- 
 land : Dicey Dom. pp. 2eS-270. 
 
 4 Lett, 7 Law R. Jr. 132, 143. 
 
 5 Newcomer r>. Orem, 2 Md. 297, 305 ; 53 Am. Dec. 717. 
 
 6 In spite of change of domicile, see post, ? 32. 
 
 7 Dicey Dom. p. 272. 
 
 8 Newcomer v. Orem, 2 Md. 297, .305 ; 56 Am. Dec. 717. 
 
 9 Duncan v. Dick, 1 Miss. 281, 286, 287. 
 
 10 Smith V. McAtee, 27 Md. 420, 438 ; ante, ? 24. 
 
 11 Newcomer v. Orpm, 2 Md. 297, 309; Corrie, 2 Bland. 488, 499; 
 Harrall v. Wallis, 37 N. J. Eq. 458; Dicev Dom. p. 276; Westlake 
 Inter. L. ? 373 ; Savigiiv Confl. L. ? 379, pp. :J47, 343. Consnltpost, i K ; 
 but see Bonatl v. Welsch, 24 N. Y.' 157, 163. 
 
 § 32. Effect of change of domicile. — A change of domi- 
 cile immediately after marriage, in pursuance of an in- 
 tention formed prior to marriage, may render the new 
 home the real matrimonial domicile.' And movable 
 property acquired after the acquisition of a new matri- 
 monial domicile is governed by the law of such new 
 II. & w. — 4.
 
 5 32 HOME AXD FOREIGX LAW. 3S 
 
 domicile.- But a change of domicile does not affect 
 rights alreaJy vested' (though a contrary rule seems to 
 prevail in Missouri) :* it does not transfer a husband's 
 property back to him free of his wife's rights according 
 to the law of the old domicile.' nor does it give her new 
 rights in her previously acquired property;^ so the 
 courts of her new home will protect the wife's property 
 according to the married woman's property act of the 
 lid domicile." Still, though moving into another State 
 does not affect title to and rights in existing propcny, 
 subsequent transfers of such property must conform 
 with the lex loci.^ Also, the survivor's rights as next 
 of kin or legatee' (rights which do not vest during 
 coverture) ^° depend on the domicile at the time of the 
 deceased's death." 
 
 1 Ante, I 29 ; State r. Barrow, U Tex. 179. 1^, 1S7. 
 
 2 Ante, { 32 ; GaJe v. Davis, 4 Mart. (La.) &to, &13. 
 
 3 Ijrake r. Glover, 30 Ala. ."K, 3>0 : Cahalan v. Monroe. 70 Ala. 271. 
 275 : O'Xfill y. Henderson, l-j Ark. 2S5. 241 ; 60 .\m. Deo. iVi^ ; Parrott 
 r. Xiinino, 2S Ark. 351, :ti6 ; Hiimun v. Parkis, St Conn, iss, itrr; 
 Tinkler i: Cox. 6i III. 11') : Dubois > . Jackson, 49 lU. 4n, 52 : S'linrniaii r. 
 Marlev, 29 Ind. 4-58, 4ft4 ; Beard r. Biisve, 7 Mon. B. i:«. 142, 144, I4« ; 
 Townes v. Durbin, 3 Mi t. Kv.) .3.52, 357 ; Kendall r. Coons. 1 Bush. o.30. 
 •541 ; Tllexan r. Wilson, 4-3 Me. 1S«. 1«9, 190 ; Bond r. Cummin^s. 7<' Me. 
 125, rJfi; Woodcock v. Rt-ed, 5 .Allen, 267, 2'Hi ; Mever r. Mf Cabe, 7:5 
 Mo. 2:«; State v. Chatham, 10 Mo. App. 4*:; Harrall r. Wallis. 37 
 X. J. Eq. 4.5S : 29 .A.lb. L. J. 170 : Bonati v. ^'elsch, 24 N. V. 157, Ifa ; 
 King r. O'Brien, 33 X. Y. Super. 4!t. 56 ; Stokes r. Macken. 62 Barb. 
 145, 149 : Cravcrolf >•. Morehead, 67 X. C. 422, 424 ; Oliver v. Robertson, 
 41 Tex- 422, 425 ; Hall f. Harris, 11 Tex. 30O, .306. 
 
 4 Rights to personalty depend on domicile, and change with 
 change of domicile : Minor r. Cardwell. 37 Mo. 3.50, 3.56. But see Mever 
 :•. MeCabe, 73 Mo. iW. 
 
 5 King f. O'Brien, 33 X. V. Super. 49, .56 ; giipra, n. 3. 
 
 6 Bond f. Cummings, 70 Me. 12.5, 126 ; tupra, n. 3. 
 
 7 Schurman r. Marlev, 29 Ind. 45S, 464. 
 S Drake f. Glover, .30 Ala. 3S2, 3S9. 
 
 9 See Stewart M. <fc D. ?? 452, 456, 457. 
 
 10 See anie, } 22. 
 
 11 Townes r. Durbin, 3 Met. (Kv.") a32, a>5; Newcomer r. Orem,2 
 Md. 2f>7, ;»5; .56 Am. Dec. 717; Duncan ?•. Dick. 1 Walker (Miss.1 
 2S1, 28:i-2S5; Jones c. Gerock, 6 Jones Eq. IBO, 193; ante, {31. But 
 see BonaU v. Welsch, 24 X. Y. 157, 163.
 
 39 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. § 33 
 
 \ 33. Leat rd. sitae — Immovables. — Rights of husband 
 and wife in unniovable proijerty of either are deter- 
 mined Ijy the law of the State where snch property is.^ 
 In compliance with such law such property must be 
 willed' or conveyed,' and according to such law it 
 descends.* And a foreign marriage contract only gives 
 a right of action to be enforced according to the juris- 
 diction rei sitfE.* Tlius, a statute barring dower by 
 divorce has no extra territorial effect.^ But when real 
 estate is converted into personalty, the rights in the 
 latter are at once determined by the law of the matri- 
 monial domicile, especially i" such personalty is moved 
 into another State.® Whether property is movable or 
 immovable defends on the law of the State where it is,' 
 tiiough tliis has been held to dej:>end on the law of the 
 matrimonial domicile.'** Shares in corporations may 
 thus be immovable property," and other property may 
 be expre>sly made defendant on the local law." Thus, 
 a bank dividend due a wife is receipted for by the hus- 
 band ; whetlier the receipt is good depends on the law 
 of the State where tlie bank is.'* 
 
 1 Olonn. 47 Aliu 2rn, 207; MclJanif-l r. Grace, 15 Ark. 465, 478: 
 Mason r. Fuller, :«i Cum. im. 162: Harvey v. Ball, 32 Ind. lis, •»; 
 Hawkins r. Ragsdale, S") Kv. :<5S, 'SA ; Newcomer »-. Orem. 2 >Id. Ca7. 
 305: 56 Am. Dec. 717; Mason r. Homer, IW Mass. 116, 119; Vertner r. 
 Huniphrt'.vs. HSmedes* M. VVi, Hi; Frierson r. ^\^Uiams, 37 Miss. 
 451, -IfH ; Lapice v. fjfreanfiean. 1 Miss.40. 4s.'.; Duncan r. Di^-k 1 Mi.ss. 
 281, 2*S ; I>epa.s t: Mavo, 11 Ni-v. HH, :ilH : Jones r. Gerock, 6 Jones Eq. 
 ino.lW: fastro f. Illies,22 T' -x. 47!t. 4i7; Oil! r. Cook, 11 Vt.l40.14;<; 
 Hill !•. Wyiin, 4 W. Va. 4.>J, 4'w ; Shaw r. Gould, Law R. 3 H. L. 5.5, 70 ; 
 ante, i 27. 
 
 2 Dopa-s V. Mayo, 11 Mo. 314, 31S ; 43 Am. Dtc S=; po-rf, J ^ 
 
 a McDani-'l r. Grace. 15 Ark. 465, 47S ; Lapice r. Goreandean, 1 
 MLss. 4su, 4s.j ; see j)>*/, J :!7. 
 
 4 Jonea r. Geroek, 6 Jones Eq. ino. IfM. See Shaw r. Gould. Low 
 R. 3 H. 1,. 5.1, 70 : Lingren, 45 Ala. 411, 414, 415 ; Smith r. Durr, VA Pa. St. 
 126, 12i ; atUe, I 27. 
 
 5 Castro r. lilies, 22 Tex. 479, 497. 438 ; ante, U ^, 2i 
 
 6 Hawkins v. Ra^dale, 80 Ky. 3.>!, r-M; consult .S;e\rt, M. & D. ? 446. 
 
 7 ^Newcomer r. Orem, 2 Md. 29/, 305 ; 56 Am. Dec. 717 ; ante, | 32. 
 
 8 Hill r. WjTin, 4 W. Va. 453 455. 
 
 9 Newcomer v. Orem, 2 Md. 2X', 305 ; 56 Am. Dec. 717.
 
 l^ 34-35 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. 40 
 
 10 Duncan v. Dick, 1 Miss. 281, 288. 
 
 n Graham v. First, R4 N. Y. 3<)3, 3!)0, 400; 38 Am. Rep. 528. See 
 Drake v. (ilover, 30 .\la. 3S-.', »*» ; Holtliaiis v. Farris, •;4 Kaii-s. 784; 
 Hill )'. Wri£jlU, 12!l Mass. 2')6 ; Howell r. f^assopolis, :« .Mich. 471 ; 
 Harnill r. Wallis, X X. J. Eq. 4.')8 ; 29 Alb. L. J. 170, 172; Graham v. 
 Norfolk, 20 Huu, 326 
 
 12 Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382, 389 ; Smith v. McAtee, 27 Md. 420, 
 
 ■m. 
 
 13 Graham v. First, S( N. Y. 3!».3, 391 ; .'W Am. Rep. 528 ; see Harrall 
 V. Wallis, 37 N. J. Eq. 4o8 ; 23 Alb. L. J. 170, 172, n. 
 
 ? 34. Lex loci actus — Validitj of acts. — Tliough per- 
 sonal capac-ity as u inatler of status .sliould be deter- 
 mined l)j' the law of domicile,^ tlie validity of an act is 
 often said to depend on the law of the State where it is 
 done.^ Til is rule applies particularly to married 
 women's contracts.' 
 
 1 Ante, i 30. See Dow r. Gonlfl, 31 Cul. 620, 652 ; Frierson r. Wil- 
 liams, .~ Miss. 451, 402. 
 
 2 MillikPn r. Pratt, 12.-> Mass. .■?74, .^'<1,3S2; 2*! Am. R<.p. 24L See 
 Gr.ihaiu r. First, h4 N. Y. asvi, 402 ; 38 Am Rep. 528. 
 
 3 Port, J 37. 
 
 ^ 35. Lex fori — Procedure. — I?y Avhatever law a r^ght 
 is determined, in enforcing sucli rijjht the form of the 
 remedj'^ and the competency of evidence are jiovcrned 
 by tlie law of the foruin.^ Thus, a married woman 
 domiciled in Maryland has title to her movables by 
 law of !Maryland,^ but sues in respect thereto in New 
 York, according to forms and mode there prescribed.' 
 So, even if a married woman's contract is valid, it can- 
 not be enforced in a State where a personal judgment 
 ex contrnctu agsiinst a married woman is unknown \* it 
 must be enforced, if at all, in equitj', though enforci- 
 ble at law where made.^ 
 
 1 Hallev V. Ball, 66 111. 250. 2.->2 ; Bank r. Williams, 46 Miss. 618, 62«i- 
 629: 12 Am. Rep. W\ ; Stoneman r. Erie, .52 N. Y. 420, 432 ; I.e Breton 
 V Milfs, 8 Pnisre, 261, 271 ; Holmes v. Reynolds, 55 Vt. 39, 41 ; Abbott 
 Trial Ev. p. 161. 
 
 2 Ante, ? 31. 
 
 3 Stoneman i\ Erie, 52 N. Y. 429, 432. 
 
 4 Bank v. Williams, 46 Miss. 618, 626, 629 ; 12 Am. Rep. 319. 
 
 5 Halley v. Ball, 66 111. 2.50, 252,
 
 41 HOJIE AND FOREIGX LAW. §? 36-37 
 
 ? 36. "Wills of marrisd womdii. — A will of immovable 
 property must be executed in accordance with the law 
 of the State where such property is ;' a will of moA^able 
 property in accordance with the law of the testatrix's 
 domicile at the time of her death ;^ and the word "exe- 
 cuted," in this section, includes forms of the T\'ill, 
 capacity to make the will, and power to dispose of the 
 property willed.^ In some States there are special 
 provisions in regard to the effect oi foreign wills.* 
 
 1 1 Jarm. Wills. 1, nitins Storv Confl. I.. 1 474 ; 4 Kent Com. 513 ; 2 
 Kent Com. 4-.'y ; 1 IC of. Wills, a.i7 ; Darby v. Mayer, 10 Wheat, ■i&i: 
 Kern-. Mi>on. !) WlrMt. ."()">; U. H. v. Crosby, 7 < 'ranch, 115; Varner 
 r. Hevil, 17 .\la. 'Jsi. : Nori is v. Harris, In Cal. 22ti, i')'J ; Kiohards v. 
 Miller, r>2 IIU 417; Callowav v. Doe, 1 Blaekf. :i7J ; Cornelison v. 
 lirowning, 10 Mon. B. 4i") ; Potter i>. Titconfib, 21 Me. .•«0, .30:!; Ross, 
 r2'J vlass. 24:(, •.!45 ; Evre r. storer, 37 N. H. 114; Knox v. Jones, 47 
 ■N. Y. ."iSi); Bailev, S Ohio, 239; Williams v. Saunders, 5 Cold. 60; 
 Enohin r. Wylie, 10 H. L. Cas. 1. 
 
 2 1 Jami. \\nils 2, citing 4 Kent Com. 513, .524 ; Harrison i'. Nixon, 
 9 Pct'Ts, 4'«1, .VM, ."WS; Smith v. Union, 5 Peters, 518; Turner v. Fen- 
 ii<'r, l!l .\l:u IW).') ; I.awrenc" v. Kitteridge, 21 Conn. .STT ; 54 Am. Dec. 
 :«5; Perin r. McMickeii, 15 T.;^ An. 154; Gilraan, 52 Me. Ifti ; Fellows 
 V. Miner, Uii Mass. .>11 ; Hiffh, 2 Doua:. (Mich.) .515; Moultrie )■. Hunt, 
 23 N. Y. 314 ; Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424; Meese v. Keefe, 10 Ohio, 362; 
 Bempde i-. Johnstone, 3 Ves. 1!)8. 
 
 3 Harrison t. Nixon. 9 Peters, 483, 504, 505; Story Confl. H 479 f, 
 479 ff; 1 Jarm. Wills, 2. 
 
 4 See State v. Mcnlvnn, 20 Cal. 2.X3 ; Bailey, 5 Cush. 245 ; 1 Jarm. 
 Wills, 2, n. 
 
 ? 37. Married women's contracts. — A married woman '.s 
 capacity to contract generally depends on the law of 
 the place were the contract is made ;^ or, according to 
 less usual view, on tlie law of her domicile.^ Her capac- 
 ity to alien inrimoval)les depends on the law of the place 
 where they lie,^ and movables on the law of her domi- 
 cile.* The validity of a contract depends on the lav.- of 
 the place where it is made, its effect on the law of the 
 place where it is to be performed, and its onforcemeut 
 on the law of the forum.^ The validity of a married 
 woman's contract, except as to realty,^ may be sustained 
 by tlie law of the place where it was made, or of the 
 place fixed on for its performance, or of her domicile at 
 the time it is made, unless prohibited b3' the law of
 
 § 37 HOME AND FOREIGN LAW. 42 
 
 the forum.' Thus, a wife domiciled in Massachusetts 
 makes a contract in Maine which is void by Mivssachu- 
 sett's law, but is valid by Maine law, it is held valid in 
 Massachusetts * and in Maino.^ So a wife domiciled in 
 Mississippi mako^ a contract in Tennessee which is 
 valid by Mississippi law, but void by Tennessee law, 
 it is held void in Tennessee.''^ So a contract valid in Illi- 
 nois where it was made, is enforciblo in New Jersey 
 where it would have been void ; " but a contract valid at 
 law where made may be enforcible only in equity in 
 another State.''^ It is hard to define how far tho law of 
 the forum may in peculiar circumstances prevail.*' If 
 the promisor and promisee are in ditferent States, 
 and the promisor mails the promise to the promisee, tho 
 contract 5s made in tho State of tho jiromisoo and by tho 
 law thereof." 
 
 1 SogtUler ?•. T'nion, nt U. S. 4nB, 4n ; Tinvke v. Olover, m Ala. 382, 
 3^:i; NLxoii I'. Halle.v,78 111. ()ll,(il5; BuUiwin v. Gray, KJ Mart. (La.> 
 1!I2, 193; iSaul V. Creditors, 17 Mart. (I<a.)5(l:i. 5!,>7 ; Andrews r. Credi- 
 tor.s, 11 La. -164, 47(); IJeW i: Pat^kard, C<i> Me. 105, 110 ; 31 Aia. Kep. 2al ; 
 Bank v. Williams, 40 Miss. 618, JiSu ; 12 Am. Rep. 31!) ; Milliken v. 
 Pratt, VUi Mas.s. 374, 377, 3Si ; Z-i Am. Rep. .'U , Ross, 129 Mass, it!, 246 ; 
 Wrisjht ('. Keminston, 41 N. J. L. 48,51; Pearl v. iraiisboroUKli. !> 
 Hiinipli. 42(), 4-i5; Holmes v. Reynolds, 55 Vt, 3!», 41 ; I»e Greiicliy f. 
 Wills, Law H. 4 C. P. D. 362, 3ft4 ; Ulcey Dom. p. 1!I5 ; aitte, i M. 
 
 2 Dow V. no\ild, .31 Cal. (C9, 652 ; Frler.son v. WilUam.s, .'iTMiss. 4-51. 
 462. See Kelly v. Davis, 28 La. xVn. 773, 774 ; Roberta f. Wilkinson, 3 
 La. An. 36:), 37-; ; ante, H 3:5, 34. 
 
 3 IColIy r. Dvvis, 2S La. An. T73, 774 ; T.apice v. Gereanrteau, -J 
 Miss. 4-*0, 4ii ; Frierson v. William.s, 57 Miss. 451,4fi2 ; ante, J 33. 
 
 4 Kraemer, 52 Cal. 302, 305 ; Dicey Dom. p. 195 ; stii>ra, n. 2 ; ante. 1 31 
 
 5 Scudder i-. Union, ;)1 U. S. 40G, 411 ; ante, I 33. 
 iStipi-a, n. 3 ; ante, J 3;t. 
 
 7 Abbott Trial Evid. p. IM. 
 
 S IMilliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 874, 381 ; 2S Am. Rep. 241, 
 
 Ecu t'. Packard. r,d Me. Ifti, HO ; 31 Am. Rep. 251. 
 
 10 See Pearl i>. Hansborough, !> Humph. 42fi, 4-35. 
 
 H Wright V. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 4S, 51. 
 
 12 Halley v. Ball, 06 111. 250, 2.52 ; ante, ? 3.^ 
 
 13 Whitridge v. Barrv, 42 Md. 140, 143, 1.50; Bank r. Williams, 46 
 Miss. 618, 62!) ; ante, U 24, 27, 31. 32. 
 
 14 Bell r. Packard, 69 Me. 10.% 110 ; 31 Am. Rep. 251; Milliken v. 
 Pratt, 125 Mass. 374, 37G ; 28 Am. Rep. 241.
 
 43 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THK RRLATIOX OF HX7SBAND AND WIFK. 
 
 Chap. III. The Unity of Husband and Wife, 
 ?? 38-56. 
 IV. Conjugal, Rights and Obligations, 
 ?? 57-81. 
 V. Conjugal Agency, §^ 82-98. 
 VI, Postnuptial Settlements and Deal- 
 ings, g? 99-134.
 
 g 38 THE FICTION' OF VNITY. 44 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE UNITY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 Art, I. The Fiction of Unity, ?^ 38, 39. 
 
 II. Contracts Between Husband and Wife, 
 g? 40-46. 
 
 III. Wrongs Between Husband and Wife, 
 
 ?;J 47-49. 
 
 IV. Wills Between Husband and Wife, ?? 50, 
 
 51. 
 V. Suits Between Husband and Wife, §§ 52- 
 56. 
 
 Article I. — The Fiction of Unity. 
 
 i 38. Defined and explained. 
 
 { 39. Jfiscollnnoous results of. 
 
 g 38. The fiction of unity defined and explained. — A 
 valid marriage 1 makes the lui.sbaiid and wife ojie legal 
 person.^ This was one of the best settled fictions of 
 the common law.-^ The woman by marriage became 
 civiUter mortua;* she was "covered by,"" or " inerged 
 in." 8 lier husband ; she was called afemme covert,'' and 
 her condition coverture.® To the civil law this fiction 
 was unknown,^ and courts of equity began very early 
 to recognize the separate e.\istence of wives, and to fol- 
 low the civil law.'" All modern legislation has tended 
 away from the common law and towards the civil law 
 and equity, and has tended towards giving wives their 
 separate proi)eriy and greater personal capacity;'' but 
 the courts have nevei'theless interpreted the statutes in 
 such a way as to retain as far as possible the fiction of 
 the identity of husband and wife, and the intimacy of 
 the marriage relation.'- And so this fiction of legal
 
 45 THE FICTION OP UNITY. § 39 
 
 unity still affects more or less all the reciprocal capaci- 
 ties of husband and wife,^^ and many of their mutual 
 rights and obligationsj^* while from the fact that it is 
 the wife whose identity is lost arise all the disabilities 
 of married women.i^ 
 
 1 As to the effect of void or voidable marriage, see fully, Stewart 
 M. & D. U 50, 51. 
 
 2 1 Blackst. Com. 4-12; '2 Kent. Com. 129; Litt. ? 168; Coke Litt. 
 112 6; Htorv Kq. ?? 13(", i:<70 ; 1 Bish. M. & 1). j? 7.>4-76() ; 1 Bish. M. W. 
 \ W ; 1 Bright. H. A W. 2 ; Schoul. H. & W. \ 6 ; Wells v. Cavwood, 3 
 Colo. 487, 491 ; HooktT v. Baggs, 6.3 111. 160, 162; Long ■;•. Kinnev, 49 
 Ind. 2:!5, 2:J8 ; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, :{S1,.S89; Winebrinner %\ 
 AVeisiger, .S Moii. .'i2, ''A\ Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14; Burdeno v. 
 Amperse, 14 Mi''li. '.)1, '.I2 ; I-riss«-ll v. llozier, 19 Mo. 448,449; Aultman 
 r. Obermev.T, (1 X(i>. 200,26:!; Patterson, 45 N. H. 164, 166; White v. 
 Wager, 25 N. Y. :;25, :.2.) ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375,. 398. 
 
 3 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. 325, 329, *30 ; citations, supra, n. 2. 
 
 4 O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, .".81, 389. 
 
 5 Com. Dig. " Baron it Femme " W. ; Litt. \ 28. 
 
 6 Barron. 24 Vt. 375. 3:;8 ; Long v. Kinney, 49 Ind. 2:1.5, 238. 
 
 7 Boiivier Law Diet. "Femme Covert"; sxipra, n. 6. 
 
 8 1 Blackst. Com. 442. 
 
 9 1 Burge Col. <fe For. L. 202, 263 ; Story Eq. I 1367 ; ante, ? 7. 
 
 10 Morrison v. Thistle, 07 Mo. 536, 000 ; Story Eq. f J 1367, el seq. ; ante' 
 I 8 ; post, i 42. 
 
 11 See Wells v. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487, 490-492 ; Albin v. Lord, 39 
 N. II. 196, 201 ; ante, ? 9. 
 
 12 Walker v. Reamy, 30 Pa. St. 410, 424 ; ante, U 15, 16. 
 
 13 J'ost, U 39-56. 
 
 14 Post, U 57-i;i4. 
 
 15 Post, I? 331, et seq. 
 
 I 39. Miscellaneous results of fiction of unity. — On the 
 theory that husband and wife are one, which theory 
 has never been and is nowhere logically and broadly 
 applied, but which in every place where the common 
 law is known, influences the .status of married persons, ^ 
 husband and wife cannot contract with each other, ^ or 
 wrong each other civilly,^ or criminalh^,* or .sue each 
 other ;5 their interests are the same,^ .so that they could 
 not testify for or against each other ; ^ a sale by a trustee 
 to his wife is like a sale to himself.^ And in many 
 cases the one can act for the other .^ And because the
 
 § 39 CONTRACTS BETWEEX. 46 
 
 wife is merged in the husband she takes his name,'" 
 and becomes a citizen of the United States if he is one ; '^ 
 he is the head of the family,'" fixes the matrimonial 
 home,'* and has control of the children," and to some 
 extent of the wii'e.'^ When real estate is convej^ed to 
 liusband and wife, they hold it as if one person — they 
 are tenants by entireties.'^ 
 
 1 Ante, i :58. 
 
 2 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. 325, 32?, 330 ; 1 Wash. II. P. 27!» ; post, 
 
 3 Freethy, 42 Barb. C41, G45 ; poxl, i 49. 
 
 4 Thomas, 51 111. 162, 1R5 ; State v. Barry, 2 Green Cr. Rep. 285, 287, 
 n. ; post § 4<X 
 
 5 Philips V. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 4W ; post, U 52-56. 
 
 6 As to luisbaiKl being witness to will in favor of his wife : See 
 Hatfield r. Thorp, 5 Barn. & Aid. 5S!) ; Holdfast r. Dowsing, 2 Strange, 
 1253. 
 
 7 Stewart M. & D. ?? 66. 133, M», 349, SH ; 1 Blackst. Com. 443 ; 
 Schoul. H. & W. J 6 ; post, I 56. 
 
 8 Dundas, fA Pa. St. 325, 332, 3:«. But see Belcher v. Blaclc, 6-J Ga. 
 93, 9.5. 
 
 9 Buford V. Speed, 11 Bush, $VS, 343; Kerchner v. Kempton, 41 
 Md. 5(W, i*i^^■, ptst, a 82-98. 
 
 10 Stewart M. & I). I 46S ; Schoul. II. & \V. J 63 ; p-.st, { 61. 
 
 11 Kelly 1-. 0\v('n,7 Wall. 4'J(! ; I.uhos v. Eimer, 80 N. V. 171, 177; 
 Burton, 1 ICcves, :tjl; Kan? r. McCarthy, 63 X. C. 29:» ; Leonardo. 
 Grant, 11 Rep." 327 ; Re.\ v. Manning, 1 Car. & K. 866. 
 
 12 Stewart M. & D. ?{ 66, 133, 34S, 349, 154 • Evans, 1 Hagg. Const. 
 35, 115 ; post, i GO. 
 
 13 Stewart M. & D. ?? 221, 2.53 ; Hanberry,23 Ala.719,724 ; ante, i 23; 
 post, i 60. 
 
 14 Stewart M. & D. J? 192, 400-402, 437, 471. 
 
 15 Lister, 8 Mod. 22, 23 ; 1 Strange, 477 ; post, \ 62. 
 
 16 Marbourg v. Cole. 49 Md. 402, 411 ; 33 Am. Rep. 266 • post, {{ 304- 
 306. 
 
 Article II. — Coxtr.\cts Between Husbaxd axd 
 Wife. 
 
 2 40. Causes affecting validity of. 
 
 I 41. At common law. 
 
 I 42. In equity. 
 
 I 43. Under statutes. 
 
 I 44. Antenuptial. 
 
 I 45. Husband and wife as debtor and creditor. 
 
 ■ ' . I 46. Recent decisions.-
 
 47 COXTUACTS BKTVVEEX. ^ 40^41 
 
 g 40. Causes affectin j validity of contracts between hus- 
 band and wifo. — Contract between husband and wife 
 may bo attacked on one or more of the following 
 grounds : — 
 
 1. Because husband and wife are together one per- 
 son,' while two pariies are necessary to every contract.'^ 
 
 2. Because a married woman cannot contract with 
 any one.' 
 
 3. Because of fraud' or want of consideration ^ as 
 between the parties. 
 
 4. Because of fraud on creditors.'' 
 
 5. Because of a prohibitor\' public policy' or statute.^ 
 In this article only the cnpacity of husband and wife to 
 contract together is discussed ; the otlior grounds of in- 
 validity arc treated under "antenuptial scttlcinents,"^ 
 "postnuptial settlements,'"" and "deeds of separa- 
 tion,"" 
 
 1 Ante, \ 38. 
 
 2 Scarborough v. Watklns, !) Moii. P.. .>I0. 5-15 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. S25, 320 ; poHl. H 4H5. 
 
 3 Oehb r. nose, 40 Md. 3^7. 303 ; Burton v. Marshall, 4 Gill, 48;, 493 ; 
 post, ii :i5(>-3fiS. 
 
 4 Hon, TO Intl. IM, 130 ; Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bland, ^J4, 564 ; 20 
 Am. Dec. 402 ; Pierce, 71 N. Y. I&l ; 27 Xm. Hep. 760 ; post, 'i 110. 
 
 5 Pntterson,45 N. H. 104, 166; Plummer v. Jarman, 44 Md. 632, 
 630 ; post, i 104. 
 
 6 Henkle v. Wilson, 53 Md. 2S7, 112 ; post, U 113-118. 
 
 7 Stewart M. & D. ? 184. 
 
 8 Stewart M. & D. ? 18.5. 
 
 n Stewart M. <fc D. ?? .32-13, 382, 450, 461-466. 
 
 10 I'ost, ch. 6, |§ 00, et seq. 
 
 11 Stewart M. & D. ?? 181-102. 
 
 >^ 41. Contracts between husband and wife at common 
 law. — By the common law contracts between husband 
 and wife are absolutely void for want of parties and the 
 wife's power to consent.' A mere personal executory 
 contract between them is unqualifiedly void,- and a 
 transfer from one to the other can be eflected only
 
 g 41 C0NTRACT3 BETWEEN. 48 
 
 through a third party :^ the would-be grantor conveys 
 to a third party, and the third party conveys to the 
 would-be grantee.* This is perfectly legitimate,* though 
 the rights of creditors cannot be thus defeated;*^ and 
 liens against the third party do not attach to the prop- 
 erty as it passes through his hands.' Thus a note from 
 wife to husband is void ;» as is a note from husband to 
 wifc,8 though he has promised a third party to pay it.'" 
 So a direct conveyance by husband to \\ife,"or by wife 
 to luisband,^^ is void. But a wife may execute a power 
 in favor of her husband," and deal with him in a repre- 
 sentative capacity." Tliese contracts may be good in 
 equity though void at law.^* 
 
 1 Beard, 3 Atk. 72 ; ■Wallinsfsford v. AUon, 10 Petprs. 5SS rm, r,H ; 
 Stono 1'. (Jsizzam, 46 Ala. 2fi9, 27< ; FrU-rsoii, 31 Ala, 540, 5.5.5 ; Pillow ?•. 
 "Wade, 31 Ark fi78 ; Dibble v. Hulloti, 1 Day, 221 ; Hoker r. Ba«Ks, ii:t 
 111. 161, 162 ; ScarborouE:h v. Watkiti-s, 9Mon. B. 545, .545 ; 50 Am. Dm-. 
 528 ; Martin, 1 Me. .VM, 3:« ; .Tohiisoii v. StillinKS, -io Me. 427. 428 ; Allen 
 V. Hooper, 50 Me. :^l, 374 ; Preston v. Frver, 3S Md. 2-.'l. 225 ; Roby r. 
 Phelon, 118 Mass. 541, .5^12 ; Jenne t'. Marble, 37 Mich. 31!), .323 ; Looniis 
 1). Brusli, :{6 Mieh. 40, 40 ; Frissell v. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448. 449 ; Aultman 
 V. Obermever, 6 Neb. 2fiO, 264 ; Patterson, 45 N. H. 164, 16fi; Wliite v. 
 Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, :i:?2, .3.^3 ; .32 Barb. 2.50 ; Fowler i-. Trebein, 16 Ohio 
 St. 493, 497 ; Johnston. 31 Pa. St. 4.50, 4.53 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 37.5, 398 ; Sweat 
 V. Hall, 8 Vt. 187, 189 ; Putnam v. Blcknell, 18 Wis. X?3, 3^5. 
 
 2 Jenne v. Marble. .37 :\rich. 319, 323 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 3 Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. a'<7, 392 ; cases infra, n. .5, 
 
 4 Shepperson, 2 Gratt. 501, 502 ; cases infra, n. 5. 
 
 5 Hnftalin r. Misner, 70 111. 55, 60 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 392 ; 
 Motte V. .\lKer, 15 Gray, •{22.323; JeweU r. Porter, 31 N. H. 34,3s; 
 Merriam r. Harsen, 4 Edw. Ch. 70, 82 : White v. Wager, 25 N. Y. .328, 
 332, .3:53 ; Dukes r. Spanffler, :« Ohio .'*t. 119, 125; Garvin v. Ingram, 10 
 Rich. Eq. 130, 136 ; Shepperson, 2 Gratt. 501, 502. 
 
 G Chicago v. M;igraw, 75 III. 566, ,568 ; post, ?? 113-U8. 
 
 7 O'Donncll t'. Korr, 50 IIow. Pr. 334, 335. 
 
 8 Roby V. Phelon, 118 Mass. .'Ml, &12. 
 
 9 Hoker r. B.iggs, 63 111. 161, 162 ; Patterson, 45 N. H. 164, 168. 
 
 10 Sweat V. Hall, 8 Vt. 1S7, 189. 
 
 11 Beard, 3 Atk. 72 ; Martin, 1 Me. 394, 398. 
 
 12 Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 Men. B. 540, 545 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 Gebb V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 3!»2. 
 
 13 Schl^v I'. MeCenev, 36 Md. 266, 273 ; Bradish t'. Gibbs, 3 Johns. 
 Ch. 523, 536 ; Hoover v. Society, 4 Whart. 445, 453 ; post, 5 20.5. 
 
 14 See Richards, 2 Barn. & Adol. 447 ; post, 
 
 15 Sims ;. Ricketls, S5 Ind. ISl, 192, 133 ; Am. Rep. 311 ; post,i4Z
 
 49 CONTRACTS BETWEEX. § 42 
 
 § 42. Contracts between husband and wife in equity. — 
 Courts of equity have always recognized both the dual- 
 ity of husband and ■\vife,^ and the capacity of married 
 ■women to liold,- convey,^ and charge by contract,* 
 property Avhich is called their sole and separate estate.^ 
 Therefore these courts give effect to a husband's prom- 
 ises ^ and transfers' to his A\ife, and also enforce a 
 wife's agreements A^-ith her husband respecting her 
 property ,8 though they do not recognize any personal 
 obligation she may attempt to assume.^ But to be en- 
 forcible in equity a contract must be equitable:^" it 
 must be fairly made,'* and there must be a proper con- 
 sideration.'^ Tlie intervention of a trustee is not neces- 
 .sary,'^ but any contract directly between husband and 
 ^Yi{e is valid in equity, if the intei'vention of a third 
 party would have made it valid at law." In this way 
 tlie relation not only of grantor and grantee,'' but also 
 of debtor and creditor,'^ may exist between husband 
 and wife.''' Thus, courts of equity give effect to deed.i 
 of separation ; '8 to gifts from husband to wife,'^ and 
 from Avife to husband ;2'' to a deed from husband to 
 wife, at least as a declaration of trust ; ''^ to a deed c ." 
 her sole and separate estate from a wife to her hus- 
 l)and ; *^ to a husband's agreement on valuable consid- 
 eration to convey property to his wifc;^ to a wife'3 
 agreement fairh- made on valuable consideration to 
 make her husband an allowance out of her separate 
 estate;'-' so, a husband's note to his wife in payment 
 for lier separate property will be enforced;^ or h:.s 
 promise to repay her money wliich with such under- 
 standing she has allowed him to use;-* when he uses 
 her separate estate without her knowledge or against 
 her wishes, a promise to repay will be implied ; -'' when 
 he uses it witli her consent and acquiescence, a gift of 
 it by her to him Av'll be presumed r-^ Avheu he invests 
 
 IT. & W.-5.
 
 g 42 CONTRACTS BETAVEEX. 50 
 
 it in property he will be decreed to hold such property 
 as her trustee ; '^ so he may agree to buy property for 
 her A\-ith his funds, she to reimburse him, and the 
 liroperty so bought is hers;^* so a Avife's note to her 
 husband which would have been valid at law if drawn 
 in favor of a third party, is valid in equity ;'* as arc 
 her stipulations in agreements which her husband has 
 executed or l)y wliieh he is bound.^- 
 
 1 Ajite, i'i s> 38. 
 
 2 story Eq. Juris. ? 1S77: 1 FonbL Eq. B. 1 CU. 2, ? 6, n. n ;po«r, 
 ?202. 
 
 3 Chew V. BeaU, 13 Md. 348, 3CjO ; post, ? 20.S, 
 
 4 Price V. Bingham, 7 Har. & J. 29(5, .US ; ;>-«/, {? 206, 207. 
 
 5 Discussed fully post, JJ 197-216, Wifk's EyriTABLK .Sepahatk 
 Propkety. 
 
 6 ilcCampbeU, 2 Lea, 6ei, 664 ; infra, n. 16. 
 
 7 ilurrav v. GIa<»se, 23 T,aw J. Ch. 126, 127; Jloore v. Page, 111 
 I'. .S. 117; Sinisr. Ricketts, 35 Iiid. ISl, 192, IM; 9 Am. Rep. 679 ; infru. 
 notes 1?, 17, 21. 
 
 8 Wormley, 98 111. 544, 55.J ; infra, notes 17, 22, 24, 32. 
 
 9 Because married women can contract in equity only rpspcct'ncf 
 their property : See Jonne r. M.irhle, .37 Mich. 3!'j, ;t23'; post, { 2n7. 
 But see Morrison v. Thistle. G7 Mo. 5^6, 600. 601. 
 
 10 Loomis ?■. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, 4'i. Consult ;)'M^ J J 122. 121. 
 
 11 Hon, 70 Ind. Vio, 139; Helms v. Franciscns, 2 Bland, Mi, 561 ; 20 
 Am. Dec. A02 ; post, i 110. 
 
 12 Walliiigsford v. Allen. 10 Peters, .583, 5D3; Stone r. fJazzani, ■;''. 
 Ala. 269, 273; Sims v. Ricketts, :15 Ind. 131. la:!; 9 Am. Uop. 67 1; 
 Stockett t'. Halliday, 9 >td. 4.80, 498 ; White r. \VaKor,25 X. Y. .il*. .1:4 ; 
 AVinans v. Peebles, 32 N. Y. 423, 42G; Fowler r. Trcbehi, ir. O.'jio .'^t. 
 493, 497 ; post, { IW. 
 
 13 Jones r. Clifton, 101 XJ. S. 225, 223; Sims v. Ricketts, 35 Ind. 181, 
 193 ; 9 Am. Rep. 070. 
 
 14 Sims )'. Ricketts. 35 Ind. ISl, 103; 9 Am. Rep. 679; Pennlson, iC, 
 Mo. 77, 81 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 3:!S, 399. 
 
 15 Murray v. Gla.sse, 23 1,aw J. Ch. 125, 127 ; Sperling r. Rochfort, 8 
 Vos. 164, 175 ; infra, notes 17, 22. 
 
 16 Stone V. Glazzam, 46 Ala. 260, 273 ; Sims v. Ricketts, 3.". Ind. Hi, 
 nO-194; 9Am. R p. 67J; Edolon, UMd. 415,420; Mavfi Id ,.. Kilijour, 
 31 Md. 240, 2U ; Myers f. King, 42 Md. 65, 70 ; Drurv f'. Bri~icoe, 42 Md. 
 1>4, 162; Olenh-.l »•. Devlin, 48 Md. 439. 446; Morrison t'. Thistle, 67 
 Mo. 5i6, 601 ; Au:t:niii v. Obormever, 6 Xeb. 263, 2:VI ; Barron, 24 Vt. 
 375, SJ3 ; Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 A\'is. 3.33. SSo. 
 
 17 Many cases are collected in Ewell's Le.ad. Cas. on coverture, but 
 th? aurhorilics on t'lis point are too numerous for enumeration : 
 Sims V. Ricketts, -3.5 Ind. m, l"n-n4, is the fullest case. 
 
 13 See fully Stewart M. & D. ?J 181-192.
 
 I 
 
 51 coNTr.Af Ts Dr.Twr.KX. I 43 
 
 19 Kohner v. Aslioiiauor. 17 Cal. 57S, 5S2 ; X'nclcrhill v. Morgan, -A 
 Conn. lUi, 107 ; Warlick v. White, 86 >". C. K-i ; ■ll Am. Rep. 4.>J. 
 
 20 Edelen, 11 y\'\. ■llo, 420 ; Kuhn »■. Stunsfield, 2S Md. 210, 21.5 ; Hi::. 
 :» Md. l.s;{, ls.5 ; Lyle, 11 Phila. 64 ; infra, n. 2S. 
 
 21 Murray v. OIa.sse, 2.3 Law J. f h. 12fi, 127 ; Bale v. Lincoln, fi2 111. 
 22.26; Sims i\ Hickftts, ."»j Jiid. I'Sl, l!i2 ; i) .\m. Rep. 67!» ; Jones. IS 
 Md. -lO^. 4(W ; Slifparrl, 7.Iohns. fh. .iT, 61; 11 Am. Dec. a«6 ; Bradi-sli 
 7-. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 523, .>I0. See .Sexton v. ^\■heaton, 8 Wheat. 22); 
 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 1 ; p-M, PosTxrrTiAL Settlkmexts, ?? 99-134. 
 
 22 Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 Mon. B. 540, 545 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 ;>'M■^ \l 205, 2;«i. 
 
 21 .Stookett V. TIallidav, Md. 480, 498 ; Boone v. Stonestreet, fi M-l. 
 4H, 4TO; Livirmston, 2 Johns. Ch. .5:57; Winans v. Peebles, o2 >". V. 
 423, 426 ; Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. XB, 3:B. 
 
 24 Moore v. Freeman, Bunb. 205 ; Story Eq. Juris. { 1372. 
 2.5 McCampbell, 2 Lea, 661, 664. 
 
 26 Hon, 70 Ind. \Xi, i:m ; Drurv v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 151, ir2 ; Ili'l, ."8 
 MI. Ti !, l.<, ; Kd-leii, II Md. 415, 420 ; Mover, 77 P:i. St. 4>2. 
 
 27 Oover r. Owings, 16 Md. 01, m \ Edelen, 11 Md. 415, 420. Seil 
 
 qiirrre. 
 
 25 Courtwright, 53 Iowa, .57, 60; Hamilton v. Llghtner, 53 Iowa, 
 470, 472 ; .Sabel r. Slinghiff, 52 Md. V-fl. V'A : Jacobs r. Hesler, 113 Mass. 
 157; Clark v. Rosekrans, 31 N. J. Eq. 655; Reeder v. Elinn,6Rich. 
 216 ; Lishey, 2 Tenn. Ch. .5. 
 
 29 Harris v. Brown, 30 Ala. 401, 402 ; Rich v. Tubbs, 41 Cal. .*M, 3.5 ; 
 Ingersoll >•. Truebolv, 40 Cal. 60:t, 611 ; Thomas v. Standiford, 4!) 5Id. 
 isi, ]s|; Kill r, 45 M'l. 270, 274; Tresh r. Wirtz, .34 JS". J. Eq. 124, 129. 
 Consult po»^ ii>( 88, i:C 
 
 .30 Mvers r. King, 42 Md. 6.5, 70. .See McCowan v. Donaldson, 128 
 Ma.«s. 169 ; tjost, U 84, 88. 
 
 31 Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 5S6, COl. 
 
 .32 See Townshend r. Windham,2 Vcs. 7; More r. Freeman, Bunb. 
 205; Wormivy, !«II1. .>H, oV! ; Robertson, 25 Iowa, 3.50, .^51, 3.>! ; Me- 
 Cnhbln r. Patterson, 16 Jfd. 17.>, I'"v5 ; I.ivi"Grstori, 2 Johns. Ch. ail, 
 .5:i9; Carver )•. Miller, 16 Ohio St. 527, 5.31 ; Ilutton r. Duev, 3 Pa. ,St. 
 100, 104. 
 
 ? 43. Contracts botwoon hucband and wiTo under 5tat;u.to3. 
 — Til word "contract" in this section includes (!^ 
 cxoeutorv contracts or contract.s proper ; (2) executed 
 contracts or transfers ; ( ') and transfers -without con- 
 sideration, or gift.s. Under tlie ^ln^\Titten common Inw 
 contracts between husband and A\ifo are absolutcl y 
 void at law, because a Avifo lias no capacity to contract 
 a^ all, and because husband and wife being one, any 
 contract between them is void for Avant of parties.^ Er.t 
 ill equity where the duality of hu-sband and wnie ha.j 
 always been recognized and v.here a av;!g has ah\-ays
 
 2 43 CONTKACTS BETWEEN. 52 
 
 had a limited capacity to contract as to her separate prop- 
 erty, contracts between husband and vnte if cqttitah'e 
 are valid.^ The statute, the effect of which is in question, 
 may refer (I) expressly to contracts between husband 
 and wife, or (2) simply to contracts of married Avomcn. 
 
 1. Some statutes expressly proliibit contracts' or 
 some contracts* between husband and wfe ; others 
 expressly authorize them.' A statute prohibiting con- 
 tracts between liusband and wife destroj's their prior 
 capacity only so far as such capacity is expresslj' re- 
 ferred to or as is necessary to secure the efficiencj' of 
 the statute.* A statute authorizing contracts between 
 husband and wife generally includes all contracts each 
 could make with a third party, but if it specifies eei-- 
 tain contracts tlie capacity it gives is confined to tliese.^ 
 If annexed to a general statute empowering a nuirried 
 woman to contract there is a clause excepting certain 
 specified contracts with her husband, such statute 
 gives her power to make all contracts with her hus- 
 band, but those excepted, wiiicli it enables her to make 
 with tliird parties.^ Thus, under the Alabama statute, 
 which provides tliat a married woman may contract 
 but may not make a contract of sale witli her liusband, 
 she may make any otiier contract with him and receive 
 gifts from him;^ and under tlie Maryland statute, 
 which provides that a married Avoman may acquire 
 property except from her husband in prejudice of liis 
 creditors' rights, she may acfjuire property directly 
 from her husband when his creditors are not alfected ; 'o 
 but a statute like tliat of lowa'i authorizing transfers 
 between husband and wife does not authorize personal 
 contracts.'- There are statutes on tliis subject like tliaL 
 of Kansas,!' the effect of which must be purely specu- 
 liitive. 
 
 2. r^Iarried women acts not referrinc to contracts
 
 53 CONTRACTS BETWEEN. g 43 
 
 between husband and Avife, bnt giving a married 
 woman the capacity to contract Avith the assent or 
 joinder of her husband," do not enable her to contract 
 Avith her husband,'^ except perhaps Avhen assent alone 
 is required to transfer property to him in equity .'^ 
 Thus, Avherc a married Avoman can conA^ey only by 
 joint deed Avith her husliand such a joint deed to her 
 Inisband is A'oid ;" and Avhero she can jointly Avith her 
 husband make Avritten contracts'* a promissory note 
 by Imsband and Avife to husband hi Aoid,'* but Avhere a 
 married Avoman may assign her projjerty A\ith the 
 fi.snent of her husband, such an assignment may be 
 Aiilid in equity.^" "Whetlier a general statute enabling 
 a married woman to contract as if unmarried ,'^ enables 
 her to contract Avith her husband is disputed.^ On the 
 one hand it is said that the incapacitj^ of husband and 
 Avife to contract together is an incapacity of the hus- 
 band as Avell as of the Avife and is not noAv remoA-ed 
 Avlien the incapacitj' of the Avife alone is destroyed;^ 
 tliat contracts betAveen husband and Avife are A'oid not 
 only because one of the parties is under disability, but 
 because both parties are one, ^* and therefore are not 
 made Aalid by a statute Avhicli simply remoA'ed that 
 disability ;'^ tliat the rule is aa-oU settled that married 
 AAomcn acts do not afltect the unity of husband and 
 Avife,-'' and by this rule a married woman's enabling act 
 changes the status of a Avife only tOAvard third persons 
 unless it refers expressly to lier husband.''^ On the 
 otlicr hand it is assumed that legislatures intended to 
 include contracts Avith husbands.^s The former is the 
 correct, but the latter is the best established A-iew. It 
 is consistent AA-ith both A'ieAvs that courts of equity, 
 Avliich iiaA'c ncA-er recognized the disability from the 
 unitA' of husband and Avife,^ should put contracts be- 
 tAveen husband and Avife relating to her statutory sepa-
 
 ^ 43 CO>'TEACTS BETWEEN'. 54 
 
 la'e estate on the same footing as contracts relating to 
 her equitable sejiarate estate,^" especially as statutes 
 creating sej^arate estates are often simply declaratory 
 of the unwritten law administered by courts of 
 equity.^i 
 
 1 Sfiirborough v. Watkins, f) Mon. B. .5J0, 543 ; 50 Am. Deo. 52S ; 
 Joliiisoii V. StiUliiKS, ;«i Ml'. 427, 428 ; White v. Wager, 25 N. Y. :CS, sa, 
 a.i.5 ; 32 Barb. 250 ; ante, 'i 41. 
 
 2 WiilIinETsforrt v Allen, 10 Peters, 58-3, 593, 504 ; Dale »•. I.incoln. fi2 
 111. 22, 2(i; Stockett v. Halliduv, 1) Mtl. 480, 411.S : I.ooniis r. Brush, :«! 
 Misli. 40, 46 ; Winaus i>. I'eebles. :« X. Y. 42j. 42fi : untf, J 42. 
 
 3 Ala. Code, 1876, I 2709 ; Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 819, { 2 ; Ba.ssett 112 
 Mass 9.), 100 
 
 4 La Civ. Code, 1875, ?? 2.'!26, 2:527; Minn. St. 1878, p. 769, ? 4. 
 
 5 Cal Civ. Code, 18S1, ?? 158, 159 ; Pa. Pur. Disr. \^T1, p. 1007, ? 21. 
 
 6 Soo Ingoldsbv v Juan, 12 Cal. 564, 575, 576 ; Maduv v. Love, 25 
 Cal. 367, 381, ;*<2 ; ante, \ 16 
 
 7 Jenne v^ Marble, 37 Mioh. .119. 323. See Sturmfelt7. r. Frlckey, 43 
 Md. 569, 571 ; Robertson v. Bruner, 24 Mis.s. 242, •!44 ; ante, \ Hi. 
 
 8 Goree J'. AValthall,44 Ala. 161. 164, 165; Trader ?■. Lowe, 4."> Md 
 1, 14; (ircgory v. Dodds, 60 Miss. 54J, .>52 ; Wliitney v. Wheeler, 116 
 Mass. 70 ; antt, H 14, 16. 
 
 9 Goree r. Walthall, 44 Ala. 161, lUl, 16.5; Goodlett r. ilaiisel, 06 
 Ala. I'll ; Harden v. Darwin. (>f> -Via. .55. 
 
 10 Trader v. Lowe. 45 Md. 1,11. 
 
 11 lo'va R. C. ISSO, i 2200; l)ut ? I0;!5 may authorize them: Rob- 
 ertson, Iowa, 350, 3.55. 
 
 12 Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 321 ; ante, J 15. 
 
 13 Kan. C. L. ISSl, p. 53). ? 3136. 
 
 14 Such as Md. R. C. 1878, pp. 482, 483. ?§ 20, 30. 
 
 15 Rreit r. Yeatoii, 101 III. 242, 262 ; Ho!?an, 89 III. 427, 4.^'^, 4.'M : 
 Brooks ('. Keaens, n6 111. 547, 5-11 ; Line v. Blizzard, 70 Ind. 2-5 ; Kinne- 
 nian v. Pvle, 44 Iiul. 27.5 : .S • irhi>nniijh r. Watkins, 9 Mon. B. 540, .545; 
 50 .\m. IJec. 528 ; Gebb r. R(jse, 40 iMd. 3^7, 392 ; ante, | 14. 
 
 16 See Whitridge v. Barry. 42 Md. 140, Ibl, 152. 
 
 17 Gebb I'. Rose, 40 Md. 387. 392. 
 
 18 Such as Md. R. C. 1878, p. 482, ? 20. 
 
 19 Inference from cases, «i(p»-a, n. 14. 
 
 20 Whitridge v. Barry, 42 JId. 140, 151, 152. 
 
 21 Such as III. R. S. 1880, p. 5;)2, i 6 ; Mich. R. S. 1882, ? R29.5. 
 
 22 That she can, see Bank ?i. Banks, 101 L'. S. 2iO, 241, 21.5; Kiiikead, 
 3 Bis.s. 40.5, 410 ; Wells r. Gay wood, 3 ( olo. 487, 4!M ; Hamilton, 8 i III. 
 »49, ;i51 ; Robertson, 25 Iowa, 350, 3.5.5; Allen r. Hooper, .50 M ■. 371, :<74, 
 375 ; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 321, :{23 ; Ransom, 3ii Mich. :i2s, :<:«); 
 Rankin v. West. 25 Mirh. l^iS, 200 ; Biirdeno >: Amp( rse, 14 Mich, 91, 
 97; Albin •('. l.onl. :i i .\. H. IWi, 203, 2(M ; Zimmerman v. iOrli.ird, .5S 
 How. Pr. 11, 13 ; Woodward v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 81. That she i-aimot. 
 see Hoker i'. Boggs, 63 III. ICl, 163 ; Whitney v. Classon, S. J. C. Mass. 
 
 1
 
 Zo CONTRACTS BETWEKN. g 44 
 
 Nov. 8, 18(M ; Knowles v. Hull, m Mass. 562, 564, 56-i ; Lord v. Parker, 
 3 Allpii, 1-27. lit; Aultmiin v. Obcrmever, 8 Neb. 2fiO, 264; Savage v 
 O'Xeill, 42 Barb. 374, 37^ ; Whita v. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, 330-3.34 ; ante, 
 i 14. 
 
 2"', ".Vhlte V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, 333 ; denied, Burdeno v. Amperse, 
 14 .^lifh. 87, 91. 
 
 24 8iipra, n. 1 ; ante, ?? 38, 41. 
 
 2.-. White V. WiigCT, .V> N. Y. 328, 333. 
 
 20 See full dl.scussion of this rule: Ante, ? 14. 
 
 27 See cases cited, gtipra, n. 22. 
 
 28 Wells r. Gay wood, 3 Colo. 487, 4!»4 ; cases supra, n. 22, 
 23 Supra, n. 2 ; arite, i 42. 
 
 80 See Whltridfft" v. Hurry, 42 Md. 140, 152; Hall v. Eccleston, 37 
 >fd. 510, 520; infra, n. 31. 
 
 31 Jenne v. Marble, :i7 Mich. 319, 323; Albin v. Lord, 3!) X. H. 196, 
 203, 2W ; anU, i 16. 
 
 ^ 44. Antenuptial contracts between husband and wife. — 
 Tninsiers of pnjporly are not allectcul l)y the .subsequent 
 marriage of the grantor and grantee.' But if in the case 
 of executory contracits, the promisor or obligor marries 
 the promisee or obligee, the contracting parlies become 
 ono,2 and the obligation of the contract is destroyed.'' 
 Such is the rule at common law* necessarilj', as the hus- 
 band is bound to .settle his wife's antenuptial obliga- 
 tions,5 is entitled to collect her debts,*! ^^^^ cannot sue or 
 be sued by her.' And tlie same rule applies when one 
 of several obligors marries one of several obligees.^ 
 But, even at law, if one of the parties contracted in a 
 representative capacity,^ or if the contract was made to 
 take eftoct after marriage, •" it was not extinguished ; and 
 courts of equity liave always sustained contracts fairly 
 made in consideration of marriage," contracts which 
 fall within the definition of marriage settlements.'^ if 
 a husband agrees bj' marriage settlement,'^ or other- 
 wise,** that his wife shall have her property to her 
 separate use,'^ or if a statute secures to her her "prop- 
 erty " '6 owned at the time of her m:irriage," an obliga- 
 tion of her husband held by her is not extinguished, 
 for choses in action ex contractu are '■'■jyroperty,''^ '^ But
 
 2 44 CONTRACTS BETWEEN. 56 
 
 such an agreement or statute lias no eflFect on a wife's 
 obligation to her husband." An assignment of the 
 obligation before marriage prevents its extinguish- 
 ment,^ but assignment af.'er marriage has no saving 
 etiijct.-' The enforcing of contracts which are not extin- 
 guished depends on the law of procedure ;-"* sometimes 
 all remedy is suspended during coverture ; '•^^ sometimes 
 by statute there is full remedy at law;** but usually 
 such contracts are enforced only by courts of oquity,-'j 
 which are not hampered by the fiction of unity of hus- 
 band and wife.'^'' After the death" of the promisor,'-^ 
 or promisee,'^ the remedy is at law, as it is after a decree 
 of absolute divorce between them.'" Thus, an ante- 
 nuptial contract between husband and wife renouncing 
 or settling marriage i)roperty rights is not oxtinguisiiod 
 by marriage,^' nor is a i)roniissory note from liusband 
 to wife in consideration of marriage.'" One of several 
 covenantor's marries one of several covenantees, the 
 covenant is released.^ A woman marries one of a linn 
 which is indcbteJ to her ; by an antenui)tial seltlemoul 
 her property is secured to her, her riglit against tlio 
 firm is not extinguished.*^ A married woman buj's a 
 note against her husband, ho never asks her for it or 
 asserts his marriage right to it, it is not extinguished.** 
 A woman just before her marriage actually assigns a 
 note against her future husband to a third party,** but 
 does not indorse it till after her marriage, the note is 
 not extinguished.*' A husband takes an assignment o i 
 a claim against his wife from a third party, ho the i 
 assigns it back, it is extinguished.*^ A woman mor e 
 gagor marries the mortgagee, the mortgage is release r 
 in spite of a married woman's property act.** A statu i 
 secures a married woman her separate property ; si ( 
 has an antenuptial note from her husband; she ma it 
 sue Inm on it, ^"according to different practice, at law,«^
 
 57 CONTRACTS BETWEEN. g 44 
 
 or in equity/'- but a debt duo her by him for antenup- 
 tial services is released in spite of such a statute. ^-^ 
 
 1 This Rpcms s:'lf evident; covenants In the instrument might, 
 however, be alFected. 
 
 2 Ante, I 38. 
 
 3 Flenner, 29 Ind. 564, 566 ; Power v. Lester, 23 N. Y. 527, 529. 
 
 4 See Baker II. Hall, 12 V'^s. 4!)7; Miirriot r. Tli<«mnsoii,2 1'. Wms.»«; 
 FitZKerald, Law R. 2 P. C. 83; I'rice, Law K. U Ch. J)iv. \S.i, Ififi; King 
 V. (Jreen,2Ste\vt. l.«, l.^') ; 19 .\ni. Dec. Jfi; l.oni; v. Klnnev,4» Ind. 2:ti"), 
 2SH ; i-'lenner, 29 Ind. HM, 566: buttles r. Wliitlnck, 4 M<in. 451. 452; 
 Mitchell, 4 Moti. r{.:wn,:wi ; Carleton, 72 Me. Il.j, 1 Hi ; (;u)>till ?•. Home, 
 f3 Me. 40.5, 40'< ; IJartoii, :« Md. 214,224 ; Chupniun r. KelloKg, 102 Mass. 
 246 248 ; .Abbott >'. Winchester, lO.i Muss. Ill ; V(.jf<-1, -'i Mo. 161 ; liur- 
 Jelsh c. ("oniii. 22 N. J£. 118, 127, 128 ; .W .Am. Dec. 23(1 ; Rims v. George, 
 3.-. X. ir. 4(!7, KW : Power v. I.cst.r, 17 How. I'r. 413, 415; 23 N. V. .527, 
 .52'! ; Sinilfv, IHOhio St..>13, 514 ; }5oatri«ht /•. Wiiifiate, Tread. 521, .522 ; 
 Mi-C;iin].b.'ll,2 I.ea, (ifU, <i'i4 ; Rennett r. Wiiiliel(l, 4 Hei.sk. 440, 444; 
 Barron, 24 Vt. 37.j, 39» ; EwcU's Lead. Cas. " C overture," 245. 
 
 5 Long II. Kinney, 49 Ind. 23.5. 238 ; post, I 67. 
 8 Flenner, 29 Ind. .564, .5ftS ; pmt, 'il 171-176. 
 
 7 Rarton, 32 Md. 214, 224 ; post, ?? 52-56. 
 
 8 Suttles V. Whitiock, 4 Mon. 451, 452. 
 
 9 Richards, 2 Ram. <fe .\dol. 447, 4."1 ; Kini? v. Oreen, 2 Stewt. 13:{, 
 135; 19 .Ala. De--. 40. Svc < i.tton r. KiiiK, 2 Vern. 290; Acton v. 
 Pierce, 2 Vern. 4.SU. Consult ante, J 41 ; poxt, i '-V^i. 
 
 10 Long V. Kinney, 49 Ind. 2:15, 2:t.i. See Cage v. Acton, 1 Raym. 
 515; Milbourne c. Kwart, 5 '1 irni Rep. 'Ml ; Foord, 5 Term Rep. 386 ; 
 Cannel r. Rucl<U', 2 I». Wnis. 212 ; Ewhank v. Hailowell, 2 Rro. C. C. 
 22U ; Furger v. Kenton, 1 Vern. 408 ; post i 266. 
 
 11 Cannel v. Buckle, 2 P. Wms. 242; Moore v. Kills, Bnnb. 205; 
 Cotton, 2 Vern. 2;k) ; Neves i'. Scott,9 How. l''6.20H; Westi'. Howard, 
 2o(niri. .^>H|, .VH7 ; Camp i'. Smith, 61 Cia. 449,451 ; Bennett i'. Winfleld, 
 4 Hemk. 410, 417 ; Stewart M. & I), i 40. 
 
 12 Discussed fully, Stewart M. & T). ?? 32-43. 
 
 13 McCampbell, 2 Lea, 661, GCA ; Bennett v. Winlield, 4 Ileisk. 440, 
 444, 447 ; pout, i 263. 
 
 4 Russ I'. George, 45 X. H. 467, 468, 469. 
 
 5 S(>ep')s^ EuuiT.vBi.K .Ski-aiiate Estate, JJ 107-2:6. 
 i See post, Stati'TOky Sei-akate Estate;, U 217-243. 
 
 ' Wilson, 36 Cnl. 447, l-V), 4."i3 ; Flenner. 29 Ind. .564. .566 ; Carleton, 72 
 11.5, 116 ; Burton, 32 Md. 214, 224 : Power t: Lester, 17 How. Pr. 4i:i, 
 J 23 N. Y. 627, 529. Contra, Smiley, IH Ohio St. 405, 408. 
 
 Barton, .32 Md. 214, 225 ; post, § 229. 
 * Long 1'. Kinney, 49 Ind. 2^5, 2.38. 
 ^ Ouptill ('. Home, 63 Me. 405, 408. 
 Si Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Ma.ss. 246. 243. 
 
 Post, Suits Between- Hi-.sbaxd axd Wefe, H 52-.56. 
 ' King >•. Green, 2 Stewt. 133, i:;5. See Tucker v. Fenns, 110 Mass 
 t Cormerais v. Wesselhoeft, 114 Ma.ss. .5.50. 
 . ■U'ilson, 36 CaL 447, 4-50, 4.54 ; Flenner, 2.) I:id. .564, 568.
 
 g 45 coxruACTJ bstw^ien. 53 
 
 26 Barton, 32 ild. 214, 224 ; post, i 53. 
 20 Ante. U :«• -J- 
 
 27 As to effect of death, see Stewart 5X. & D. }? 4S2-47r». 
 2S Burton, 32 Md. 2H, 224. 
 
 2J JlitcheU, 40 ilon. B. 3i, 381. 
 
 30 See Webster, 53 Me. 139, 144 ; 4 Am. Kep. 2.53 ; Stewart M. A D. 
 i 442. 
 .".1 C.-ane v. (Sough, 4 Md. 317, 331 ; Stewart M. & D. U ^■-. -Jlil. 
 
 32 Wright. oJ Barh. .t05, .JO;: ; a statute. 
 Xi Suttles V. Whitlock, 4 Mo:). 4.51, 4-52. 
 
 34 Bonnett v. Wlnfleld, 4 Ilfisk. 440, 414, 447. 
 
 3.5 Buss I'. Georg.', 45 X. H. 487, 46-*, 46a. 
 
 38 As to AssioxMKXTS ix Fraud of Fdtubk SporsK, see Stew- 
 art M. & D. i 44. 
 
 37 GuptUl I'. Home, 63 Me. 405, 408. 
 
 33 Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Miis-s. 246, 248. 
 3:) Long V. Klniiej', 49 Ind. 2.3.5, 2.38. 
 
 40 Cases cited supra, n. 17. 
 
 41 Wilson, 36 Cal. 44V, 4.50, 451. 
 
 42 Barton, 32 Md. 214, 224. 
 
 43 Smiley, 18 Ohio St. 543, 514. Cw/m, Carleto:i,r2 Me. lir., iirt. 
 
 ^ 4j. The relation of debtor and creditor batwoon hus- 
 band and wife. — .Vt-i-nnling to the terms of .seclimis 41 - 
 44 the relation of debtor and creditor may exist between 
 husband and wif»3.' No stronger proof is required to 
 establish this relation in this case than in other cast-s ; - 
 and the wife or husband has no legal advantage over, 
 or disadvantage with respect to other creditors.' Thus, 
 if a husband may prefer a stranger creditor he may 
 prefer his wife if she is a creditor,^ but his ^\'ife has us 
 ■wife no lien on his estate for his debts to her.^ Thougli 
 a husband has bought with her money land in his 
 name, liis assignee without notice takes it free of the 
 trust,* and she must proceed against her husband as any 
 other creditor would for breach of contract or trusts 
 Still this relation between them is not altogether nor- 
 mal, for it is sometimes recognized only in equity.^ 
 
 1 See also collected eases as to law of different States in { 48. 
 
 2 3It'.vers v. King, 42 Md. 65, 70.
 
 0.1 CONTRACTS BETWEKX. ? 48 
 
 3 Rowland v. Plummer, 50 Ala. 182, 193 ; Mayfleld i'. Kilgour, U 
 Md. 240, 24J. 
 
 4 Rowland v. Plumm?r, 50 Ala. 182, 193 ; Tomlinson v. Matthews, 
 98 111. 182 ; KrciK.'ll r. MotU-v, fii yif. :t2fi, :i27 ; Mavficld r. Kilsjour. :U 
 Md. 240, 244 ; Crane r. Barkdoll, M Md. 5;t4,52.5 ; Jaycox v. Caldwell, .51 
 N. Y. 395, 398 ; Rose v. Latshaw, 90 I'a. St. 238, 241 ; Lahr, 90 Pa. St. 
 507, 51L 
 
 6 Betts, 18 Ala. 787. 
 
 6 Gorman v. Wood, 68 Oa. 524, 627. 
 
 7 B"tts, IS Ala. 787. 
 
 8 A)ile, i 42 ; post, H 127, 132. 
 
 § 46. Becent decisions as to contracts between husband 
 and wife. — The result of the eombination of the statutes 
 of the; various States with the unwritten law may be 
 seen in recent and leading cases in the Supreme Court 
 of the United States,^ and in Alabama,-' Arkan.sas,' 
 California,* Colorado,* Connoclicut,^ Delaware,' Flor- 
 ida,* Georgia,* Illinois,'" Indiana,'' Iowa, '^ Kansas,'^ 
 Kentucky,'* Louisiana,'' Maine,"' Maryland,'" Ma.ssa- 
 chusetts,i8 Michigan," Minnesota,^"' Mis.sissiippi,-' Mis- 
 souri,^ Nebraska,'-'* Nevada,'^' New Hainpsliire,''^ New 
 Jersey,^ Now York," North Carolina,^ Oliio,* Oregon,'"' 
 Pennsylvania,^' Rhode Island,*-* .South Carolina,** Ten- 
 nc.s.see,** Te.xas,*^ Vermont,*'' Virginia,^^ West Yirginia,*^ 
 Wisconsin.*' P. stnnptial settlement-s are fully dis- 
 cussed in another chapter.*" 
 
 1 Bank v. Banks, 101 X'. S. 240, 244 ; Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 22-5, 
 229; Ke.sniT v. Trteff, 'ts l'. .s. .id; Walliii^sford v. Allen, 10 Peters, 
 583, 693 ; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 22:i ; 1 Am. L. C. 1. 
 
 2 OoodlPtt 1'. Hansel, 66 Ala. 151 ; Harden i'. Darwin, firt Ala. 55; 
 Haynic c. Miller, 61 Ala. 62 ; Helnietag r. Kronk. 61 .Via. 67 ; McMil- 
 lan r. IVaoock, .57 Ala. 127 ; Barker, Ifl .Via. 473 ; stone )'. (iazzam, 46 
 Ala. ■-•liit ; Reel v. Overall, 39 Ala. i:« ; ({oree r. Walthall, 44 .Via. 161 ; 
 Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670 ; Johnson v. West, 43 .\la. ftS'.l ; Bibb v. Pope, 43 
 Ala. I'K) ; Northlngton j'. Faber, 52 Ala. 4.S ; Barclay t'. Plant, 50 Ala. 
 60:i ; Rowland v. Plummer, 50 Ala. 182; Halloway v. Grace, 50 Ala. 
 43 ; Frierson, 21 Ala. 54;), .555. 
 
 3 Ward, 36 .\rk. .'VSR ; Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407 ; Eddnis v. 
 Buck, 23 Ark. .507 ; .Smith v. Yell, 8 Ark. 470 ; Dodd v. McCraw,8 Ark. 
 10() ; 40 Am. Dec. :«!. 
 
 4 Hi?frins, 46 Cal. 2.59 ; Swain v. Duane, 48 Cal. 35S ; Rich v. 
 Tul)bs,41 Cil. 31; Wilson, 36 Cal. 447,4.50 ; Peck v. Brummagin, 31 Cal. 
 440 ; Dow r. (Jould, 31 Cal. (>■-") ; Fuller v. l-Vi^uson. 26 Cal. 546 ; Burpee 
 V. Bunti, 22 Cal. 194; Kohner v. Asheniur-r, 17 ( al. 578; Barker v. 
 Koneman, 13 Cal. 9 ; George v. Ransom, 14 Cal. 658.
 
 I 46 CONTRACTS BETWEEN. 60 
 
 5 Wells V. Caywood, 3 Colo. 487, 494. 
 
 6 Grain ti. Shipman, 45 Conn. 572 ; Boardman, 40 Conn. 1G9 ; Jen- 
 nings V. Bavis, :n Conn. 134 ; UnderhlU v. Morgan, 33 Conn. 105, 107 ; 
 Watrous v. Walker, 7 Conn. 224. 
 
 7 Kilby v. Goodwin, 2 Del. Ch. 61. 
 
 8 Alston V. Bowles, 13 Fla. 117. 
 
 9 Francis ?•. Dickel, 6S Ga. 255, 2.57, 258 ; Thompson v. Feagln, 60 
 Ga. 82 ; Booker r. Worrell, .55 G:v. 332 ; 57 Ga. 235 ; Shorter v. Methir, 
 52 Ga. 25 ; Churchill v. CorKer, 25 Ga, 479. 
 
 10 Kinkead, 3 Biss. 405, 410 ; Breit v. Ye.aton, 101 111. 242, 263 ; Tyber- 
 and r. Raucke, 96 III. 71 ; TomlinSDn v. Matthews, 9-t III. 1h2 ; Hamil- 
 ton, 8;i 111. :«il, 351 ; Whitford r. Daggett, M 111. 144 ; Hacknt v. Bailey, 
 86111.74; Brooks r. Keans. k6 111. .T47, 54!); Morris v. Tillson, 81 III. 
 607 ; Hagebust v. Eogland, 78 III. 40 ; Doyle v. Kelley, 75 111. 574 ; Pat- 
 ton r. Gates, 67 III. 164 ; Wartman v. Price, 47 III. 22 ; Hessing v. Mc 
 Closkv, 37 III. 342 ; Brownell v. Dixon, 37 III. 1?7 ; Finlay v. Dicker- 
 son, 29 111. 9 ; Powers V. Green, 14 III. 387. 
 
 11 Sims V. Ricketts, 3.5 Ind. 181, 1;K)-1'14 ; 9 Am. Rep. 679; Lino .'. 
 Blizzard 70 Ind. 25 ; Buchanan ?'. I-cc, 6:i Ind. 117 ; Sherman t'. Hog- 
 land, .54 Ind. 578 ; Brookbank r. Kcnnard. 41 IikI. 3:'.:i ; Brick v. Scott, 
 47 Ind. 2;I9; Klnneman v. Pyle, 44 Ind. 275; l{:i\vrll i: Kli'in,44 lurl. 
 290 ; Kixou V. Cuffy, 33 Ind. 211 ; Malto.x v. Highshue, 39 Ind. 95. 
 
 12 Lenton v. Crosbv, .54 Iowa, 474 ; Courtwrtght, 53 Iowa, 57 ; Rob- 
 ertson, 25 Iowa, 3.50, ;j.55 ; McMuUen. 10 Iowa. 412; Wright, 16 Iowa, 
 496 ; Logan v. Hall, 19 Iowa, 491. 
 
 13 Greer, 24 Kan. 101, 104 : Horder, 23 Kan. 391 ; Dickson i\ Randall 
 19 Kan. 212 ; Faddis v. Wooldncls. 10 Kan. 5S ; Monroy v. May. 9 Kan. 
 466 ; Going v. Orus, 8 Kan. 85. 
 
 14 Scarborough r. Watkins, 9 Mo;i. B. WO, 545 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 Barnabv, 14 Bush, 485; Campb(>ll r. Galbreath, 12 Bush, 45); Powell, 
 5 Busb,'6i!), 620 ; Latimer v. Gleuu, 2 Bush, 543 ; Kinniard v. Daniels, 
 13 Mou. B. 496. 
 
 15 .\mes, .S3 La. An. 1317 ; Lehman v. Levy, 30 La, An. 745; Willis 
 r. Ward, TO La. An. V2x2 ; Newman v. Eaton, 27 La, An. 341 ; Warfleld 
 V. Bobo, 21 La. An. 466. 
 
 16 Blake, 64 Me. 177, 131 ; Bond v. Cummings, 70 Me. 125 ; French v. 
 Holmes, 67 Me. 186 ; fJrant'!). Ward, 64 Me. 239 ; McKoe v. Garcelon, 
 60 Me. 167; 11 Am. Rep. 200; Randall v. Lnnt, 51 Me. 240; Allen v. 
 Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374 ; Winslow v. Gilbreth, .50 Me, !« ; Motlev r. 
 Saw ver, H Me. 540 ; .3.8 Me. 68 ; Johnson v. Stillings, 35 Me. 427 ; Davis 
 V. Herrick, 37 Me. 397. 
 
 17 Sabel v. Slinghiff, 52 Md. 132, 134 ; Thomas v. Standlford, 49 Md. 
 181, 185; Odenbal r. Devlin, 48 JId. 439,446; Trader r. I.owe, 45 Md. 
 1, 14; Keller, 45 Md. 270, 277 ; Drurv v. Briscoe, 42 Md. IM. 1(,2 ; Mvers 
 V. King, 42 Md. 6.5, 70 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. ;W7, ».rZ : Hill, :J8 Md." 18:!, 
 18.5; Preston v. Frver, 38 Md. ■221,225; Barton, .32 .Md. 214, 224 ; Mav- 
 field I'. Kilgour, 31 Md. 240, 244 ; Knhn r. Stanstield, 2-( Mrl. 210,215; 
 Jones, 18 Md. 404, 46S ; McCubbin v. Patterson, 16 JIil. 179, 185 ; Stockett 
 V. Hallidav, 9 Md. 480, 498 ; Bowie v. Stonestreet,0 Md. 418, 430 ; Crana 
 V. Barkdoil, 59 Md. 534, 535. 
 
 18 Fellows r. Smith, 130 Mass. 378 ; Cowen r. Donaldson, 128 ^Liss. 
 169; Degii:in r. Farr, 126 Mass. 297, 29S ; Hawkins r. Providence Rail- 
 road, 119 Mass. 596 ; 20 .Vm. Rep. .^>) ; Whitnev i: WheeU-r, IIP Mass. 
 490; Towle, 114 Mass. 167 ; Bassett, 112 Mass. 99, 100; Bancroft r. Curtis, 
 108 Ma.ss. 47 ; Abbott )'. Winchester, 105 Mass. 115 ; Chapman v. Kel-
 
 61 CONTRACTS BETWEEN. § 46 
 
 logg, 102 Mass. 2-16, 248 ; Knowles v. Hull, 99 Mass. 562, 564 ; Jackson v. 
 Parks, 10 Cush. 5.50; Lord v. Parker, .S Allen, 127, 129 ; C'arley v. Green, 
 12 Allen, HH, 106 ; Motte v. AlgL-r, 15 Gray, 322, 323. 
 
 19 Hvfle V. Powpli, 47 Mieh. im ; Randall, 37 Mich. 563, 571 ; Jenne 
 V. Marb'lP, 37 Mirli. 319, 321 ; Looniis v. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, 46 ; Ran- 
 som, 30 Mich. 32.S, SW; I)(niri"S v. Conklin, 22 Mich. 255 ; Burdeno v. 
 Auiperse, 14 Mich. 91, 97; Watson v. Thurber, 11 Mich. 4.57. 
 
 20 Sandiord v. John.son, 24 Minn. 172 ; Tullis v Firdloy, 9 Minn. 79. 
 
 21 Gregory v. Bodds, 60 Miss. .5^19, .552 ; f 'haffc v. Bcnvit, 60 Miss. ."M, 
 38 ; Memphis 1'. Si^rufjirs, .50 :\[iss. 2-i4 ; Kaufman r. Whitney, .50 Miss. 
 103 ; Thorns, 45 Miss, ^(j.! ; IJutterfi -Id v. .Stanton , 44 Miss. 15. 
 
 22 Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 590, 601 ; Tennison, 46 Mo. 77 ; Frissel 
 V. Rozier, 19 Mo. 44S, 44 ). 
 
 23 Omaha v. Bartlett, 8 Neb. 319 ; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 
 260,261. 
 
 24 Nev. Rev. 1873, i 169. 
 
 25 Cough V. Russell, 55 N. H. 279 ; Houston v. Clark, .50 N. H. 479 ; 
 Russ r. Cieorge, 4.5 N. H. 4(i7, 4(JS ; Patterson, 45 N. H. 104, 166; Albin 
 V. Lord, 39 N. H. 196, 203 ; Jewell v. Porter, 31 N. H. 34, as ; Burleigh 
 V. Coffin, 22 N. II. 118, 127. 
 
 26 Woodrufif V. Clark, 42 N. J. L. 198 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403. 
 
 27 Whltaker, 52 N. Y. 370, 373 ; Woodworth v. Sweet, .51 N. Y. 8, II • 
 Jaycox V. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 3:i5, 398 ; Winans v. Peebles, 32 N. Y. 423' 
 426; White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, :J32 ; Abbev )'. Dego, 44 Barb. 374, 
 380; Damon v. Hall, 3.8 Barb. 140; Savage v. O'Neill, 42 Barb. .378; 44 
 N. Y. 298 ; Wright, 59 Barb. 527, .52S ; Perkins, 62 B.'irb. 406 ; Zimme- 
 inan v. Erhard, 58 How. Pr. U ; Kellv r. Case, 18 Hun, 472 ; Towns- 
 hend, 1 Abb. N. C. 81 ; .Seymour )■. Fellows, 53 How. Pr. 471 ; Van 
 Order, 8 Hun, 315; Meeker v. Wriglit, 11 Hun, 535; Livingston, 2 
 Johns. CIi. 5:58. 
 
 28 Warlick v. White, 86 N. C. 139; 41 Am. Rep. 4.53; Reucher v. 
 Winne, 8i> N. C. 268, 275 ; George ?'. High, 85 N. C. 99 ; Dula v. Young, 
 70 N. C. 4.50 ; Kee v. Vassar, 2 Ired. Eq. 5.5.3. 
 
 29 Crooks, .34 Ohio St. 610 ; Huston v. Cone, 24 Ohio .St. 11 ; Oliver ?•• 
 Moore, 23 Ohio St. 473 ; 26 Ohio St. 298 ; Smiley, 18 Ohio St. 54.3, 644 ; 
 Fowler v. Trebeln, 16 Ohio St. 493, 497. 
 
 30 Ellelt V. Heach, 5 Oreg. 255. 
 
 31 Platterv, 91 Pa. St. 474 : Bedell, 87 Pa. St. 510 ; Kelly, 86 Pa. St. 
 232 ; Darlington, 86 Pa. St. 512 : 27 Am. Hep. 726 ; Morris v. Zeigler, 71 
 Pa. St. 4.50; Vance v. Nagle, 70 Pa. St. 176 ; Winch v. James, 6S Pa. St. 
 
 2 »7 ; Aramon, Ki Pa. St. 2i»7 ; Crawford, 61 Pa. St. .52; Berger, 60 Pa. St. 
 408 ; Yicker v. Martin, 80 Pa. St. 138 ; Hitner, .54 Pa. St. 114 ; Johnston, 
 31 Pa. St. 450, 4.53; Bear, :« Pa. St. .52.5, .527; Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. 
 St. 45 ; Miller, 44 Pa. St. 170 ; Dillinger, 3.5 Pa. St. 357 ; Hutton i'. Duey, 
 
 3 Pa. St. 100, 105. 
 
 32 Steadman v. Wilbur, 7 R. T. 481. 
 
 .33 Wade v. Fisher, 9 Rich. Eq. 294; Hodges v. Cobb, 8 Rich. 50; 
 Reeder v. Flynn, 6 S. C. 216. 
 
 M McCampbell, 2 Lea, 061, 664 ; PUe, 6 Lea, 508 ; 40 Am. Rep. 50. 
 
 35 Wellborn 7'. Oddf-llow, 56 Tex. .501 ; Hall, .52 Tex. 294 ; 30 Am. 
 Rep. 725 ; Ximines i'. Smith, 39 Tex. 49 ; Hutchinson v. Mitchell, 39 
 Tex. 487. 
 
 .36 LPavItt V. Jones, 51 Vt. 423 ; 41 Am. Rep. 849 ; Cardell v. Rider, 
 35 Vt. 47 ; Pierce, 25 Vt. 511 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 398. 
 H. & W.-6.
 
 g 47 WRONGS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. 62 
 
 nr Johnston v Gill. 27 Gratt. 587; Findley 11 Gratt 4M, Jones r 
 Ohpiichaiii, 10 Gratt 253, Lewis v Carpenter s Gratt. 148; Charles, 8 
 Gratt. 486 
 
 3S Fo.\ i\ Jones, 1 W Va. 205 
 
 •■?;• Wochaska, 45 Wis 423; Carpenter v. Tatro, 36 Wis 297; Beard 
 V Dedolph 2) Wis. 135. 
 
 40 I'ost, U 9!>-l.^ 
 
 Art. Ill — \7rongs Between Husband and Wife 
 
 ? 47. Classified, 
 
 5 48. Civil wrongs. 
 
 i 4j. Criminal wrongs. 
 
 ? 47. Wrongs Ijetwoon husband and wife classified. — 
 Wrong.s between liusbaml and wife may be civil ot 
 criminal,' to person or to property.'^ The tendency of 
 modern law is towards criminal liability and civil im- 
 munity for wrongs tc person,^ and civil liability and 
 criminal immunity for wrong.s to property.' Thus, a 
 Avife cannot recover damages from her husband for 
 beating her,"" but the State Avill punish him therefor;* 
 and a husband cannot steal his wife's propertj'^,' but 
 may be held civilly responsible therefor,* 
 
 1 Abbott 67 Me. 304, .S06, 307 , 24 Am. Rpp. 27 ; post, ?? 48, 49. 
 
 2 ilinior, 4 Lans. 421. 422, 423 ; post, | J 4S, 43 
 
 3 See Phillips r. Barnet, 1 Q B. Div. 436,430; Peters, 42 Iowa, 183, 
 184 , Abbott, fi7 Me 304 30f; ; 24 Am. Rep 27; Libby r. Berrv, 74 Me. 
 2Sfi, 2S8; Comnir.iiw. r. Mc.Vfcv, 10-! Mass. 4.iS ; Adams, 100 Ma.ss. :i6.i. 
 ;^i;t: Kradliv -. state, 1 Miss. V,l\ I.-,7; Morris )■. Palm. 'r, 3 1 N. II. 123, 
 12f>, Frefthv,42 ISaib au.i'.l'); I.onnendvkp, 44 Barb. 3(.<i, .SliS ; .Mirii -r, 
 4 Lans. 421, 422 ; .state r. Mabrev, 01 N. C. .592, .^!i3 ; .State r. Oliver. 70 
 N C. 60, fil ; Whipp v. State, :i4 Ohio St. 87, SS ; 32 Am. Rep. :«9 ; (Jor- 
 man v. State, 42 Tex. 221 , Commonw. r. Barry, 2 Green Cr. R. 285, 
 289 )i- People c. Winter, 2 Parker Cr. R. 10. 
 
 4 See Queen r. Kennv, 2 Q. B. Div. ;«)7, 311 ; Reg. v. Tolfree. 1 
 Moody C. C. 243; Rex r. Willis, 1 Moody C. (!. 375; Reg. r. (ilassie, 7 
 Co.x C. C 1 ; Regiiia t\ Mutters, 10 Vox C. C. 50 ; Reg. r. Averv, 5 r. C. 
 L.J 215; Bell C. C. 150, Thomas. 51 111. 102, 165; Lamphier v. State, 
 70 Ind 317,324; State v. Banks, 48 Ind. 197.199; Peters, 42 Iowa, 18.3, 
 184 ; Commonw. t'. Hartnett, 3 Grav, 4.50 ; Snvder ?>. People, 26 Jlich. 
 106, 108, 111 , ri Am. Rep. :«)2 ; Minier, 4 Laiis. 421, 423; Walker v. 
 Reumy, ,» Pa. St. 410, 414 ; Overton r. State, 43 Te.v. 616, CIS. 
 
 o Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 308 ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 ; post, ? 48. 
 
 6 State r. Oliver, 70 N. C. 60, 01 ; post, i 49. 
 
 7 Thomas, 51 111. 162, 165 ; pnxl, ? 49. 
 
 8 See Larison, 9 111. .\pp. 27, 31 ; Clavton, .32 III 493, 498 ; Peters, 42 
 Iowa, 183, 184 ; Black, 30 X. J. Kq. 215 ; Minier, 4 Lans. 421,422 ; Cantrell, 
 3 Tenn. Ch. 426, 4:i0 ; post, U 4S, .5:), 54.
 
 G3 WRONGS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. I 48 
 
 \ 48. Civil wrongs between husband and wife. — Matri- 
 inoiiial offenses inodiry the normal rights and obliga- 
 tions of married iDer3ons,' and form the basis of 
 matrimonial suits.^ Some of these matrimonial offenses 
 mi'j;ht be civil wrongs to tlio person between strangers,^ 
 but between husband and wife thej^ give no right of 
 ac-tion in tort.^ Husband and wife are one,* and mar- 
 riage is a perisetually operating discharge of rights 
 arising from personal wrongs.*^ Thus, one spouse can- 
 not recover damages against tlie other for slander,^ or 
 assault and battery.* A husljand has no right to 
 assault his wife,^ but her remedy lie:^ in an action for 
 divorce for eruelty,'^ in criminal proceedings," in suing 
 out articles of the peace ''^at his expense,'^ and formerly 
 in a writ of supjMcavit?^ He lias no right to shut her 
 up,^5 but her remedy is hj writ of habeas corpus,i^ nor 
 does a right of a(;'ion arise after tlie marriage has been 
 dissolved by divorce," or death ; '* tlie question is not one 
 of procedure but one of svibstantial riglit.^^ As to prop- 
 erty, however, the separate existence of husband and 
 wife is recognized iu equity^ and by statutes ;-i and 
 the wife may have an injunction to protect her estate 
 from her husband," and a writ of ejectment if he 
 cx(dudes her froni her real cstatc,^^ and under express 
 statute full i>ower to sue her husband for any injury to 
 her property;'^' but the rules, that married women 
 statutes do not affect the relation of husljand and ^\ife,^» 
 and tliat property statutes do not affect i)ersonal rights,^'' 
 are applied, and a statute securing to a married woman 
 her separate property does not enable her to sue her 
 husband in trespass or trover for breaking or remov- 
 ing her furniture.^ As to a husband suing his wife, 
 lie is liable for her torts himself. 2* As to antenuptial 
 torts, they are completely' discharged by marriage.^ 
 (Remedies are discussed under suits between husband 
 and wife.^")
 
 I 49 WRONGS BETWEEN HUSBAJVD AND WIFE, 64 
 
 1 Stewart M. .fe D. §? 16o, 17.V180. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. index, Matrimoxial SmTS. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. U ITS, 261-273, 283. 
 
 •1 Phillips I'. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 43R, 438, 4^9 ; Peters, 42 Iowa, 183, 
 ISl ; Abbott, f)7 Mo. :«M, :«« ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 : Ubb.v ;•. Berry, 74 Me. 
 2-;6, 28S ; Freethv, 42 Barb. Ml, Mo; Loiigeiid.vke, 44 Barb. aOCt, SUS ; 
 Perkins, 62 Barb. .>«) ; Minier, 4 Laiis. 421, 422 ; Sluittleworth, 55N. Y. 
 025 ; Walker v Beamy, 3(1 Pa. St. 410, 414. 
 
 .5 Phillips V. Burnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 4:!8, 43'J ; Abbott. 67 Me. mi, 
 306 
 
 t, Abbott, 67 Mo. 304, 307 ; 24 Am. Rop. 27. 
 
 7 Abbott, 67 Me. 304, .'iOS ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 ; Freethy, 42 Barb. 641, 645. 
 
 8 Phillips )'. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 43i) ; Peters. 42 Iowa, 183, 184 ; 
 T.ihby r. Berrv, 74 Me. 2S(i, 2SS ; Abbott, 07 Me. 304, ;J06 ; 24 Am. Rep. 
 27 ; Loncrenrt.vkp, 44 Barb. 366, 368 ; Schultz, 89 N. Y. 684 ; Com. v. 
 Burr.v, 2 Green Cr. 11. 2ii, 2S8 n. 
 
 9 Kiiight. 31 Iowa, 4.51, 453 ; Stewart M. & D. § 270 ; Desty Crlm. L. 
 i m i. 
 
 10 Stewart M.&D.U 261-273, 
 
 11 r:>st.i40. 
 
 12 Phillips V. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 438 ; Morris v. Palmer, 39 
 >'. H. 123. 127. 
 
 1 J Morris v. Palmer, 33 N. n. 123, 12r) ; Stewart M. & D. f 389. 
 
 14 Adams, 100 Mass. 305, 303 ; 1 Am. Rep. 11!. 
 
 lo Kelly, Law R. 2 Pro. & D. 31, 32 ; post, i 62. 
 
 lb Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 307 ; 24 Am. Rep. 27. 
 
 i; Phillips r. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 4:!6. 43) ; Abbott, 67 Me. .301, 306, 
 ■M) ; 24 Am. Kep. 27 ; Stewart M. & D. i 442. 
 
 13 Phillips V. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 440. 
 
 n Phillips )■. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 438, 433 ; Abbott, 67 Me. SM, 
 
 30(1; 24 Am. Rep. 27. 
 
 20 Ante. U 38, 42. 
 
 21 .4n<e, §§ :«, 43. 
 
 22 See Heck v. Vollmer, 23 Md. 507, 51L 
 
 23 Minior, 4 Lans. 421> 422. 
 
 24 Lari.son, 9 111. App. 27, 31 ; see Peters, 42 Iowa, 183, 184, 
 2.0 Ants, I 16 
 
 26 Ante, I 15. 
 
 27 Walker ?- Reamv, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414. Consult Snyder v. People. 
 25 Mich. 106. 108, 111 ; 1? Am. Rep. :W2 ; ante, J? 15, 16. 
 
 2=S Abbott. 67 Me. 300, 303 ; 24 \m. Rep. 27 : post, § 66. Cousult post, 
 U 5.'-.56 ; Berdell v. Parkhurst, 13 Hun, 3.58, 300. 
 
 23 Inference from Abbott, 67 Me. 308, 307 ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 ; and 
 cases in n 4, aiipra. 
 30 Post, II 52, 56. 
 
 ? 49. Criminal wrongs between husband and wife. — 
 Matrimonial offon3Cs — .such as adultery,' dusertion,^
 
 65 WRONGS BETWKEN HUSBAND AND AVIFE. § 49 
 
 cruelty,^ dofatnation •* — not only affect the normal 
 status of husband and wife,' and are grounds for di- 
 vorce,^ but they are crimes — offenses against the Stated 
 Thus, prosecutions of husband for assault and battery 
 on wife are common,^ and of wife for assault and bat- 
 tery on husband not unknown.^ But the State leaves 
 the parties to arrange their property rights between 
 themselves by agreement, i" or by suit.^^ So one spouse 
 cannot steal from the other ''^ — but qucere, if they are 
 living apart ^^ — and even a third party, who joins with 
 an adulterous wife^' in taking possession of her hus- 
 band's property, is not guilty,'^ unless he took part in 
 the asportation.^" So one spouse is not guilty of arson 
 in burning the otlier's house. '^ Married women stat- 
 utes have not changed the common law as to crimes 
 between husband and wife.'^ 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. U 156, 178, 241-249, 345. 
 
 2 Stewart M. &. T>. U 177, 249-260. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. U 178, 261-273, 345. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ?? 267, 269, 283. 
 
 5 Stewart M. &V>.ll 165, 17r>-180. 
 
 6 Stewart M. &.D. ?§ 231, 2:ifl-290. 
 
 7 Whipp V. State. 34 Ohio St. 87, 88, 91 ; 32 Am. Rep. 359. 
 
 8 See Bradley v. State, 1 Miss. 156, 157 : State v. Mabroy, ft4 N. C. 
 5:)2, 593 ; State v. Driver, 78 N. C. 423, 425 ; Gorman v. State, 42 Tex. 521 ; 
 Desty Crim. h. i 130 *. 
 
 9 Wliipp V. State, .34 Ohio St. 87, 88 ; 32 Am. Rep. 359. 
 10 Ante, II 40^0 ; Stewart M. & D. ?? 131-132. 
 
 U Ante,l-i^- 
 
 12 Qiioeii );. Kenny, 2 Q. B. Div. 307, 311 ; Regr. v. Tolfree, 1 Moody 
 C. C. 24:{ ; Hex v. Willis, 1 Moody C. C. 375 ; Rhr. v. Glassie, 7 Cox C. C. 
 1 ; Ri'g. r. Mutters, 10 Cox C. C. 50 ; Reg. v. Avers-, 5 U. C. L. J. 215 ; 
 Bell C. C. 150 ; Thomas , 51 III. 162, 16.5 : Lamphier v. State, 70 Ind. .317. 
 :f24 ; State v. Baiilcs, 4S Ind. 197, 199 ; Coninionw. r. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 
 4.50 ; Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106, lOS, ill ; 12 Am. Rep. ;»2 ; State v. 
 Parlier, 26 Alb. I^. J. 423 ; Wallcer v. Reamy, 30 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; Over- 
 ton V. State, 43 Tex. 616, 618. 
 
 13 Lamphier v. State, 70 Ind. 317, 3J1 ; State r. Banks, 48 Ind. 197, 
 199. 
 
 14 Queen v. Kenny, 2 Q. B. Div. 397,311 ; State ?■. Banks, 48 Ind. 
 197, 199. 
 
 15 Reg. It. Taylor, 12 Cox C. C. 027; 2 Green Or. R. .32; Reg. v. 
 Fealherstono, Cox C. C. o76 ; 2 Lead. C. C. 362. 
 
 i
 
 § 50 WILLS BETWEKN HUSBAND AND MIFE. ()6 
 
 16 Destj' Crim. L. ? 145 t, and cases there cited. 
 
 17 Snyder .'. People, 26 Mich. 106, 108, lit ; 12 Am. Rep. 302. 
 
 18 Thomas, 51 111. 162, 165 ; Snvder v. People, 26 Mich. 103, 108, 111 ; 
 12 Am. Kep. 302 ; Walker v. Beamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, -Hi. 
 
 Article TV. — Wills Between Husband and "Wife. 
 
 ? 50. Effect of, generally. 
 
 5 51. Miscellaneous points as to. 
 
 I 60. Effect of wills between husband and wife gener- 
 ally. — A husband coiild always will his property to Iiis 
 wife as to a stranger, for his will takes effect onh' on 
 his death, by wliieh the marriage unity is destroyed.' 
 But a wife is merged in her husband,- and cannot make 
 a will at all,^ except under a power,' or by virtue of a 
 statute,^ or in a rci:)resentative capacity ; ^ and tliorofore, 
 excejjt in such cases, cannot will to her husband.' A 
 general power in a settlement to will enables her to 
 will to her husband.*' A general statute authorizing 
 "any person " to make a will does not include married 
 ■women.3 A statute authorizing a married woman to 
 make a will, generally, authorizei her to will to her 
 husband,'** for there is no additional incapacity due to 
 the marriage relation," as there is i:i the case of con- 
 tracts between husband and wife.'- Btit a statute en- 
 abling her to make a will, provided it does not '-afToct 
 the rights of her husband," excludes a will to her hus- 
 band,'^ as does, probably, a statute enabling her to vrill 
 only with her husband's consent." In some States 
 wills in favor of husband or wife are i^rohibited; '•'* in 
 some, one can will only a portion of his or her estate to 
 the other ; '* in some a widow '' or widower'* must elect 
 to take either what the will gives or Avhat the law al- 
 lows.'9 Tlie effect of the will dei^end:; on the law exist- 
 ing at the time of the testator's death.^
 
 67 WILLS BETWKKN HUSBAND AND WIFK. f 51 
 
 1 See T.itt. ? IfiS ; 1 Bish. JI. A\'. ? 3T ; Morse v. Thompson, 4 C\T.h. 
 562. 5G7 ; Burdeiio v. Amparso, U Mich. 90, 93; Wakeflelfl i;. Phelp.s, 
 37 K. H. 2jo, :jOi 
 
 2 Ante, ? 33. 
 
 3 Scammol v. Wilkinson, 2 East, E52, 55.5; Fitch v. Brainrrd, 2 
 Day, 10:j,.lt).) ; discussed f ullj' post, Wills of Mabried Women, *« l^O, 
 354. 
 
 4 Bradlsh v. Oibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 523, 535. 53fi, 540. See Kennell ?•. 
 Abbott, 4 Ves. 8U2, W)3 ; Douglas v. Cooper, 3 Mylne <fe IC. 378, 3)il ; 
 Hodsrlt'ii V. Llovd, 2 Bro. C. C. 540, 514 ; Morse v. Thonipsoa, 4 Cush. 
 S62, 5(W ; post, 342. 
 
 5 Fitch V. Brainerd, 2 Day, Ifit, 181 ; Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cnsli. 
 562, 568 ; Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 X. U. 295, 301, 302 ; infra, notes 10-14. 
 
 6 Scammel v. Wilkinson, 2 Kast, 552, 557. See post, ? 342. 
 
 7 Co. Litt. 112 b; 1 Bish. M. W. ? 37 ; Hood v. Archer, 1 McCord, 
 225, 22(!, 477, 478 ; Newell, 2 McCord, 4X1, 4.>1. 
 
 8 Bradish v. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 523, .5.3.5, 536, 540. See Kennell v. 
 Abbott, 4 Ves. 802, 8UJ ; Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 562, 568. 
 
 9 Fitch V. Bralnord, 2 Day, 163, ino ; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mass. 
 525, 530 ; Morse v. Tliompson. 4 Cush. 562, 563 ; ante, 1 12, 
 
 10 See Wakefield ?•. Phelps, 37 X. TL. 295, 301, 302 ; Morse v. Thomp- 
 son, 4 Cush. 5(i2, 5li7, dissenting opinion. 
 
 11 Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 502, 567. Compare Burdeno v. 
 Amperse, 14 Mich. !J0, 93. 
 
 12 Ante, i 4^. 
 
 13 Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 562, 565. See Wakefield v. Phelps, 
 37 N. H. 2d5, 305. 
 
 14 Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 562, 56fi. See Hood r. Archer, 1 
 McCord, 225, 226, 477, 47-). Compare ante, i 43, Jiotes 13, 14, 1.5. 
 
 15 See Adams v. Kellogg, Kirby, 195; Sanborn v. Batchelder, 51 
 N. 11.426,431. 
 
 13 Colo. C. L. 1877, ? 1751 ; Ames, 33 La. An. 1317, 1329. 
 
 17 Collins V. Carman, 5 Md. 503, .528. 
 
 IS Huston V. Cone, 24 Ohio St. 11, 20, 22. 
 
 ■ 10 Elkctiox considered fully po.s<, g 27-5. 
 
 20 Wakefleld v. Phelps, C7 X. II. 2 ).5, 306 ; ante, U 22, 36L 
 
 2 51. Miscellaneous points as to wills between husband 
 and wife. — A man's will is revoked by his subsequent 
 marriage and the birth of issue,^ unless it provides for 
 such issue ^ or issue by a former marriage.^ A woman's 
 will is revoked by her subsequent marriage alone,* 
 unless by statute she has full i>ower to make a -will as a 
 married woman,'' in wliich case her will is revoked as a 
 man's is.^ This subject is not treated in this article.^ 
 A devise to " 1113' Avifc " means, in case of several wives,
 
 § 52 SriTS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFK. 6S 
 
 the wife at the time the will was made ;8 if there was 
 no Avife at such time, but the testator made Ms will and 
 died just on the eve of marriage, his intended "wife 
 takes.' A devise to "my wife" is void if the woman 
 had deceived the testator into thinking her his wife ; ^^ 
 so with a devisi> to "my husband." '^ Gteneraliy de- 
 mises and legacies to husband or wife are construed as 
 other devises are.** 
 
 1 WpUin?tf>n, 4 Burr. 2ir>5, 2171 ; Doe v. Lancashire, 5 Term Rep. 
 49. 63 ; Marston c. Roe, 8 Ad. & E. 14, 55 ; Hodsden r. Llovd, 2 Bro. C. 
 C. 540, .544 ; Brush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. 506, 510, 512, 516 ; 1 Jarrnan 
 M'Uls, 122, et seq. 
 
 2 Sfarirtoa v. Boe, 8 Art. & E. 14, 54 ; Bmsh v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. 
 Ch. 506, 510. 
 
 3 Yerby, 3 Call. 2S9, 203. 
 
 4 Forsp 1'. Hemhliiiff, 4 Rep. GO, fil ; Douglas v. Cooper, 3 Mylne 
 <fc K. 37S, iSl ; Hodsdeu o. Lloyd, 2 Bro. C. C. 540, 5« ; ]x>.if, } 351. 
 
 5 Tuller, 79 lU. 99, 103 ; :Morton v. Onion, 45 Vt. 145, 1.7J. 
 
 6 Tuller, 79 111. 99, 103. 
 
 7 Revocation of man's ■^U is not treated in the volnme bocanse 
 it does not depend on marriage, STipro, n. 1 ; revocation of woman's 
 Is discussed fully, iiost, U 350, 351. 
 
 8 Xeblock v. Garratt, 1 Russ. & 31. 629, e:o ; Franks r. Erooker, 27 
 Beav. 6*5. 
 
 9 SchlQSS V. Stiebel, 6 Sim. 1, 5. 
 
 10 M^Ukinson v. Joughlin, Law R. 2 En. Sn, .Tr*. 
 
 11 Kennell v. Abbott, 4 Ves. 802, S03. 
 
 12 Orrick v. Boehm, 49 3Id. 72, 101. 
 
 Artici^ V. — Suits. Between HirsBANo and Wiite. 
 
 5 .52. Scope of this article. 
 
 { 53. Suits under unwritten 1a.\v. 
 
 I .54. Suits under statutes. 
 
 } .55. Snits after dis.soIution of marriage. 
 
 } ''> a. Defenses in suits. 
 
 I .5(1. Testimony of husband or wife. 
 
 I 52. Scope of tMs article. — Criminal prosecutions 
 are never suits Tx?twoen husband and wife, and, except 
 so far as concerns capacity of husband and wife to tes- 
 tify in them, are not discussed in this article. Snits 
 between husband and wife are ordinary suits at Uiw or
 
 69 SUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. g 53 
 
 in equity, in personam or in rem, in contract or in tort, 
 sucli as are brought between strangers, which are dis- 
 cussed in this article ; ^ and suits based upon the mar- 
 riage relation, called matrimonial suits, which are not 
 treated in this volume.^ A section on the capacitj"- of 
 husband and wiie to testify the one for or against the 
 other is inserted here.* 
 
 1 Posi, ?? 53-56. 
 
 2 Discussed in Stewart JI. & D. \\ 122, nOa, l.TJ-147, 375, 179, 182, 
 193,202-211, i5;i-390, •100-407. 
 
 3 Po*M 57. 
 
 2 53. Sxiits botwesa liualiaiid and wife imdar the un- 
 writton law. — In courts of law, independently of stat- 
 ute,' suits between husband and wife are whollj'' 
 unknowTi,^ because in such courts husband and wife 
 are one,* and cannot bo under obligation, tlie one to 
 the other, by contract,* or tort.^ But courts of equity 
 which have always recognized the separate existence 
 of husband and wife,^ and have always had special ju- 
 risdiction over the pixspcrty of married women,' enforce 
 such obligations as liusband and wife can reciprocally 
 incur,® and wliich cannot bo enforced at lavi-.' In such 
 cases the ^ofe is represented by a next friend or true- 
 tee.*" Thus, at law a man cannot even confess judg- 
 ment in favor of his wife ; '^ but when courts of law 
 and of equity are combined ai in Pennsylvania, he 
 can.'* A wife cannot sue out a writ of .scire facias 
 against her husband on a decree for alimonj'.'* A 
 husband cannot .sue his Avife at law on a covenant to 
 pay rent.'* One cannot sue the other for assault and 
 batter^'.'* But in courts of equity fair contracts on 
 proper consideration, antenuptial or postnuptial, are en- 
 forced."* So a wife may in equity institute proceedings 
 against her husband for the protection of her prop- 
 erty;" or for a suitable provision out of her choses in
 
 § 53 SUITS BETWEEN UU. 3AXD A:>D WII^E. 70 
 
 action which he is therein see]i;ing to rcduco to posses- 
 sion,^® or to make him account ; ^^ or to have him re- 
 moved from a trust ; 2" in socking to enjoin his creditors 
 from seizhig her property slae may make him a pai-ty 
 defendant ; -' she may file her claim against his insolv- 
 ent estate ; '■^^ or a bill against him for partition ; ^ or a 
 bill against him for cancellation of a contract .2* So a 
 husband may, in equity, hold a wife responsible for 
 money of his ajJiiropriatod by her.^ The rule prevent- 
 ing suits at law between husband and wife does not, 
 however, prevent ]iim from being made her gar- 
 nishee,^^ or an old Doe v. Roe ejectment suit between 
 them.'" 
 
 1 Peters, 42 Iowa, 182, 183 ; post, \ 54. 
 
 2 See 1 Blackst. Com. 12) ; 2 Kent Com. 129 ; Doe v. Daley, 8 Q. B. 
 9»4, 938 ; Couiilz r. MarkliiiK, ;« Ark. 17, 24 ; Chesnnt, 77 111. M6, 3.51 ; 
 Larison, 9 111. App. 27, 31 ; Peters, 42 Iowa, 182, 184 ; Hobb.s, 70 Me. 177, 
 132 ; Barton, 32 Mfl. 214, 224 ; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mieb. 319, 323 ; Wal- 
 ter, 48 Mo. 140, 14-5: l.ongendvke, 44 Barb. 3fif!, 3';- ; I'ittnnn, 4 Orog. 
 298, 300 ; Ros " v. Latsliaw, 90 Pa. St. 238, 240 ; Cautrc-Il v. Uaviclsoii, 3 
 Tenn. Ch. 420, 4: 0. 
 
 3 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. 325, 323 ; ante, I 38. 
 
 4 Scarborough v. Watkiiis, 9 Mon. B. 540, 545 ; 50 Am. Dec. 52S ; 
 ante, 'i 41. 
 
 5 Libby v. Berry, 74 Me. 286, 288 ; ante, I 48. 
 
 6 Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 53(i, COl ; ante, U 8, 38, 43. 
 
 7 Bridges v. McKenna, 14 Md. 258, 267 ; ante, I 42 ; jnst, U 1^7-217. 
 
 8 See ante, U -">-l!>- 
 
 9 See Larison, 9 III. App. 27, 30, 31 ; Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 1, 7 ; 
 Cantrell v. Davidson, 3 Tenn. Ch. 426, 4:» ; post, i 54. 
 
 10 Story Eq. PI. ?? 61, 63 ; Barton, 32 Md. 214, 224 ; Keck v. VoUmer, 
 29 Md. 507, 511 ; Bridges v. MrlCcnna, 14 Md. -258, 270 ; Freethy, 42 
 Barb. 641 ; post, Suits of Makuied Womex. 
 
 11 Countz V. Markling, 30 Ark. 17, 2L 
 
 12 Rose !'. Latsbaw, 90 Pa. St. 238, 240 ; Lahr, 90 Pa. St. .507, 511. 
 
 13 Chesnut, 77 111. -UC, 350. Consult Stewart M. & D. ? 378. 
 
 14 Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 32.3. 
 
 15 Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 306 ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 ; ante, ? 48. 
 
 16 Crane v. Gough, 4 Md. 316, 331 ; Bennett v. Winfield, 4 Heisk. 
 440, 445 ; ante, U 42, 44. 
 
 17 Walter, 48 Mo. 140, 145 ; Birdges v. Phillips, 25 Ala. 136 ; 60 Am- 
 Dec. 495 ; Crabb v. Thomas, 25 Ala. 212. See post, i 210. 
 
 18 Wiles, 3 Md. 1,8; 56 Am. Dec. 733 ; si-e post, H 190-196. 
 
 19 Whitman r. Abernathy, 33 Ala. 104, 101.
 
 71 SUITS BETWEKN HUSBAND AXD WIFE. ^ 54 
 
 20 Bryan,.^5Ala. 200, 201. 
 
 21 Brirlgc'S v. lIcKenna, U Md. 25.S, 270. 
 
 22 Oswald V. Hoover, 4r, Md. 360, 3C8. 
 
 23 Moore, 47 N. Y. •ir,7, 4<j?i ; 7 Am. Rep. 466. 
 
 24 Hardin v. Gerard, 10 Bush, 250, 2C1. 
 
 25 Davidson v. Smith, 20 Iowa, 46S, 468. 
 
 26 Odenhal v. Devlin, 48 Md. 430, 446. 
 
 27 Doe V. Daley, 8 Q. B. 934, 038. 
 
 g 54. Suits between husband and wife under statutes. — 
 Some statutes expressly authorize suits between lius- 
 band and wife;i such statutes givo a remedj- but no 
 new right.^ Thus, a statute enabling a married woman 
 to sue her husband does not enable her to sue him for 
 a jiersonal injury to herself,^ for that a husband is not 
 liable to his wife is not a mere question of procedure 
 but of substantial right.* Statutes authorizing a mar- 
 ried woman to sue and be sued generally as a femme 
 sole do not authorize suits by and against her hus- 
 band,^ though this rule is sometimes ignored.^ Stat- 
 utes authorizing suits Avith her husband resjiecting 
 proi:)erty do not authorize such suits for personal con- 
 tracts' or torts.8 Still, if she has the general power to 
 sue as if unmarried, she may in all cases sue her hus- 
 band in equity,® where the unity of husband and wife 
 is not regarded.'" When a statute gives a new remedy 
 at law, it does not destroy tlio old remed}^ in equity ; " 
 but if it gives a new right, enforcible at law, such right 
 cannot be enforced in equit3\i'^ Under various statutes 
 we find a wife sviing her husband in detinue,'^ in re- 
 Ijlevin,'* and as garnishee ; '^ and a husband suing his 
 wife in trover.'^ 
 
 1 Miss. R. S. 1880, ? llfiS ; Wilson, 36 Cal. 447, 4.54. As to the various 
 statutes, see citations, infra, and Hoyd r. 10iiKland,.56 Ga. 598 ; .'Vngelo 
 1'. Sentimanat. 33 La. An. (UIO ; VredcnburKh r. Belian, 32 La. An. 475 ; 
 Simmons v. Thomas, 43 Miss. 36 ; 5 Am. Rep. 47<i ; Adams, 24 Hun, 
 401 ; Rohrman, 12 Phila. 390 ; Williams, 47 Pa. St. .307. 
 
 2 Peters, 42 Iowa, 182, 183. 
 
 3 I,ibby ;•. Berry, 74 Me. 286, 288 ; Peters, 42 Iowa, 182, 183.
 
 g 55 St'ITS BETWEEN HUSBAXD AND "WIFE. 72 
 
 4 Phillips V. Baniet, 1 Q. B. Div. 4:30, 4'iS, 430 ; Abbott, fi7 Mp. 3C4, 
 30f. ; 24 Am. lit-p. 27 ; ante, \ 48. 
 
 5 See .Smith v. Gorman, 41 Me. 4*5. 40S ; I.ibby v. Berry, 74 5Ie. 
 286, 28S ; Barton, 32 Md. 214, '22A ; Freethy, 42 Barb. Wl, C4.5 ; ante, \\ 16, 
 43, 48. 
 
 6 See Emerson v. Clayton, 32 111. 4!«, 498 ; ante, \\ 43, 48. 
 
 7 Chesnut, 77 111. 34n, 3.-J0 ; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 323 ; Pitt- 
 man, 4 Oreg. 298, 300 • ante, \ 15. 
 
 8 Peters, 42 Iowa, 182, 1S3 ; Libby r. Berry, 74 Me. 286, 288; ante, \ 15. 
 
 9 Barton, 32 Md. 214, 224. 
 10 ^;i(€, 5? 8,38,42,53. 
 
 U Bridges v. McKenna, 14 Md. 2.58, 270. 
 
 12 LarLSOn, 9 111. App. 27, .30, 31. 
 
 13 Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 230. 
 
 14 Jones, 19 Iowa, 236, 242 ; Howland, 20 Hun, 472, 473. 
 1.5 Tunks v. Grover, 57 -Me. 586, .V«. 
 
 16 Berdell v. Parfchurst, 19 Hun, .",53, .360. 
 
 \ 55. Suits between husband and wifo after dissolution of 
 marriage. — Death ' or absolute divorce ^ completely dis- 
 solves the unity of husband and wofe, and removes the 
 disabilities of married women, so that after death or 
 divorce there is no incapacity for husband and wife to 
 sue each other.^ But dissolution of marriage affects 
 only the remedy ; it does not revive or give any sub- 
 stantial right.* Thus a note from a man to a woman, 
 if extinguished by their subsequent marriage," cannot 
 be sued on after his death ;^ but if held by her as her 
 separate proijerty," or in a representative capacity,^ 
 though during coverture she could not sue on it at all, 
 or only in equity ,9 after his death she may enforce it 
 against his representatives at laWj^" or after her death 
 her representatives may so enforce it against him." 
 So, as husband and wifo cannot be liable to each other 
 in tort,^- they cannot, even after divorce, sue each other 
 for a wrong committed during coverture;" but on 
 valid contracts between them they can sue each other 
 at law after divorce.'' 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. \\ 452, 460. 
 
 2 Stewart :M. cfe D. U •!-". 433, 442, 44S, 449.
 
 73 SUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND AVIFE. §§ 55 a-56 
 
 3 See Phillips ?'. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 43fi, 43n, 440 ; King v. Green, 2 
 .Stowt. 133, 135; Bavi'lson v. Smith, 20 Iowa, 466, 4&S ; Mitchell, 4 
 Mon. B. 380, :«1 ; Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 306 ; 24 Am. Rep. 27 ; Blake, 64 
 Mo. 177, IHO, 182 ; Carleton, 72 Me. 11.5, 116 ; .39 Am. Rep. 307 ; Barton, 
 32 Md. 214, 224 ; Abbott !•. Winchester, ia5 Mass. 115. 
 
 4 Abbott, 67 Me. 331, SDO, .301 ; 21 .A.m. Rep. 27 ; infra, n. 3. 
 
 5 Ante, I 44. 
 
 6 Abbott V. Winchester, 10.5 Mass. 115. 
 
 7 Barton, .32 Mfl. 214, 224 ; ante, i 44. 
 
 8 King V. Green, 2 Stewt. 133, Vio ; 19 Am. Dec. 46 ; ante, ?§ 41, 44. 
 
 9 Ante, ? 51. 
 
 10 Barton, 32 Md. 214, 224. 
 
 11 Mitchell, 4 Mon. B. 380, 381. 
 
 12 Ante, ?? 46, 47. 
 
 13 Phillips V. Barnet, 1 Q. B. Div. 436, 439 ; Abbott, 67 Me. .304, 306, 
 303. 
 
 14 Blake, frl Me. 177, 182 ; Carleton, ?2 Me. 11.5, 116 ; 39 Am. Rep. 309. 
 
 g 55 a. Defenses in suits between husband and wife. ^ — 
 The Statute of Limitations does not run between hus- 
 band and wife daring coverture, ^ although there is a 
 remedy in equity,^ but if they can sue each other at law 
 it does.* Set-off may be pleaded in a suit between 
 them.5 
 
 1 See post, Suits of Married Women'. 
 • 2 Lahr, 90 Pa. St. .507, 510. 
 
 3 Bowie V. Stonestreet, Md. 418, 431. 
 
 4 Consult po.<t/, LIMITATION'S. 
 
 5 Greer, 24 Kan. 101, 107. 
 
 ? 56. Testimony of husband and wife for and against 
 each other. — 1. With certain exceptions named below, a 
 husband and wife could not at common law testifj^ the 
 one for or against the other, i in any legal proceeding in 
 which the other was a partj',- or which involved the 
 other's pecuniaiy interests,^ or criminal responsibility.* 
 This was because (1) husband and wife are one,^ and 
 as no one could testify for or against himself,^ neither 
 could his wife testify for or against him ;^ (2) to allow 
 one to testify for the other would be to put him or her 
 under a great temptation to commit perjury ; ^ and (3) 
 H. & w. -7.
 
 g 5G SUITS Bi:r\vEi:x husbaxd axd wife. 74 
 
 to allow one to testify against the other would be to en- 
 danger the harmony and confidence of the marriaga 
 relation.^ This rule applies equally to husband and to 
 Avife,^" but somewhat differently to criminal and civil 
 cases.^' It is a rule involving question! of public jiol- 
 icy, and cannot be waived by consent of partic^.'^ It 
 applies just as soon as the parties are husband and wife, 
 though their marriage takes place after one of them is 
 summoned to testify ;i3 but it does not apply after dis- 
 solution of the marriage by death,' ■ or absolute di- 
 vorce,'' except as to facts learned as husband or wife — 
 confidential communications.'® Nor does it apply to 
 cases where no valid marriage erdsts.'" Various ques- 
 tions arise as to tlie capacity of husband or wi.'e to 
 prove their marriage,'^ or to testify in nullity,'" or 
 divorce^ suits. To illustrate : In an action by a wo- 
 man as a feinme fiole her husband cannot dofeat the 
 action by i^roof of their marriage;^' a ■wife cannot tes- 
 tify in a bankrupt cj' proceeding against her husband ; ** 
 or in a prosecution against him and others for conspir- 
 acy even for the others;^ when one cannot testify the 
 other cannot ; -* when one can, tlie other can.^ (Statutes 
 have so far superseded the common law that a minute 
 discussion of the latter is omitted.) 
 
 2. Exceptions. At common law a husband and wife 
 could testify, the one for or against the other, in prose- 
 cutions of tlie one for criminal injury to the other,^ as 
 for assault and battery, ^'^ rape,^ shooting,^^ forcible 
 abduction.^ So, dying declarations of one Avho has 
 been murdered are evidence against the other in a trial 
 for such murder.'' So the wfe's affidavit is evidence 
 v.'hen she exhibits articles of the peace against her hus- 
 band.'2 Declarations of one while acting as agent for 
 the other are admissible.^ So in trials for treason t!ie 
 one was at one time compellable to testify against the
 
 75 SUITS BKTWEEX HUSBAND AND ■\VIFE. I 58 
 
 other .^* The rule is not apijlicablo to testimony in 
 wholly collateral i>roceeding.s.^5 
 
 3. Statutes. The incajjacity of husband and wife to 
 testify for or against each other does not depend on 
 interest alone ,^^ but on the relation of husband and 
 wife, the unity and harmony of which it ■was thought 
 would be otherwise jeopardized.'^ A statute enabling 
 "all persons" to testify would be construed not to 
 affect the marriage relation,'* and statutes abolishing 
 all incapacity from interest do not change the rule as to 
 testimony between liusband and Mife.'^ Tliis rule must 
 be expressly changed ; ^^ a statute enabling the parties 
 litigant in any suit, and their hiishands and irives to tes- 
 tify, does not change the common-law rule as to testi- 
 mony in criminal cases." But when parties to suits are 
 enabled to testify, and husband and wife are joint par- 
 ties, he maj'' testify as to his interest, and she as to 
 hers.*2 When a statute pro\ides that all parties may 
 testify except that husband and "wdfe cannot in certain 
 cases, they can in other cases.^ Many other questions 
 have arisen under the statutes in the various States." 
 
 1 1 Greenl. Ev. ?? 391, et seq.,- 2 Stark Ev. pp. 706, et seq.; 1 Best 
 Ev. ii 176, et seq.; 2 Taylor Ev. U 1227, et seq.; 1 BlacUst. Com. 443 ; 2 
 Kent Com. 17i), ISO ; 1 Hale P. C. 301 ; Rex v. CUvi?Lr, 2 Term, 263 ; 
 Eex V. Locker, 5 Esp. 107 ; Stein v. Bowman, 13 Peters, 203, 220-22" ; 
 Bank v. Mantleville, 1 Cranch C. C. 575; GUleland v. Marfm, 3 Mc- 
 Lf>an, 490 ; Wilson v. SiK'Ppard, 2S Ala. 6:3 ; Pvor v. Evburn, 16 Arlc 
 671 ; Dawley v. Ayersi, 23 Cal. MS ; Merriam v. Hartford, 20 Conn. 3i>i ; 
 52 Am. Dec. 344; Kemp v. Dowham, 5 ir;ir. (Del.) 417; Keaton r. 
 M'Givler,24Ga.217; Waddamsr. Huniphrc-v,22I11.661 ; Kvlev. Frost, 
 29 Ind. 3:)3 ; Karney v. PalsL \-, 13 Iowa, S3 ;"lIifr-lon, 6 Slarsh. J. J. 4.^; 
 23 Am. Dec. 84 ; Smead v. WiUiamson, 16 Mon. 15. 4 2 ; TuUev i.. Alex- 
 ander, U La. An. 623; Dwell v, 46 3Ie. 377; Bradfijrd v. WUllams, 2 
 Md. Co. 1; Griffin v. Brown, 2 Piok. 301 ; State v. Armstrong, 4 Mini'.. 
 S:^; Moore V. McKJe, 13 Miss. 2:is; Tomllnson v. Lvach, 32 Mo. 160; 
 Craig V. Kittrei'.se, 20 N. H. 109 ; Kelley v. Proctor, 41 >'. H. 139; Dc.i 
 V. Johnson, 18 X. J. L. 87; White v. Stafford, 33 Baib. 419 ; Eice r. 
 Kci;h,63 N. C. 310 ; Bird v. Hueston, 10 Ohio St. 418 ; Gross v. Eeddv, 
 45 Pa. St. 406 ; Donnelly v. Smith, 7 B. L 12 ; Footman r. Pendergrass, 
 2 Strob. Eq. 317 ; Kimbrough v. Mitchell, 1 Head, 5o!) ; Gee v. Scott, 48 
 Tox. 510, 513 ; 26 Am. Rep. 311 ; Cameron v. Fay, 55 Tex. 53 ; Barnv v. 
 Rood, 1 Hon. & M. 1>1 ; Jlanchester, 24 VL 649 ; Farrell v. LadweU, 21 
 Wis. 182 ; Zane v. Fink, 18 W. Va. 693. 
 
 2 See Bentley v. Cook, 2 Term, 26.5, 269 ; Higdon, 6 Marsh. J. J. 48 ; 
 22 Am. Dec. 84 ; Bird v. Davis, 14 JS'. J. Eq. 467
 
 § &6 SUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. 76 
 
 3 See Labareei'. Wood, MVt. 452, 453, 454; Cobb I'.Edmoiulsoii, 30 
 Ga. 30 ; Pyie v. Maukliiig, 7 JMarsh. J. J. 202 
 
 4 Common w. v. Easland, 1 Mass. 15 ; Den v. Jonnson, 13 N. J. L. 
 87, VJ, 100. 
 
 5 Wyndham v. Chetwyiide, 1 Burr. 424 ; Coke Lltt. 6 6; ante, J 38. 
 
 6 1 Greenl. Ev. ^ 329 ; 1 Best Ev. J 168, note cases and statutes col- 
 lected. 
 
 7 Turner v. State, 50 Miss. 3ol, 354 ; infra, n. 9 ; supra, n. L 
 
 8 Davis V. Diu woody, 4 Term, 673, 679 ; infra, n. 9. 
 
 9 Alcock, 12 Eng:. L. & Eq. 354, 35.5 ; Stapleton v. Crofts, 18 Ad. <t 
 :E. X. B. 3G7, '303; Lucas V. Broo'.:s, 18 Wiill. 4:^, 452; Mitcbinsi)ii v. 
 Cross, 58 IlL "366, 3C9 ; Blake v. Graves, IS Iowa, 312, 317; Tullv v. 
 Alexander, 11 La. An. 623 ; DeveUy, 46 Me. 377, 3 9 ; :McKeen v. Frost, 
 46 Me. 2i<), 248, 2"0; Bradford v. Williams, 2 3rd. C'U. 1,2; Kcllv v. 
 Drew, 12 Allen, 107. 10) ; Dunlap v. Hearn, 37 Miss. 471, 474 ; Turner v. 
 State, 50 Miss. 351, 354 ; You!^.g v. Oilman, 46 N. H. 4^4, 4S3 ; Den 
 i'. Johnson, 18 N. J. L. 87, 98 ; Marsh v. Potter, 30 Barb. 506, 503 ; Gib- 
 s y.i V. Commonw. 87 Pa. St. 2.53, 2.5f! ; State t'. Workman, 15 8. C. MO, 
 515 ; Gee i\ S-ott, 48 Tc \-. 5'.0, 514, 515 ; 26 Am. Rep. 331 ; Cram, 33 Vt. 
 15, 20 ; Manchester, 24 Vt. 643, 650. 
 
 10 Rex V. Sergeant, 1 Ryan <fc 31. 3.52, ZM. 
 li. See Turpin j'. State, 55 Md. 462, 475-:77. 
 
 12 Stein v. BoWman, 13 Peters, 209, 223 ; Turner v. Stp.te, 50 Miss. 
 &51, 3.54; Unnd;:!!, 5 City Ilnll Rec. Ill, 1.53, 154; 1 Greonl. Ev. ? ^0. 
 As to statute, see Jordan v. Henderson, 19 Iowa, 335. 
 
 13 Pedley v. Wellesley, 3 Car. & P. 553, 559. 
 
 14 Stewart M. &. D. { 470. 
 
 15 Stewart M. & D. I 439. 
 
 IS Stein V. Bowman, 13 Peter.-?, 201, 223 ; Ames, 33 La. An. 1317, 1.327; 
 State V. Jolly, 3 Dev. & B. Eq. 110, 112 ; Stewart M. & D. |J 4.39, 479. 
 
 17 Stewart JL & D. ?§ 68, n. 14, i;3, 3;;). 
 
 18 Stewart :M. & D. U 1"3, 3^0, S."'l. 
 
 19 Stewart M. <fe D. ?? 66,' 1."-^ 
 
 20 Stewart M. & D. ? 353. 
 
 21 Bentley v. Cooke, 3 I)ou:r. 422 ; cited 2 Term, 235, 2r.9. 
 
 22 James, 1 P. Wms. 610, 611. 
 
 23 State V. Workman, 15 S. C. 540, 54;). As to civil suits, see Mercer 
 II. Patterson, 41 lud. 440 ; Stewart, 41 'Wis. 624. 
 
 24 Berry v. Stevens, 69 Me. 290, 29.3. 
 
 25 DufTm v. State, 11 Tex. App, 76, 79. 
 
 26 Bentley v. Cooke, 3 Doug. 422; Wakefield, 2 Low. C. C. 237; 
 Stein V. Bowman, l.l Peters, 209, 221 ; State v. Neil, 6 Ala. 6.S5 ; Good- 
 win V. State, 60 Ga. 50J ; State v. Bennett, 31 Iowa, 24 ; State v. Dver, 
 59 Me. 303 ; Turner v. State, 50 Miss. 351, 454 ; People v. Chegarav, 18 
 Wend. 642 ; State v. Parrott, 79 N. C. 615 ; Whlpp v. State, aj Ohio St. 
 87, 89, 91 ; 32 Am. Rep. 3.59. 
 
 27 Whipp V. State, M Ohio St. 87, 89, 91 ; 32 Am. Rep. a59. 
 
 28 Audley, 3 How. St. Tr. 402, 413 ; Hut. 115, 116. 
 
 29 Whitehouse, cited 2 Russ. Crimes, 606. 
 
 30 1 East s P. C. 454 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. J ^3.
 
 77 SUITS BETWEBX HUSBAND AND WIFE. ? 56 
 
 31 Rex V. Woodcock, 2 Leach, 5G3 ; Stoop, Addis. 381 ; People ?'. 
 Green, 1 Denio, 614 ; State v. Belcher, 13 S. C. -loO. 
 
 32 Bex V. Dohert}-, 13 East, 171 ; Rex v. Mead, 1 Burr 542 ; Rex v. 
 Ferrers, 1 Burr, c:^; Lawley, Bull N. 1*. 2i~. 
 
 33 See Robertson v. Brost, 83 111. IIG ; Smied v. Frank, 86 Ind. 250, 
 2d7 ; Bradford v. Williams, 2 Md. c;i. 1, 3 ; Cliesloy, 51 Mo. 347 ; Thomas 
 V. Harsrave, Wright, 5').% 5;;6; GIbsiO!i, 16 Vt. 4!'.l ; Town v. Lamphire, 
 37 Vt. .52, 57 ; Lunay v. Vantyne, 40 Vt. 501, 503; Birdsall v. Dunn, 16 
 Wis. 235, 211 ; ATvAt v. Harshaw, 53 Wis. 269. But see Watkins v. 
 Turner, M Ark. 663; Roblson, 44 Ala. 227. 
 
 U 1 Greenl. Ev. 5 34,5. 
 
 35 Rex V. Eathwick, 2 Barn. & Ad. 639, 647. See Lincoln it. Madans, 
 102 III. 417, 4:0 ; Griixin v. Brown, 2 Pick. 3U3 ; Fitch v. Hill, 11 Mass. 
 286 ; Den v. Johnson, 18 N. J. Eq. 87, 03 ; Baring v. Reeder, 1 Hen. & 
 M. 154, 168 ; 1 GreenL Ev. i S^2. 
 
 36 Gee V. Scott, 48 Tex. 510, 514, 5V> ; 23 Am. Rep. 3:51 ; mpra, n. 9 ; 
 infra, n. 39. 
 
 37 Lucas v. Brooks, 13 W\all. 436, 452 ; supra, n. 9 ; infra, n. S3. 
 
 38 Ante, i 12 ; infra, ru 3!) ; consult, ante, U 11-18, Const ruction. 
 
 39 Stapleton i-. Crofts. 18 Ad. & E. N. S. 3fi7, 369 ; Alcock, 12 E;:g. L. 
 & Eq. 3.i4, 355 ; Lucas v. Broo'rs, 18 Wr.ll. 4Z6, 452 ; Jones, 6 r.iss. 63, 6 1 ; 
 Sumner v. Cook, 51 Ala, 521; Lincoln v. M.aUans, 102 111. 417, 421 ; 
 Mitchinson v. Goss, 58 111. 3CS, 33^ ; Russ v. Steamboat, 14 Iowa, Z(i\ 
 S74; McKcen v Frost, 46 JIo. 2::9, 2:^, 2:3; Dwelly, 46 Me. 377, 380; 
 Turpin V. State, 55 :Md. 402, 477 ; Peaclee v. ZTcLoon, 16 Gray, 483, 48J ; 
 Kelly V. Drew, 12 Allen, 107, 101 ; Anon. 58 Mi",s. 15, IS ; Byrd v. Stato, 
 .57 Miss. 2^3; 34 Am. R'^p. 4-:o ; Dunlap v. Il'arn, 37 Miss. 471, 47-1; 
 Young V. Gaman,46N. II. 484,436; Corson, U N. II. 6'i7,!^'i; Longen- 
 dy;:e,44Barb. 305, 3GS ; S hultzv. State, 32 Ohio St. 276, 2o0 ; Gi'json v. 
 Commonw. 87 Pa. St. 2ry.\ 256 ; St;ite v. Workmr.n, 15 S. C. 540, .5^0 ; 
 .StaiTnrd, 41 Tex. 111,113; Gee v. Scott, 48 Tex. 510,514; 26 Am. Rop. 
 331; Crane,R3Vt. 15, 2J; Mr.nchost-r, 21 Vt.6;'), 6:3. But see Merriam 
 V. Hartford, 20 Conn. 2:^, 303 ; Berlin, 52 JIo. 151, 153. 
 
 40 Bee Turpin v. State, 55 Md- 432, 477 ; Pillow v. Eushnell, 5 Barb. 
 151), 157 ; gupra, n. 3X 
 
 41 Turpin V. Stato, 53 Md. 432, 477, 473; Wilke v. People, 53 N. Y. 
 525; Steen v. State, 20 Ohio St. Zti. 
 
 42 See Klmk v. Xoble, 37 Ark. 233, 302 ; Hawver, 78 lU. 412 ; Clouse 
 V. Elliott, 71 Ind. 302 ; 3Iousl-r v. llardintr, 33 Ind. 176; 5 Am. Rep. 
 1J5; IX)ckwood v. Joab, 27 I^'.d. 423, 424 ; Allxiugh v. James, 29 Ind. 3 3, 
 309 ; M:ir?h v. Potter, 30 B.".rb. 503, Z-:i ; Pillow v. Bushnoll, 5 B^rb. i:3, 
 167 ; Duval V. Davey, 32 Ohio St. C34 ; Kaime v. Ormo, 43 V.'is. 371. 
 
 43 See Minier, 4 Lans. 421, 425. 
 
 44 See Bobinison, 44 Ala. 227; Steinburg v. Meaney, 53 Cal. 425; 
 Porter v. Allen, 54 Ga. 623 ; Haves v. Pamaloe, 79 111. 5J3 ; R -eves v. 
 Ilerr, 59 111.81; Stanton, 36 Ind. 445; Bunker v. Bonnctt, 1C3 Mass. 
 .'>16; Haerle v. Kroihn, 65 Mo. 202; Parsons v. People, 21 Mich. 50.T; 
 People V. R^agle, 60 Barb. 527 ; Waike v. People, 53 N. Y. 525 ; State v. 
 Brown, 67 N. C. 470; Steen v. State, 20 Ohio St. 333; Musser v. Gard- 
 ner, 66 Pa. St. 242; Craig v. Brendol, 69 Pa. St. 1.'3; Ballentine v. 
 White, 77 Pa. St. 20; Overton v. Stat-^, 43 T'X. 615; Carpenter v. 
 Moore, 43 Vt. 392 ; Y.'hlte v. Perry, 14 Yv'. \a, 03 ; Menk v. Steinfort, 
 39 Wis, 270,
 
 § 67 CONJUGAL. KIGSHTS AND OBLIOATIONS. 78 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CONJUGAIi RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 
 
 Art I. The Several, Conjugal Rights and Obli- 
 gations, ^^ 57-71. 
 II. Actions Arising from Conjugal Rights 
 and Obligations, §§ 72-81. 
 
 Art. I. — The Several Conjugal Righi-s an i> Obli- 
 gations. 
 
 I 57. ConJH^l rights and obligations defined. 
 
 I 58. Bisht of lovo, honor, etc. 
 
 J 59. Right of matrimonial cohabitation and Intorconrse. 
 
 5 60. Right to fix family homo, and regulate household. 
 
 { CL Right to use family name. 
 
 5 02. Right of personal custody and restraint 
 
 { 01 Right of personal chastisement. 
 
 { 04. Right of support. 
 
 { 65. Right to personal scrs-lcos. 
 
 } 06. Liability in tort. 
 
 I 07. Liability in contract. 
 
 { G3. Liability in crime. 
 
 { 03. Other personal rights and liabilff fes. 
 
 { 70. Property rights and liabilities. 
 
 { 71. Rights and obligations as to children. 
 
 I 57. Conjugal rights and obligations defined. — Conju- 
 gal rights and obligations are those wliich attacli to one 
 as husband or as unfe.^ They include not only tho 
 rights and obligations of husband and A\ife towards 
 each other — such as the right of cohabitation ^ and tho 
 obligation to support ;^ but also their rights and obliga- 
 tions toward third parties — such as the husband's ric:ht 
 to recover for injuries to his Avife* and his oblicjation to 
 make good damage done l3y her.^ A discussion of con- 
 jugal riglits and obligations therefore includes (1) hus- 
 band and wife's mutual rights and obligations of
 
 79 CONJUGAL, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. ? ^^ 
 
 affection, cohabitation, and support ; the husband's 
 right to fix tlie phice of residence, and liis riglit to 
 restrain and cliastise his wife ; the wi'o's right to use 
 licr liusband's name ; their other riglits over eacli 
 other's persons and their respective rights in each 
 other's property ; tlie rights and obligations of the one 
 arising out of tlie torts, crimes, or contracts of tlie 
 other .s (2) Actions which may arise between the hus- 
 band and wife or with third parties out of conjugal 
 rights and obligations.'' 
 
 1 This definition seems broader perliaps tUun usage sanctions, 
 but it is adopted for conveuience. 
 
 2 Post, ? 59. 
 
 3 Post, U <^> 65. 
 ■J Post, ? 77. 
 
 5 PcU,iG6. 
 
 6 Post, l\ 58-7L 
 
 7 i'oif, ?? 72-8U 
 
 I 58. Conjugal right of love, honor, etc. — A marriage 
 is valid, though entered into by parties who care noth- 
 ing for each other,^ and after their marriage the law 
 does not deal with the mutual feelings of husband and 
 wife, except so far as these manifest themselves in con- 
 duct, and then only if the conduct talccs the form of 
 cruelty, desertion,* or some other cause for divorce.* 
 Therefore when a court says a wife is "bound to love, 
 honor, and obey her husband," ^ it is speaking senti- 
 mentally.*' In one case, however, loving treatment 
 seems to be a legal right : a spouse who has been for- 
 given a marriage offense must treat his wife or her hus- 
 band with "conjugal kindness," or the offense will be 
 revived.'' And alienation of affection is one of tho 
 grounds of damage in a suit for criminal conversation.^ 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. ? -16. 
 
 2 Stewart 51. &T>.U '-Gl-^rs. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. ?? 2-;:)-:00. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. U 173, 201.
 
 § 59 CON JUG AL RIGHTS AXB OBLIGATIONS. 80 
 
 5 Martin v. Robson, 65 III. 120, 133. See Cal. Civ. Code, J l.>5. 
 
 6 See 1 Bish. JI. W. | 4:>X 
 
 7 Durant, 1 Hagg. Ecc. 733; 3 Kng. Ecc. 310, 320, 33.5: Stewart 
 M. & D. I 30J. 
 
 8 Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 111. 9, 17 ; jiost, ? 70. 
 
 g 59. Conjugal ri^lit to cohabitation and intorcourse, — 
 The legal condi^ions under which man and ■\voinan 
 may lawfully cohabit and have legi'amate children 
 constitute marriage,^ The law not only presumes that 
 husband and wife have a common homo,^ but, often, 
 that a man and woman who have a common home are 
 husband and wife.* If husband and Avife do live apart 
 their status or legal condition Ls abnonnal.* 
 
 1. Cohabitation is in fact a conjugal riglit ;» the hus- 
 band has a right to the wife's,^ and the wife to the hus- 
 band's, company;' a husband's agreement to pay his 
 wife for living with him is Avitliout consideration ;8 and 
 each has a right to enter the family residence,' which- 
 ever OAvns it.'" It 13 not a right, however, which in the 
 United States can be specifically cn'orced ; " but if it is 
 intentionally infringed for a spocillod time it is gener- 
 ally, by statute as desertion, a cause for divorce,'^ and 
 so if it is broken up by imprisonment, this is in .some 
 States a cause for divorce ; " so if the wife wrongfully 
 leaves her hvisband .she forfeits her right to support, i* 
 a3 by deserting her he forfeits his right to her ser- 
 vices ; '5 so if the husband renounces cohabitation 
 altogether by leaving the State for good, the wife 
 bocomes to some extent afemme .sc'r,'" I* a third party 
 interferes with this right by separating one spoiir.o from 
 the other, the wronged spouse may sue such party for 
 damages.'^ This right may bo waived by consent, '^ as 
 r.\ a deed of separation ;i9 it i.^ forfeited by conduct 
 entitling the other party to a divorce,^'' and perhaps, by 
 other outrageous and indecent conduct ; "' and it is sus- 
 pended during divorce proceedings.22
 
 81 CO>'JUGAL KIGKTS AND OBLIGATIO>-S. g 59 
 
 2. Matrimonial cohabitation involves sexual inter- 
 course, since the production of children i.^ preruunably 
 contemplated by those who marry ; '^ and from such 
 cohabitation sexual intercourse is implied.^* So sexual 
 int^i course is a conju.::ral right.^ If owing to &omo 
 p!iysical or psycliic defect in one of the parties to a 
 marriage the enjoyment of this right is permanenth' 
 ir.ipossible, the marriage may be avoided.^^ But the 
 mere denial of this riglit does not work a forfeiture of 
 any other conjugal right, ^' and is not cruelty-^ or deser- 
 tion,'-'^ tliougli it maybe an indignity ,^° and accompany- 
 ing an offer to resume cohabitation, may render such 
 an olfcr of no effect ; ^'- nor does it justify seiJaration.^^ 
 The excessive indulgence in this right bj^ one party to 
 the injury of the other's healtli,^^ or the insisting upon 
 it wlien the otlier is delicate, weak, or ill,^* or by one 
 who has a venereal disease,^^ is crueltj^, and justifies 
 soparation,^'^ or a suit for divorce.^' This right is waived 
 or foi'feited Avilh the right of a cohabitation.^^ Xot only 
 have husband and wife thus, the I'iglit of mutual inter- 
 course, but eacli has the right that tlie other shall 
 indulge in such intercourse Avith no one else, and in 
 case of such indulgence tlie wronged party may obtain 
 a divorce for adultery,^^ or sue the third party for 
 criminal conversation,^" or if he catches such third 
 party in the act kill him and be guilty onty of man- 
 slaughter." 
 
 1 Stewart M. & J). H 1, 17. 
 
 2 Firohrafp, Law R. 4 P. &. D. fi3, (57 ; Hanberry, 21 Ala. ri"* 724; 
 Davis, ;iO III. ISO; Sanderson v. Kalston, 'JdT.a. An. .312, 315, :<'-'0; (Vreeiie, 
 n I»k-k. 41(1, -ll.i ; Ilackettstown r. Mitclidl, 2s N. J. I.. .51(1, SIS ; Wil- 
 borus ('. Saunders, 5 Cold. 60, 70 ; .Stewart il. & D. J? 221, 25:> ; poxt, i 60. 
 
 3 Commonw. v. Hurler, 14 Gray, 411. 412 ; Badger, SS X. T. 54(i. As 
 to proof of marriage by cohabitation : See Stewart M. & D. UVCS., 
 135, 136. 
 
 4 English, 27 N. J. Eq. .579, 581 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 173. 
 
 5 Anon. Deane & S. 205, 2ns, .SOO ; Price, 2 Fost. & F. 263, 264 ; 
 Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 66J, 66.* ; Westlake, ".4 Olilo «t. 621, 6-S ; 32
 
 I 69 COXJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 82 
 
 Am. Rep. 397 ; ICimines v. Smith, 33 Tex. 4J, 52 ; Stewart M. & D. 
 «175. 
 
 6 Ximines v. Smith, 39 Tex. 49, 52 ; post, 5 78. 
 
 7 Clark v. Harlan, 1 Cin. Rep. •IIS, 422 ; post, \ 78. 
 
 8 Robert v. Frisby, .38 Tex. 219, 220. 
 
 9 See Rex »-. Gould, 2 East P. C. &M ; Cal. Civ. Code, \ 1.57 ; Com- 
 monw. V. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 450, 452 ; Snyder v. People, 26 M.ich. 106, 
 108, 110 ; 12 Am. Rep. 30. 
 
 10 See Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414, 416. 
 n Baugh, Si Mich. 53, 62 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 175. 
 
 12 See " Desertion " discussed in Stewart 51. ck D. \\ 178, 249,269. 
 
 13 Handy, 124 Mass. .3!M, 3!t.5. See Revised Laws of Ala,. .\rk., Cal., 
 Colo., C^otin., Del., Ga., 111., Ind., Iowa, Kan., Kv., La., Mass., Mich., 
 Minn., Miss., Mo., Neb., Nev., N. H., Ohio, Oreg., Pa.. Tenn., Tex., 
 Va., V't., Wash., W. Va., \Vi.s., cited Stewart M. & D. J 288. 
 
 14 Schindel, 12 Md. 2!M, 314 ; post, \ 64. 
 
 15 Reese v. Waters, it Watts, 90, 94 ; post, i 65. 
 
 16 Gregory v. Pierce, 4 Met. 478, 479, cases collected ; Stewart M. & 
 D. J 177. 
 
 17 Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 663, 668 ; Westlake, .34 Ohio St. 621, 628 ; 
 32 Xm. Rep. 397 ; post, I 78. 
 
 18 Gray, 15 A la. 779, 784. 78.5 ; Benkert, 32 Cal. 467, 470 ; Cox, Xi Mich. 
 461, 463 ; Stewail M. & D. i 256. 
 
 19 Walker, 9 Wall. 743, 750, cases cited ; Stewart M. & D. J? 182-191. 
 
 20 Grove, 37 Pa. St. 443, 447 ; Stewart M. & D. l\ 175, 257. 
 
 21 See Lvster, HI Mass. 327 ; CornLsh, 23 X. J.,Kq. 208, 209 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. J 287. 
 
 22 Burns, 60 Ind. 2.59, 260 ; Harper, 29 Mo. .''01, 3a3 ; Stewart M. & D. 
 ?? :»8, 311,3S4, 410. Of course divorce destroys it: Stewart M. <fe D. 
 14:55. 
 
 23 Discussed In Stewart M. & D. ?? 1, 17, 63, 103, 104, 173. 
 
 24 Burns, 60 Ind. 259, 260 ; Harper, 29 Mo. 301, 303 ; fetewart M. & D. 
 \\ 308, 3U, 3S4, 410. 
 
 25 See Orme, 2 Add. Kc. R. 382; 2 Eng. Ecc. .^>^, 356; Forster, 1 
 Hagg. Const. 144, l.>4 ; 4 Ens:. Ecc. :J63, MW ; D'.Vguilar, 1 Hagg. Ecc. 
 776; Shaw, 17 Conn. l.Hii, I;/(i ; Steele, 1 Mi.Vr. ii0.'>. iKKi ; (iibhs, 18 Kan. 
 419, 422, 42); Fishli, 2 Litt. :us, :ui ; S()iith\vi<-ks, !i7 Ma.ss. :<27, 328, 329 ; 
 Cowles, 112 Ma,ss. 29s; Canticld, :u Miili. .■)7!i ; M-lvin, 5s N. H. .V.9. 
 571 ; Cook, ;« N. J. Eq. 47.5, 479; English, 27 N. J. Eq. 71, 74, 579; Reid, 
 21 N. .1. Eq. 331, ;$32, XX-i ; Coble, 2 .lones Eq. 392, .3!M ; Gordon, 48 Pa. St. 
 226, 228 ; Eshback, 23 Pa. St. 343, :?45 ; Magill, 3 Pittsb. Rep. 25. 
 
 26 " Impotence " discussed, Stewart M. & D. J§ 61, 67. 
 
 27 Potier r. Barclay, 15 Ala. 437, 431; Cowles, 112 Mass. 298; Gor- 
 don, 48 Pa. St. 226, 228. Contra, Cal. Civ. Code, { !)6. 
 
 28 Cowles, 112 Mass. 298 ; Eshbach, 22 Pa. St, 843, 845 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. J 269. Contra, Cal. Civ. Code. J 96. 
 
 29 Southwlck, 97 Mass. 327, 329 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 2.52. 
 
 30 Coble, 2 Jones Eq. 392, 395 ; Stewart M. & D. ^ 282. 
 
 31 Fishli, 2 Litt. 338, :i41. 
 
 32 Raid, 21 K. J. Eq. 331, 333 ; Eshbach, 23 Pa. St. 343, *4.5.
 
 83 CONJUGAL HIGHTS A_ND OBLIGATIONS. g 60 
 
 a-; Melvln, 58 N. H. 569, 571. 
 
 34 Shaw, 17 Conn. ISO, i;)G ; English, 29 N. J. Eq. 71, 74, 79. 
 
 :« N. 3 .Swab. & T. 2:M, 2:n ; CanfleUl, 14 Mich. 51!»; Holthoeffer, 47 
 Mich. 2.5), 2bO; Cook, 32 N. J. Eq. 47.5, 477; Long, 2 Hawks, 189, 192; 
 Stewart M. & D. J 2.59. 
 
 30 HeslcT, Wrisrht, 210, 211 : Stewart 11. & D. ? 259. 
 
 37 " Cruelty " as a causo for divorce discussed : Stewai M. <& D. 
 ii 261, 27:!. 
 
 38 Supra, notes 18-22. 
 
 aa " Adultery " as a causp for dlvotcfi dUCUSsed : Stewart M. <fc ti. 
 ii 241-248. 
 
 40 Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 111. 9, 10. 
 
 41 Rex J'. K"Ilv, Car. <t K. 814; State v. Holme, M Mo. 15.3, 166; 
 Sluifflii ('. Pe(,ple, 62 N. V. 220. 2:i5 ; 20 Am. Rep 483; .State v, Har- 
 miin, 78 N. C. 515, 518 ; .Stat.' v. Neville, 6 Jones, 4.33; Desty Crim. L. 
 { 128, n. i ; 2 Bish. Crlm. L. J 038. 
 
 § 60, Conjugal right to fix the family home and regu- 
 late the household. — The wife by marriage i.s merged in 
 the husband ; ' the husband i.s the " head of tlio wife " ; '^ 
 she is sub jirotestate viri ;^ ho may to some degree 
 restrain^ or punish' her, so much is she under his con- 
 trol, that by the common law any wrong done by her 
 in his presence is considered as his sole deed,^ and 
 under early enabling acts she was required to acknowl- 
 edge her conveyances out of his presence.^ So the bus- 
 band's rights over the children are paramount.* He 
 is thus tlie liead of the family.' He decides where the 
 family residence shall be,'** and may change it as often 
 as his pleasure, health, or business dictates ; " and his 
 wife must live where he directs,^'' as long as he acts in 
 good faith, *3 in spite of an antenuptial agreement to the 
 contrary ;" but she luxi a right to live with him,^^ and 
 he cannot banish her to a lonely place for punish- 
 ment ; ^^ nor can he thus endanger her healtli ; i' nor 
 perliaps can he remove her from her native land,'^ or 
 make her live with his relations. '^ As a result a hus- 
 band's domicile is usually the place where he has 
 established his family,^ althougli during his absence 
 his wife has moved ; " and the wife's domicile, except
 
 I 60 CONJUGAL KIGIITS AND OBLIGATIONS. 84 
 
 in certain cases where she has a sejiarate domicile for 
 divorce, '■'^ is that of lier husband. "^ So the husband 
 may decide who shall visit the family residence,'^ and 
 may prevent its being used for purposes of prostitu- 
 tion ^^ or illegal liquor selling,^'* al'. hough it belongs to 
 the wife ; ^^ for s*:atutes relating to married women do 
 not remove the husband from his place as head of the 
 family.'^* When the husband Li insane the wife L« head 
 of the family ^ so she is when he i-s absent.*" 
 
 1 Ante, § 38. 
 
 2 Todd, 15 Ala. 743, 'U ; Boozer v. Addison, 2 Rich. Kq. 27."?, 275. 
 
 3 Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. £71, 372 ; Eurdono v. Ampcrse, 14 Jlich. 
 90,95. 
 
 4 Price, 2 Fost. * F. 263, 2ai ; pist, J 02. 
 
 5 Rich.irds, 1 Grant, 330, 332 ; post, § G3. 
 
 6 Cassin v. Delany, 38 N. Y. 173, 17n ; pout, I 66. 
 
 7 White r. Wager, 25 N. Y. 32S, 330. And oven under later acts his 
 undue inliuenco mav be easily proved: Whiterldge v. Barry, 42 Md. 
 140, 153 ; Witbeck, 25 Mich. 43'J. 
 
 8 Stewart M. & D. ? 400 ; post. 
 
 Elijah I'. Taylor, ^7 111. 247, 240 ; Commonw. v. Wood, f" Mass. 
 225, 221 » ; Glovor?'. Alcott, 11 Mich. 471, 485; Commonw. v. Barrv, 2 
 Green. Or. Hop. 285, 2S7. See Cal. Civ. Code, I 150 ; Ga. Code. 1873, 
 k 1753. 
 
 10 Flrebrace, Law R. 4 Pro. & B. P3, 07 ; Hanbery, 23 Ala. 7lo, 724 ; 
 Hardenbergh, 14 Cal. ftW, fi.5'!. f>.">7 ; Kennedy, 87 111. 2.50, 252 ; Cutler, 2 
 Brewst. 511, 513. Cases collected, Stewart M. &r>.U 221, 253. 
 
 11 Cutler, 2 Brewst. 511,513, 
 
 12 Cochrane, 8 Dowl. P. C. 0.30, 0.30 ; Price, 2 Fost. & F. 263. 26-1 ; Bab 
 bitt, 65 111. 277, 27J ; surtra, n. 10. 
 
 13 Hardenbergh, 14 Cal. 6.>», P.50 ; Bovce, 23 N. J. Eq. .337, 34^ ; Bishop, 
 30 Pa. St. 412, 415 ; Cutler, 2 Brewst. 511, 5:3; Powell, 2J Vt. 14j, 150; 
 Gleason, 4 Wis. 64, (iij. 
 
 11 Il.ur. 10 Rich. Eq. 163, 17S. 
 
 15 Clark V. Harlan, 1 Cin. Ilcp. 4:s, 422 ; nnte, § 51. 
 
 18 Eoyce, 23 N. J. Eq. 337, .348. 
 
 17 Cutler, 2 Brewst. 511, 513 ; Powell, 2.T Vt. 14S, 1,:3 ; Gleason, 4 Wis. 
 64, 66. For this would be cruelty : Stewart M. & D. f J 251-273. 
 
 18 Bishop, 30 Pa. St. 412, 4!5. 
 
 19 Powell, 29 Vt. 148, 150. 
 
 20 Piatt V. New, Law R. 3 App. 3.30, 313. See Stewart JL «fe I). J 222 ; 
 ante, I 29. 
 
 21 Porterfleld i-. Augu ^ta, 67 Me. 5.56, 557. 
 
 22 Stewart M. <fe. D. ? 221. 
 
 23 Barber, 21 How. 582, 534 ; Stewart M. £z D. ? 221 ; ante, \ 23.
 
 85 CONJUGAIi RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. §? 61-62 
 
 24 Fulton, 36 Miss. 517, 528. 
 
 25 C'ommo;nv. v. Wood, 07 IMass. 225, 229. 
 
 26 Commonw. v. Barrj', 2 Groon Cr. Rep. 2S5, 2S7 ; 115 Mass. 14C. 
 
 27 Cornmonw. v. Pratt, 126 Mass. 462, 463 ; Commonw. v. Wood, P7 
 Mass. 225. 220 ; Commonw. v. Barry, 2 Green Cr. Eep. 285, 287 ; 115 
 Mass. 146. 
 
 28 Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 471, 485 ; supra, n. 27. 
 
 29 Robinson v. Frost, 54 Vt. 103, 111 ; 41 Am. Eep. 835. 
 
 .30 Sawyer r. Cutting, 23 Vt. 486, 491 ; Felker v. Emerson, 16 Vt. 653, 
 655 ; post, \ 00. 
 
 g 61. Conjugal right to use family name. — The husband 
 being heud of the family, ^ tlie wife and cliildren gener- 
 ally adopt his family name — by custom the wife is 
 called by her husband's name.^ But whether she shall 
 take his name or keoii hers, or lie take liers, is after all 
 a mere question of choice as any one may adopt any 
 name he or she pleases.^ 
 
 1 Ante, I 60. 
 
 2 Converse.O Rich. Eq. 535, .570. See Fendall v. Goldsmith, Law R. 
 2 P. D. 263, 264 ; Snook, 2 Hilt. 566. 
 
 3 SeePavr. Brownriss, LawR. lOCh. Biv. 2 i4 ; 48 Law J. Ch. Div. 
 173 ; i)u Boulay, Law Ji. J 1'. ( '. 4:i() ; 38 1,. J. I'. C. Mo; Linton, 10 Fed. 
 Rep. 805 ; Clark, 10 Kan. .VJ2 ; Snook, 2 Hilt, ."ifii: ; .Johnston v. Goode- 
 now, 44 Vt. 062 ; discussed in Stewart M. & I), i 4:w. 
 
 I 62. Conjugal right of personal custody and restraint. 
 — 1. Tlie husband is the head of the family,' where he 
 goes liis wife is bound to follow, '^ and he has a iLirther 
 right of gentle restraint over her movements.^ He 
 may, by reasonable measures, en'orce cohabitation and 
 a common residence,' unless, of course, he has lost the 
 right of cohabitation ; ^ he may lock her uji to prevent 
 her from eloi^ing^ or going into lewd company and 
 squandering her mone^',' and she will not bo released 
 on a writ of habeas corpus ; ^ nor is it in itself cruelty if 
 he prevents her visiting her family,* or relations,'" or 
 going to church.^i But he has no right to confine her 
 unreasonably and arbitrarily, '^ and if he does she will 
 be released on a writ of habeas corpus ; '^ so if by moral 
 or physical restraint he injuries her health it is, 
 n. & w. — 8.
 
 § 63 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 86 
 
 cruelty. 1^ lu any case he cannot by writ of habeas cor- 
 pus get possession of her unless she is restrained against 
 her wiil.'j If the wife is an infant, the husband or her 
 parents in the discretion of the court is entitled to her 
 custody.^^ 
 
 2. If the husband is insane his wife is head of the 
 family and has a right, superior to that of his father, to 
 be his guardian.^' If, however, she should lock him up 
 to prevent his eloping or keeping lewd company and 
 squandering his property, he would be released on 
 habeas corpus.^^ 
 
 1 Glover V. Alcott, 11 Mich. 471, 485 ; mite, ? 60. 
 
 2 Babbitt, 69 111. 277, 27:) ; ante, H 2.), 60. 
 
 3 2 Blackst. Com. 445 ; 2 Kent Com. 181 ; Commonw. v. Barry, 2 
 Greeu Cr. Kep. 2S5, 2*t, u ; pust, i 63. 
 
 4 Cochrane, 8 Dowl. P. C. 630, 636 ; Price, 2 Post. A F. 213, 204. 
 
 5 Cochrane, 8 Dowl. P. C. 630, 634 ; ante, i '>X 
 
 6 Cochrane, 8 Dowl. P. C. 630, 633 ; State v. Cratou, 6 Ired. 161i 
 
 7 Uster, 1 Strange, 477 ; 8 Mod. 22, 23. 
 
 8 Cochrane, 8 Dowl. P. C. 630. 
 
 9 Waring, 2 Phillim. 132 ; 1 Eng. 210, 211 
 
 10 And see Fulton, 30 Miss. 517, 528. 
 
 11 Lawrence, 3 Paige, 267, 272. 
 
 12 Kelly, Law K. 2 P. & D. 31, 34, 37. 
 
 13 Lister, 8 Mod. 22, 23. 
 
 14 Kelly, Law R. 2 P. & D. 31, 32. See Stewart M. & D. ?? 261-273. 
 
 15 SandUands, 12 Eng. I,. Eq. 46;{, 405 ; 17 Jur. 317 ; 21 Law J. Q. B. 
 312 ; Rex v. Leggatt, IS Q. B. 781 ; Re.x c. Wist^mun, 2 Smith, 617. 
 
 16 Gibbs V. Brown , 63 Ga. 803, 804. 
 
 17 Robinson v. Frost, 54 Vt. 105, 110 ; 41 Am. Rep. 8:i5. 
 
 18 The question seems never to have arisen. 
 
 g 63. Conjugal rijht of persoaal chastisement. — Vio- 
 lence of one spouse against the other may be assault 
 and battery, 1 and crueUy ; '^ the party guilty of such 
 violence may bo punished by the State,^ and the other 
 party may leave him or her and may ap^jly for a di- 
 vorce.* Though the old writers say that a husband 
 may chastise his wife with a rod no thicker than his 
 thumb,^ in modern times the rule of love has super-
 
 87 CONJUGAL. RIGHTS AMD OBLIUATIONS. § 64 
 
 seded the rule of force,* and even among the lower 
 classes' a husband has no right to beat hi -i wife at all,^ 
 even it she is drunk^ or insolent. i" IT she dies from his 
 beating he i.5 guilty of manslaughter at least.^i A hus- 
 band, therefore, may use violence against liLs wi'e only 
 in self-defense,''' or in restraining lier from the com- 
 mission of some tort i* or crime. '' Wife whipping is in 
 many Siates a si^ecial misdemeanor.^^ 
 
 1 Owen V. State, 7 Tex. App. 32 », X~ ; ante, U J', 49. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. U 2S1-273. 
 .•» AnteAl-i~,'iO. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ?? ITS, 2.-,7, 261-273. 
 
 5 See Blackst. Com. 444, 44.i ; Trowbriflgo r. Carlln, 12 La. An. 882 ; 
 A'lanis, ion Mass. 3(>r), 370; 1 Am. Rep. lU ; Bradlev v. State, 1 Miss. 
 lo(i, 157, l.").S ; State v. Oliver, 70 N. C. 60, 61 ; Kicliards, 1 Grant Cas. 3SJ, 
 392. 
 
 6 Fulgham v. State, 46 Ala. 143, 143 ; Schoul. H. <& W. ? 68. 
 
 7 Fulgham v. State, 4R Ala. 143, 147. 
 
 8 Pearman, 1 Rwab. A T. 601, 602; Prieharrl, 3 Swab. & T. 523; 
 Kelly, Law K. 2 Pro. & ]). 31, 5J ; Carpenter, Milw. 1.5;) ; Siunders, 1 
 Rob. Ecc. .54 » ; Fulgham v. State, 46 Ala. 143, 14.5 ; State v. Bucklev, 2 
 Har. (Del.) .'«.>; (iholston, 31 Ga. 625, 6:'..5 ; Knight, 31 Iowa, 451, 4.5.); 
 Trowljri Igo v. Cailin, 12 La. An. 882 ; Commonw. r. McAfee, 108 Mass. 
 4').S, IHl ; U Am. Rep. 383; Bar'lley v. State, 1 Miss. 1.56, 1.57; Poor, 8 
 N. II. 3117, 313; 21 Am. Dec. 664; Perry, 2 Paige, .501, .503; State v. 
 Oliver, 70 N. C. 60, 61 ; Taylor, 76 N. C. 43:<, 435 ; State v. Rhodes, I 
 Pliill. (X. C.')453 ; J5as"om, "Wright, 6L' ; Jani'S r. Cnmmonw. 12 Serg. 
 & R. 220, 226 ; K Imonts, ,57 Pa. St. 2:!2 ; Gormin v. .state, 42 T'^x. 221, 
 223 ; Owen r. Stale. 7 Tex. App. 32;t, 3:!7 ; Shackctt, 4 i Xt. Mo, l'i7 ; Pil- 
 lar, 22 Wis. 65S; People v. Winters, 2 Park. Cr. C. 10; Richards, 1' 
 Grant Cus. ;189, 392 ; Stewart M. & D. U 266, 269. 270. 
 
 9 Pearman, 1 Swab. & T. 601, 602 ; Commonw. v McAfee, 108 Mass. 
 453,401; U Am. Rep. 383. 
 
 10 Commonw. '■. McAfee, 108 Mass. 458, 431 ; 11 Am. Rep. 3,83. 
 
 11 Commonw. v. Mc.\fee, 108 M.ass. 453, 411 ; 11 Am. Rep. 3.S3. 
 
 12 Gorman v. State, 42 Tex. 221, 223 ; Stewart M. & D. § 270. 
 
 13 People V. Winters, 2 Park. Cr. C. 10. 
 
 14 Richards, 1 Grant Cas. 3S1, 312. See Commonw. v. Wood, 1)7 
 Mass. 225, 22J ; Commonw. v. Barry, 2 Green Cr. Rep. 285, 287 n. 
 
 15 Ga. Code 1873, § 4.573 ; Md. Acts 1S02, ch. 120, p. 132. 
 
 ?; 64. Conjujal rijht of support. — .V liusband is bound 
 to support liis Avife, and a wife i:kiy b3 bound to sup- 
 port lier husband. Both liusband and wife may bo 
 bound to support the family.
 
 § 64 CONJUGAL KIGxITJ A^-^ OI^LIGATIONS, 88 
 
 1. The husband^s liabiluj. By the common law a 
 husband, though an mfant,i is bound to support his 
 wife.- He canuoi cliarge her or her estate wiili the 
 expenses of lier support.^ The wi^'e may directly en- 
 force this obligation of his bj' a suit for maintenance,* 
 or for alimony with divorce,^ or Jndlrectlj^ enforce it by 
 pledging his credit to otheri Avho provide her with 
 necessaries,* The husband's neglect of this duty, if it 
 results in tlio wue's death, is manslaughter at least ;^ 
 it may be punishable criminally by statute ;8 and by 
 statute it may bo a cause ior divorce'*; but it is not in 
 itself a cause for divorce,^" as desertion '^ or cruelty. '^ 
 This obligation cannot, however, be enforced if the wife 
 has sufficient means of her own," or has waived" or 
 forfeited 1^ her riglits. Slie may vv'aive lier rights for 
 valuable consideration,'* as in a deed of separation.'^ 
 She forfeits them by leaving her husband a^ralnst hi3 
 ■\nll when he is not in fault,'^ or by his leaving her for 
 her fault ; '^ but not by becoming insane.^ The hus- 
 band's obligation to support his wife is not removed by 
 manned women's separate property acts,'^' excejjt so far 
 as they give her means of her owai.*^-' This right ceases 
 with divorce,-^ but may continue some tmie after the 
 husband's death. -< 
 
 2. The ivijVs Uabilitj, By the common law all a 
 wife's personalty,^ and all her earnings and laljo'-,'^ 
 belong to her husband ; and oven under separate earn- 
 ings acts she is still Iiis helpmeet, and cannot cliargo 
 him for domestic services ; -'' in this way she i ; bound 
 to support him. In many States statutes provide 
 various means of compelling a wife to support her 
 needy husband;^ these statutes seem to have raised 
 no questions.'-'^ 
 
 3. Their joint liability. Husband and "wafe are jointly 
 liable for the supx^ort of their family,*" so fax* at least
 
 89 CONJUGAL, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, § 64 
 
 that one cannot recover from the other for exjienses 
 paid.^i So statutes in some States make them jointly 
 liable.*- 
 
 1 Cantlne v. Phillips, 5 Har. (Del.) 428, 429. Compare post, I 67, n. 7. 
 
 2 See Zeigler v. iJavid, 23 Ala. 127, 1S7 ; Washburn. 9 C il. 475, 477 ; 
 Shelton v. PeiifUeton, 18 Conn. 417, 421 ; Cantine v. Phillips, 5 Har. 
 (Del.) 428, 429 ; Ronev v. Wood, 1 Wils. 378 ; Cooper r. Ham, 40 Ind. 
 393, 416 ; Litson v. Brown, 26 Ind. 4^9, 491 ; Graves, 36 Iowa, 310, 312 ; 
 14 Am. Rep. .525 ; Com. v. Fletcher, 6 Bush, 171, 172 ; Garland, .50 Miss. 
 6't4, 716 ; Allen i\ Aldrich, 29 N. H. 6 1, 73 ; Miller, 1 X. J. L. .^86 ; Pom- 
 erov V. AVells, 8 Paige, 406, 411; Gage v. Dauchy, 34 2f. Y. 293, 297; 
 State V. Rausell, 41 Conn. 433, 440. 
 
 3 Grant 1'. Green, 41 Iowa, 8^, 91. See Rogers ?'. Boyd, 33 Ala. 175 : 
 Noil V. Johnson, 11 Ala. 6:5 ; .Stroijg v. Skinner, 4 Barb. 546 ; Metho- 
 dist r*. Jaques, 1 Johr.s. Ch. 4:3 ; Callahan v. Patterson, 4 Tex. 61 ; 
 McCormick, 7 Leigh, 60. 
 
 4 Stewart M. & D. ? 173. 
 
 5 Stewart M. &JXU 353-"33. 
 G Stewart M. & D. 5 133. 
 
 V Reg. V. Plummer, 1 Car. & K. GOO ; Desty Crim. L. ?? 57 a, 87 ft. 
 
 8 See Conn. Acts, 1331, p. 73 ; Stewart M. & D. i 177. 
 
 Stewart M. & I). U 273-2^1. 
 
 10 Stewart M. & D. § 176. 
 
 11 JIandigo, 15 Vt. 7S6, 7S7 ; Stewart M. <fe D. ? 2.52. 
 
 n Peabody, IM JIass. 135, 197 ; Stewart M. A T). \ 260. 
 
 13 Kin.sey, .37 Ala. 333, .336 ; Stewart M. & D. ?? 173, ISO, 372. 
 
 H Fredd v. Evps, 4 liar. (Del.) 3S5, .3S7; H'^Jiev v. Sargent, 54 Cal. 
 396, 338 ; Stewart M. &,\y.\\ 173, ISO, IJO, 372, 3'^2. 
 
 15 Whale, 71 111. 510, .513; Dexon v. Hurrell, 8 Car. & P. 717, 719; 
 Stewart M. & D. \l 179, 180, 371. 
 
 ll Pearson r. Darrinffton, .32 Ala. 227, 24.3. .See mi^e, Coxtracts 
 
 ElCTWKKN llrSB-AXD AXD Wl?K, ?J 40-46. 
 
 17 Stewart M. & D. |J 131-192, 3S2 ; ante, U •i*-46. 
 
 18 Schnuckle v. Bierman, 83 111. 4.54, 4rj7 ; Stewart M. & D. U 175, 
 173, ISO, 371. 
 
 13 Hnrdie v. Grant, 8 Car. & P. 5:2, 517 ; Stewart M. & D. {| 175, 179, 
 130, 371, 4:i6. 
 
 20 Wrav, 33 .-Ma. 137, 130; Wrav v. Cox, 24 Ala. 337, 343 ; Stewart 
 IM. & D. ii 176, 173. See Goodale v. Brockner, 25 Hun, 621. 
 
 21 Suttle II. Chicago, 42 Iowa, 518, .522 ; Ransom, ^ Mich. .563, .574 : 
 ITuyt i: Whit'', 46 N. H. 45, 46 ; Markley v. Wartman, 9 Phila, 236 ; 
 supra, n. 3 ; ante, ?? 12, 14. See Duubar v. Meyer, 43 Miss. 673. 
 
 22 Supra, n. 13. 
 
 23 Stewart 'SI. & D. ? 436. 
 
 24 Stewart M. A D. ? 4.59. 
 
 25 rost, U 163-18.3. 
 
 20 P^jst, >i 05. 
 
 27 Mowhirter v. Halten, 42 Iowa, 288, 292 ; 20 Am. Rep. 618 ; posi. 
 ^6.5.
 
 § 65 C0:sJU3AL, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 90 
 
 2«i TCriKlish Marr. Woman's Act, 1882, c. 75, ?20; Cal. Civ. Code, 
 ? 176 ; Iowa K. C. ISSO, i 22:6 ; Miss. P. S. 1882. p. 817, J 36 ; N. J. Kev- 
 1877, p. -m ; Nev. R. S. 1873, § 174 ; Vt. R. S. 1880, ? 2377. 
 
 23 Small, 42 Iowa, 111, 112, seems to be the only case. 
 ."50 Stewart M. & D. ^ 404 ; post, ? 387. 
 31 Finch, 22 Conn. 411, -!18, 413 ; Fitler, 33 Pa. St. i50, 57. 
 3? Ala. Code, 1876, ?? 2705. 2706 ; Iowa R. C. 1880, § 2214. See Baker v. 
 Flournoy, 58 Ala. 653 ; Jones v. Glass, 48 Iowa, 345. 
 
 ^ 65. Eight to spouse's time, services, wages, earnings, 
 oto. — Wliiie a wifo has no right as wife to her hus- 
 band's services, except such as is incidental to her 
 right to support,' a husband is by the common hiw 
 entitled as husband to his wife's time, wages, earnings, 
 and the products of her labor, skill, and indu.stry.^ 
 lie may contract to furnish her services to others.^ 
 He sues for the price of them,* ai for the loss of them,^ 
 in his own name.*' She cannot release an obligation for 
 them,' except as his agent,^ or by his consent.* Even 
 if her earnings have been invested by her in her own 
 name, the investment jyro tnnto^" is his,ii and liable to 
 his creditors.^2 If he dies her earnings acquired be- 
 fore his death go to his representatives.'^ The husband 
 may forfeit tliis right by desertion, it seems,'* so he may 
 waive it,'^ or it may be taken from him by statute. "^ 
 
 1. Gift by husband to u'ifc of her services. The Avife's 
 earnings, etc., may be secured to her separate use by 
 an antenuptial'' or postnuptial'^ settlement.'* The 
 ability to earn is not property,'" and the husband may 
 therefore Avaivo his right to have hi3 wife labor for his 
 use, even as against creditors;^' but money.s received 
 or due for labor, i, e., earnings, are property, ^^ and 
 though a husband may give his wife her earnings.''^ 
 sucli gift, like that of any other property,"-'* must not 
 defraud creditors.''^ The burden lies upon the Avife to 
 clearly prove the gift.^* 
 
 2. Effect oj modern manned women acts. Married
 
 91 CONJCfeAX K1(>HTS AND OBLIGATIONS. g 65 
 
 women's property acts which do not specifically men- 
 tion her earnings, etc., do not change the husband's 
 common-law rights to the same.^^ So a statute whicli 
 provides that a wife "may" eai-n money on he?' sepa- 
 rate account does not affect any earnings of hers unless 
 they appear to have been acquired by lier on lier sepa- 
 rate account. 28 But in most of tlie States statutes ex- 
 pressly provide that the wife's earnings "sliall be" 
 her separate property,^ and tliat sl^e may trade on her 
 separate account.^" Under such statutes the product 
 of all labor of hers for parties otlier than her husband 
 belongs to her;^! she can contract^' for her se:>a:3S 
 and recover on the contract ;3* she can sue alone for 
 them,'* and muke her husband, if need be, garnirjhee ; '* 
 a debt due by her luisband cannot be set off against 
 her in sucli suit,'* and neither her liusband'" nor his 
 creditors '8 have any right to such eai-niiigs, though, as 
 with her other 8ei:)arate jiroperty,'* she may give them 
 to her husband,*" and sucli a gift is presumed, it seems, 
 if with her consent and witliout promising to repay 
 her*i he uses them,*'- or mixes tliem witli his own 
 money.*' But these statutes do not impliedly autnor- 
 ize her contracts Avith lier husband for services,** and 
 she cannot recover from him for services rendered,*^ 
 though she may, it seems, if the statute or some other 
 statute expressly authorizes contracts between husband 
 and wife ; ** she is still bound without charge to look 
 after his home and children,*' and to perform the 
 domestic conjugal duties of wife ; '^^ she is still his 
 "helpmeet."*" These statutes are prospectively con- 
 strued 5^" indeed, they could not deprive the husband 
 of money for her services, already paid or due.^i 
 
 1 See Stewart M. & D. ?? 179, 180 ; ante, ? fij. 
 
 2 Cecil r. Juxon, 1 Atk. 278, 270 ; Seitz v. Mitchell, W U. S. 580, 584 ; 
 Glenn v. Johnson, in Wall. 476, 478 ; IVxUl, 15 Ala. 743, 744 ; McLemore 
 V, Pinkston, 31 Ala. 267, 270; Hinmaii v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 188, 197;
 
 2 Gj conjugal rights and OCLIGATIOXS. 92 
 
 Hazelhakor v. Goodfellow, 64 III. 237, 2-41 ; Cranor v. M'intors, 7.', I;i(l. 
 301, :Wi ; Glover r. Alcott, 11 Mich. 471, 4S2 ; Henderson v. Warmark, 
 27 Miss. 8:iO, 8:m ; Hoyt v. White, 46 >'. II. 172, 17.'> ; Skillnian, 15 X. J. 
 Eq. 47S, 4S1 ; 13 N. J. Kq. JOn, 40r, ; FiU-r v. R. H. 4 1 X. Y. 47, .W ; II) 
 Am. Rep. 327 ; Kee )'. Vnnscr, 2 I red. P.q. -'vvi, fto-i; 40 Am. Dec. 442 ; 
 Ravbold, 20 Pa. .St. 30S, 311 ; Uollowell r. Hurler, :« Pa. St. :<7.5. .3-*n ; 
 Hoozer v. Addison, 2 Rich. Kq. 273, 275 ; Jones v. Reid, 12 W. Viu 350, 
 :v,r,; 2!) Am. Rop. 455; Connors, 4 Wis. 112, l!7 ; Elliott v. Bentley 17 
 Wis. 591, 5J4. 
 
 3 Harrington v. Gies, 45 Mich. 374, 375. 
 
 4 Cranor V. Winters, 75 Ind. C01,333; SkUlman, 13 X. J. Eq. 403,407. 
 
 5 Brooks V. Schwerin, W N. Y. 343, 343 ; Filer t-. 11. 11. 49 N. Y. 47, 
 LZ; 10 Am. r^n. 327. 
 
 Ilawes Parties to Actions, 58, 63, 64, Co. 
 
 7 Skillman, 13 X. J. Eq. 403, 408 ; 15 X. J. Kq. 47% 4S1. 
 
 8 Kowing V. Manly, 49 X. Y. 192, 197 ; 10 Am. Rep. "K; prut, {? 89, 
 !)J. 
 
 9 Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 183, 197 ; infra, notes, 17-26. 
 
 10 Apple V. Oanong, 47 Miss. IS"), 199. Bnt he has no rlirht against 
 h"r s^par.ite pro::ertv:or s.Tvlces rendered It by hor: Ifolcomb i-. 
 
 I'e ries, or .. ;.;. :m. 
 
 11 Apple V. Ganong, 47 Miss. 189, 190 ; infra, n. 12. 
 
 12 Swartz r. Siir.nders, 4f> 111. IS, 24; Pn'i'>a'i ?•. Uoselle. 15 Iowa, 
 .501,. 503; Henderson r. Warmack. 27 Mis.s. s:ii). Hi'. ; Apple i'. (ianoncr, 
 47 Miss. 189,199; CYamer v. Ilefcrd. 17 X.J. PIq. .ms, 3«l ; Ravbold, 29 
 Pa. St. .308, 311 ; Campbell r. Bowles, 30Gratl. (m2. 
 
 13 Todd, 15 Ala. 7:3. 744 ; Stewart M. & D. ?? 401, 46.'i. But see Boozer 
 1". Addison, 2 Rich. Eq. 273, 27.5, 2S2. 
 
 14 See Mason v. Mitchell, 3 Hurl. * C. FS^, .532: R"cs f. Waters, 
 AVatts, 90, 94 ; .Starrett r. Wynn, 17 Serg. & R. i:X); 17 Am. Dec. tWi^l ; 
 .Stewart M. & D. J 177. 
 
 15 Peterson i-. :MuIford, ST. X. J. I>. 481, 487 ; iufm, notes, 17-20. 
 
 Ifi Mewhirter v. Halten, 42 Iowa, 2^\ 201, 293; 20 Am. Rep. fi:8 ; 
 infra, notes, 27-51. 
 
 17 .\ndrews, 8 Conn. 79, 85; Keith r. ■\Voombell, 3 Pick. 211, 213; 
 Stewart M. <fe D. U ;!2-13. 
 
 18 Sktllman, 15 X. J. Eq. 478, 4S1 ; 13 X. J. Eq. 403, 407 ; Stewart M. 
 & D. a isl, 193. 
 
 19 Post, U !»-1;M, 197-216. 
 
 20 See Peterson v. Mnlford, 30 X. J. L. 481,4<!7: TTovt v. -White, 48 
 X. H. 45. 47 ; .Vhbev v. Devo, 44 X. Y. .3-13, 347 ; itush v." Vought, .V. Pa. 
 St. 437, 445 ; Hodges i'. Cobb, 8 Rich. 50, 56. 
 
 21 Hoyt V. White, 46 X. H. 45, 47 ; Peterson r. MnWord, 36 X. J. 1. 
 432, 487 ; Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472, 479. 
 
 22 See Ilazelbaker )•. Goodfellow, &4 111. 238, 241. 
 
 23 McLemore v. Pinkston, 31 ,\la. 207, 209 ; Glaze r. Blake, 156 Ala. 
 .■?79 ; Ha<ien v. Ivev, 51 Ala. 1181, 3S.5 ; Andrews, 8Conn. 79,8.5 ; Hinman 
 r. Parkis, 33 Conn. Is-i, l:i7 ; Oglesby v. Hal!, 30 iin. .3^6, 3 HI ; Hazel- 
 baker V. tTOOdfellow, i;4 III. 23'<, 241 ; Cranor »•. Winters, 75 Ind. 301, 
 :{03 ; Rnsham r. Cliamberlain. 7 Mon. B. 443, 44.5, 440 ; Keith v. Woom- 
 hell, 8 Pick. 211, 213 ; Hovt i\ White, 46 X. H. 45. 47 ; Qnidort »•. Per- 
 goau.x, IS X. J. Eq. 478, 431 ; 13 X. J. Eq. 403, 407 ; Peterson i-. Mulford
 
 93 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AXD OBLIGATIONS. I 65 
 
 36 N. J. L. 481, 4S7; Koe >•. Vixsser, 2 Ired. Eq. 553, 5.55; Elliott v. 
 Bentley, 17 Wis. o'Jl, 5'.)6 ; Connors, 4 Wis. 112, 117. 
 
 24 Bump Fraud. Convey. 22, 23. 
 
 25 Ilazclbakor 1'. Ooodfellow, 64 111. 233, 241 ; Basliam r. Chnmber- 
 lii:i, 7 Moil. B. 443, 44."), 44(! ; Keith r. Woomhcll, S Pick. 211. 21.i ; 
 Kramer v. Iteferd, 17 N. J. Eq. 367, 3s0 ; post, U li;>-118. 
 
 26 McLemore )'. Pinlcston, 31 Ala. 2f>7. 270 ; SklUman, 15 N. J. Eq. 
 478, 481 ; 13 N. J. Eq. 40!, 407; post, U H'-*. 121. 
 
 27 Seltz V. Mitchell, W V. .S. ,5S0, 5S4 ; Mitchell v. .Seitz, 1 McAr. 4S(), 
 483; McLemore v. Piiik.ston, 31 Ala. 2C7, 270; Carletoii i: Kiv<Ts, W 
 .Via. 467 ; Bear t: II.ivw. 3« III. ISO, 2S1 ; Karrell v. Patterson, 43 111. 52, 
 .5) ; Connor v. P> rrv, 46 111. 370, 372 ; .Swart/, r. Samplers, 4<) 111. \s, 24 ; 
 MrMurtry?'. Webster, 4H III. 123,124; Marshall r. Duke, 51 Ind. 61,62; 
 Duncan v. Boselle, 15 Iowa, .501, .503 ; Jlerrill )■. Smith, :!7 Me. »M, 3!I6 ; 
 Glover •!'. Alcott, 14 Mich. 470, 4S2 ; Henderson v. Warmack, 27 Miss, 
 KV), 835 ; Apple v. (iaiiong, 47 JIlss. Ul, I'M ; Ilovt i'. White, 46 N. H. 
 45, 47 ; Quldort v. PerRoanx, IS N. J. Eq. 4T2, 480 ; Rider v. Hulse, 3.1 
 Barb. 264, 270; .Syme i>. Riddle, 88 N. C. 46:}, 465 ; Raybold, 20 Pa. St. 
 308, 311. 
 
 2^ McClnskv v. Provident, 103 Mass. .300, 304, 305 ; Blckback v. Ac!:- 
 royd, 11 Ilun,:«>>, 360 ; Bean v. Kiab, 4 llun, 171, 174 ; ante, ii 16-18. 
 
 2:) Rep Meriwether r. Smith, 44 Oa. .541, 543 ; Martin v. Rotson, C5 
 111. 12:i, li'w) ; 16 Am, Itep. .57>i ; JNInsgrove. 54 111. 186, 188 ; Bradstroot v. 
 B.ier, 41 Md. 10, 25 ; AtteberK, 8 Oreg. 224. 
 
 ro See Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. .384, .396 ; Orrell v. Van Gorder, 96 Pa. 
 St. 180. 
 
 31 Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. M3, W8 ; infra, notes 32-12 ; supra, 
 11. 2 ), 
 C2 Larimer v. Kelly, 10 Kan. 298, 305. 
 _?.3 Larimer i'. Kelly, 10 Kan. 238, 305 ; Cooper v. Alger, ;i 1". II. 172, 
 
 34 Turnks v. Grover, 57 Me. .586, 588. S. P. Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 
 2H,s; Meriwether v. Smith, 44 Ga. W3 ; Fowle r. Tldd, 15 Gr.^v, !M ; 
 Burke v. Cnle, !)7 :M!\ss. 114 ; Cooper v. Alger, 51 N. K. 174, IT 5. But 
 sec (iay v. Rogers, 18 Vt. ;S42. 
 
 ."5 Tumks V. Grover, 57 Me. 586, 588. 
 
 rc, Whiting V. Beckwith, 31 Conn. ,5.5.3, .55.5. 
 
 37 Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. 34.3, .348. 
 
 V.'i Glenn v. Johnson, 18 Wall. 476, 478. 
 
 3:) Inequitv; Andrews i'. Huckabee, .30 Ala. 143, 1.52. At law, see 
 23 Alb. L. J.2S.5, 2,86. 
 
 40 S"e Shaoffer v. Sheppard, 64 Al.a. 244 ; Bowden v. Gra", 49 Miss. 
 .547: Qnidort)'. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. .372, 480; Ilallowell V. Ilorter, 
 Co I>a. St. 375, 380. 
 
 41 See Hill, 38 Md. 18.3, 18,5. 
 
 42 Hallowell v. Horter, 35 Pa. St. 37.5, 380. 
 
 43 Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 X. J. Eq. 472, 480. Consult cases »upra, 
 
 n. 23. 
 
 44 Hnzelbaker v. Goodfellow, 64 111. 238, 241 ; Mewhirter v. Halten, 
 42 Iowa, 2s8, 2'.»1. 2'P3 ; 2il Am. Rep. i:is ; Grant r. Green, 41 Iowa, w, 91, 
 ii2; Glover r. AlcDtt, U Mich. 471, 4S3 ; Brooks ;•. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. 
 24-3, .34.S; Ri'Viiolds r. Robinson. 64 X. Y. 589, 533; Bean V. Kiah, 4 
 Hun. 171, 174 ; 2:i Alb. L. J. 28.5. 23G.
 
 J 66 CONJUGAL EIGHTS ASSD OBLIGATIONS. 94 
 
 45 MewhirtPr v. Halten, 42 lown, 28'', 23S ; 26 Am. Kep. 618. See 
 s. 'pra, n. 44 ; Shaeffer v. Slieppard, 54 Ala. 244. 
 
 IG Reynolds v. Robinson, G4 X. Y. 5.^3. 503. 
 
 47 Mewhirter v. Halten, 42 Iowa, 2SS, 202 ; 20 Am. Rep. 6!S. 
 
 43 Glover v. Alcott, 11 Jlich. 471. 483. 
 
 43 Mewhirter v. Halten. 42 Iowa, 253, 232 ; 20 Am. Rep. 618. 
 
 5D As to all statutes, see infra, n. .il ; ante, ? 21. 
 
 51 Farrell v. Patterson, 40 111. 62, 5S : Jassay v. Delius, 65 111. 4(59, 
 471 ; MeDavid %\ Adams, 77 III. l-i% l')(i ; Kaser. Painter, 77 111. 643, 
 .">« ; Rider v. Hulse, 3:j Barb. 264, 271 ; ante, i 2:5. 
 
 ? 66. Conjugal liability in tort. — There i:, no liability 
 of wife as -wife for torts of her husband, but- a husband 
 as husband is generally liable for hia v.ife's torts. 
 
 1. Wife's antenuptial torts. A husband, at common 
 law, takes his wife Avith all her liabilities ' and is liable 
 for her antenuptial torts '■' for the same reasons and to 
 the same extent as he is liable for her antenuptial con- 
 tracts;* and to the .same extent also, a ; he is liable for 
 her postnuptial torts committed out of his presence and 
 Avithout his directions.^ Thus, for the wife's antenup- 
 tial tort husband and wife must bo jointly sued ; * (his 
 liability, however, depends on his being her lawful 
 husband;^) the Statute of Limitations runs in favor of 
 both of them;' the husband's liability must be fixed 
 by judgment before dissolution of the marriage hy 
 death 8 or divorce,^ while the wife's survives ; "* and a 
 judgment against them binds the property of them 
 both.^i This liability extends to acts done by her in a 
 representative capacity, for example as guardian i^ or 
 administratrix.!^ It is in many States removed by 
 express statutes," but the Aveight of opinion is that it is 
 not aflfected through implication, by married Avomen's 
 projjerty acts.'" 
 
 2. Wi/e^s postnuptial forts, A husband, at common 
 laAV, is liable for all torts committed bj^ his Avife durin-g 
 coverture,!* it makes no difference if they are liA'ing 
 apart," so long as he is really her husband.^* But ho
 
 95 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. ? 66 
 
 cannot, unless his wife is bis agent in fact,^° be liable 
 for a Tvrong of hers based on her invalid contract,*^ 
 as where she got credit by pretending she was un- 
 married, ^i or misappropriated money placed in her 
 keeping.22 And though if he allows her to act as ad- 
 ministratrix he is responsible for all her acts,^ her 
 unauthorized dealing with an estate does not render 
 him liable as executor de son tort.^ For her torts he 
 may be liable alone or jointly with her : (1) If the tort 
 is committed in his presence and nothing more ap- 
 pears, it is his sole tort,^ for she is presumed to have 
 acted under his coercion.^ (2) If the tort is committed 
 in his presence, but it appear-^ that she ac'ed of her 
 own free Avill, they are jointly liable. '^^ (3) If the tort is 
 committed in his presence a-rainst his A\ill, it is her 
 tort and lie is liable with her.^^ (4) If the tort is com- 
 mitted out of his presence, but by his direction, she is 
 liable jointly with him.^^ (.'>) If the tort is committed 
 out of his presence and without his knowledge or con- 
 sent he is liable ■with her.^" In cases (1), (2), and (4), he 
 is liable because she is his agent^^ and to the same 
 extent as any other master is for the acts of his Ecr- 
 vant.8^ In cases (3) and {')) he is liable because she is 
 his wife,^'' and as Math her antenuptial contracts^* and 
 antenuptial torts,^* his liability — unless it has been 
 fixed by judgment*^ — ceases with the dissolution of 
 the marriage.^' In case (1) she cannot be sued.'^ In 
 cases (3) and (5) he cannot be sued as joijit tvrong-doer 
 — the suit must be against liim as husband P In cases 
 (2) and (4) they are jointly liable for a joint tort'*" — 
 though it is said that a joint slander is an impossibil- 
 ity,^! and that a conversion is to the husband, not to 
 "their" use;*^ and the husband has full control of the 
 suit.** This liability of the husband as husband has 
 been removed by ex^iress statute in some States ; " but
 
 g 63 CONJUGAL. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATION'S. 93 
 
 in spite of statutes his liability for his wife's acts as his 
 agent remains.*' But tliis liabilitj'' is not affected by 
 gcncral married women's property acts,** (except in 
 Illinois*^ and Kansas**) or even by a provision that a 
 husband shall not be liable for his wife's "debts."** 
 Still, when as to her separate property she may sue 
 and be sued without her husband,*" he is not liable, 
 unless he took part therein, for her tort connected with 
 it 51 — as for her cattle's depradations^^ or a nuisance on 
 her farm,** But wlien in her separate business sho 
 receives stolen goods and becomes thereby l:aljlc i:i 
 conversion, her husband is liable because she never 
 acquired any property in the goods,** Nor is he liablo 
 for the acts of an insane wife.** 
 
 1 Forguson v. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 252 ; Hawk t: Harman, 5 Binn. 
 43, 50. 
 
 2 Fergnson v. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 2.')2 ; Phillips v. Richardson, 4 
 Marsh. J. J. 212, 215 ; Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. «>(), 672 ; INIagruder r. 
 Darnull, f> Gill, 260, 2.sfi ; McCreadv, 1 Tuck. :rr4, 375; Hawk r. Har- 
 man, 5 Binn. 43, W ; Ovcrholt r. Ellswell, 1 Ashm. 2(J0, 202; Hubble 
 r. Fogartic, 3 Kieli. 413,415; Allen r. McCulkmgh, 2 HeLsk. 174, 1S2 ; 
 cases cited itifra, n. IG. 
 
 3 See Heard v. Stamford, 3 P. Wms. 407, 412 ; Hawk r. Harman, 5 
 Binn. 43, 50 ; post, i (i7. 
 
 4 See Baker v. Young, 42 111. 42, 4S ; infra, n. .10. 
 
 5 Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. 6fifi, fi72 ; Magruder v. Darnall, 6 Gill 
 269, 286; McCreadv, 1 Tuck. 374, 375 ; Overliolt v. EUswell, 1 Ashm. 
 200,202; IChit. PI. 81,y2. 
 
 G Overholt t'. Ellswell, 1 Ashm. 200, 202. 
 7 Hawk )'. Harman, 5 Binn. 43, 50. 
 
 S Ferguson r. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 2.i? ; Phi'Iips v. Richardson, 4 
 Mirsh. J. .1. 212, 214; Allen v. McCullough, 2 Heisk. 174, 184 ; 5 Am. 
 Rep. 27 ; Stewart JI. & D. ^ 468. 
 
 9 Ferguson r. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 252 ; Stewart M. <fc T). ? 448. But 
 see Allen ji. McCullough, 2 Heisk. 174, i;i0 ; 5 Am. Kep. 27. 
 
 10 Ferguson v. Colli'is, 8 Ark. 241, 252. Compare Fultz v. Fox, 9 
 ri,).!. B. 4,M, 500, 501 ; Jjost, i 67. 
 :i Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. 666, 672. 
 
 12 Allen v. McCullough, 2 Heis'.c. 174, 132, 133 ; 5 Am, Rep. 27. 
 n Ferguson v. Collins, 8 .A.rk. 241, 252; Phillips r. Riehardson, 4 
 M.irsh. ,1. .1. 212. 214 : Magruder r. Darnall, 6 Gill, 26J, 2sr, ; Hubble ti. 
 Fogartie, 3 Rich. 413, 415. 
 
 14 Md. Acts 1880, ch. 253, ?§ 31, .?2 ; post, I 67 ; vifra, n. 44. 
 
 15 McElfresh v. Kirkendall, 36 lowii, 224, 227 ; infra, notes 46, 53 ; 
 ante,U H) l''> I l^ost, I 67.
 
 97 CONJUGAL, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. ? 63 
 
 16 Wright r>. Kerr, Addis, n ; Vino v. Saunders, 5 Scott, 359, "0 ; 
 Hoad I'. Briscoe, 5 Car. & V. 4S4, 4S;i ; Taylor v. Greene, 8 Car. <fe P. 
 3:6, 310 ; Atty.-Gon. v. Riddle, 2 Cronip. * J. 4;)^ ; Hope v. Carnegio, 
 Law R. 7Eq. 254 ; Bohe v. Frownor, IS Ala. 8:), 95; Ferguson v. Col- 
 lins, 8 Ark. 241, 2.")2 ; Balcor v. YoiKig, 44 111. 42, 48 ; Martin v. Robson, 
 65 111. 129, l;X); 16 Am. Rep. .57^; Ball v. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 423; 
 Choen v. Porter, 66 Ind. 1!M, I'ifi ; McKlfrcsh v. Kirliendall, 36 Iowa, 
 224, 227; Enders v. Bock, 18 Iowa, 86, 87; Pliillips v. Richardson, 4 
 Marsh. J. J. 212, 214; Hinds v. Jon^s, 48 Mo. 348, 349; Ferguson v. 
 Brooks, 67 Me. 251, 255 ; Mirsh:.!! v. Oakcs, 51 Me. .308, 309 ; Nolan v. 
 Traber, 49 Md. 460. 40^ ; Handy v. Foley, 121 Mass. 259,261 ; 23 Am. 
 Rep. 270 ; Heckle v. Lurvey, 101 Mass. 344, ai5; 3 Am. Rep. ?M ; Aus- 
 tin V. Cox, 118 Mass. 58, 60 ; Austin v. Wilson, 4 Cush. 27.3, 275 ; Miller 
 r'. t^weitz('r, 22 Mich. 391, 3)5; Burt v. McBaiji, 29 Mich. 260, 262; 
 Riccl V. Mueller, 41 Mich. 214, 2!.'^ ; Brazil v. Moran, 8 Minn. 2.36, 240 ; 
 Dailey v. Houston, .58 Mo. 3(51, .■«7 ; Cram v. Dudkv, 28 N. H. 5.37, 
 Ml ; Whitman v. Belano, 6 N. IT. 543, 545 ; Gove v. Farmers, 48 N. H. 
 41, 43 ; 2 Am. Rep. ir,8 ; Carlcton v. Haywood, 49 N. II. 314, 318 ; Scott 
 V. Gamble, 9 N. .1. Eq. 218, 238 ; Kowing v. Manly, 49 N. Y. 192, 198 ; 
 57 Barb. 3;i9, 4s:! ; 10 Am. Hep. .346 ; Cassin v. Delany, 38 N. Y. 178, 179 ; 
 Matthews V. Fiestel, 2 Smith, E. J). 90, 91 ; Barnes v. Harris, Busb. 
 1.5, 17; Cox V. Hoffman, 4 Dev. <ft B. 180, 1R2 ; Clark r. Boyer, 32 Ohio 
 St. 299, 311 ; 30 Am. Rep. .593 ; Fowler v. Chichester, 26 Ohio St. 9, 14 ; 
 Coolidge V. Parrls, 8 Ohio St. 591, 5;)7; Keen v. H.irtman, 48 Pa. St. 
 497, 499; MofTit v. Commonw. 5 Pa. St. 359, 366 ; JIcKeown v. Johnson, 
 1 McCord, .578, .579 ; 10 Am. li'c. 698; Moon v. Henderson, 4 Desaus. 
 Eq. 4.59, 461 ; McQueen v. F\ilffham, 27 Tex. 463, 467 ; Tabb v. Boyd, 4 
 Call, 4.53, 457 ; Roadcap v. Sipe, 6 (4ratt. 213, 217 ; Jackson v. KirbV, .37 
 Vt. 448,4.53; Woodward v. Barnes, 46 Vt. 332, 336; 14 Am. Rep. 626; 
 post, ToKTS OF Maukikd Womex. 
 
 17 Head v. Briscoe, 5 Car. <fc P. 484, 486. 
 
 18 Overholt v. Ellswell, 1 Ashm. 200, 202. 
 
 19 See Taylor v. Green, 8 Car. & P. 316, 318. 
 
 20 Liverpool v. Fairhurst, 9 Ex. 422 ; Andrews v. Ormsbee, 11 Mo. 
 400, 402 ; Carleton r. Haywood, 4!) N. II. 314, 320 ; Keen )'. Hartman, 48 
 Pa. St. 497, 499 ; Barnes f. Harris, Busb. 1.5, 17 ; Woodward v. Barnes, 
 46 Vt. 3:i2, 336 ; 14 Am. Rep. 626 ; p-tst, ? 368. 
 
 21 Woodward v. Barnes, 46 Vt. 332, 336 ; 14 Am. Rep. 626 ; sripra, 
 n. 20. 
 
 22 Andrews r. Ormsbee, 11 Mo. 400, 402; Carleton v. Haywood, 49 
 N. 11. 314, 320. 
 
 23 Bob" V. Frowner, 18 Ala. 89, 95 ; McCreedy, 1 Tuck. .374, :?76 ; 
 Mofflt )'. Commonw. 5 Pa. St. 3.59, :?66 ; Moon r. Henderson, 4 Desaus. 
 Eq. 4.59, 461 ; Knox v. Picket, 4 Desaus. Eq. 92, 93 ; Tabb v. Boyd, 4 
 Call, 453, 457. 
 
 24 Hindsi'. Jones, 48Me. ."US, 349. 
 
 25 Ball V. Bennett. 21 Ind. 427, 428; Marshall v. Oakes, .51 Me. 308, 
 30); Miller v. Swcitzer, 22 Mi<-h. 391, .395; Brazil >: ]\l(iran, 8 Minn. 236, 
 240; Dailey?'. Houston, .5'* Mo. 361, 367; Carlct(Hi r. Havwood, 49 
 N. H. 314, 318 ; Cassin v. Delany, .38 N. Y. 178, 17!! ; Park v. Hopkins, 2 
 Biil. 411, 412 ; Sisco v. Cheenev, Wright, 9, 10 ; McKeown r. .Johnson, 
 1 McCord, .578, .579 ; McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463, 467 ; Jackson v. 
 Kirby, 37 Vt. 448, 4.53. 
 
 26 Nolan v. Traber, 49 Md. 460, 463 ; 33 Am. Rep. 277 ; supra, n. 25. 
 
 27 Nolan v. Traber, 49 Md. 460, 468 ; 33 Am. Rep. 277 : Carleton v. 
 Hj,ywood,49 N. H. 314, 313, 31J ; Cassin v. Delany, 38 N. Y. 178, 179. 
 
 H. & W. - 9.
 
 \ 66 CONJUGAL RIGHTS A^'D OBLIGATIOXS. 98 
 
 23 Carleton v. Haywood, 43 X. H. 314, 313, 313. 
 
 23 Handy v. Folev, 121 Mass. 'S,\ :si ; 21 Am. Bep. 270 : Cassin >•. 
 Delanv.asN. Y. 178,"li"9; Ciar.i r. Uoy^r, 5J Oaio Sc 29», Sll; 30 Aia. 
 liop. 5(4 
 
 30 Bafeer r. TonTig. 44 111. 42, 4«t : Ball r. B?nnett 2t Ind. 4:7, 42S ; 
 Elders v. Bejk, Is imva, »<>. S, ; liecicel r. Lurvey, 101 Miis.'^. 'AW, 3*5 ; 
 ;{ Ana. Rep. ;«6 ; Caiielon i . Havwood, \> X. H. ;il4, 3ls ; Kowliig r. 
 Maniv, 4.1 X. Y. l.rj, 1.8 ; 10 Am. Rt.-p. ;M«; Matthews r. FieUtel, 2 
 S uith, E. D. 90, 91 ; Park c. HopK^iii-s. J Bail. 411, 412; Barnes r. Har- 
 ris, Busb. 15, IT ; McQuj.;i r, I'ul^Uaai, 27 Tex. 4jl,4<i7; p>^^ ToHTS 
 OS 3XAHRitU> WOMliX. 
 
 31 Compare poit, \\ &:., 03. 
 
 32 See Cox c. Il3rraian,4 Ecv. & B. ISO, 1S2. 
 
 33 Ferguson r. Brooks, 67 Ma. 2-51, 2.55 ; Park r. Hopkins, 2 BaiL 411, 
 412. 
 
 34 Ftdu r. Fox, 3 Mo.i. B. in, 500, 501 ; prut, \ 67. 
 
 35 Supra, notes S, D. 
 
 33 Compare Burton, 5 Har. (DeL) 441, 444 ; post, { C7. 
 
 .17 .S-^e Fergnson r. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 2.52 ; Phi'.lips r. Richardson, 
 4 Marsh. J. J. 2i2, 214 ; Criftie >-. Van Uuyne, tf N. J. Kq. 351, 2i>«; Moflit 
 r. Commonw. 5 P.j. St, .15 », 36') ; Hawk c. Harman, 5 Binn. 4:<, 50; 
 Allen r. M CuUough, 2 H^isk- 174, 1j4 ; 5 Am. Rep. 27 ; teuwart M. <& 
 I). U -t^> 4^ 
 
 33 BaU r. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 42j ; tui>ra, n. 25^ 
 
 33 Fersruson r. Brooks, r7 M;. 251, 2*3 ; Park v. Hopkins, 2 BaU. 411, 
 412 ; Siaco i: C'av;ciiy, Wri^jh:, u, 10. 
 
 40 \1ne r. Sannd°rs. 5 S-ott. Xi\ 370 ; Heckle r. Lurvv. 101 Mass. 
 344, 34-5 ; lland\- r. Foltv. IJl Mas.s. 2.5.), JSl ; 23 .\m. Kep. 27u ; lOUler 
 1'. Swcitz.-r, 2: ML-h. .{>1, 3 ti ; Carletoa v. Hayw»>oJ, 4j X. H. 3:4, 3la ; 
 Roadcap v. 8ipe, 6 Uralt. 213, 217. 
 
 41 Baker r. Young, 44 III. 42, 4S ; Roadcap v. SIpe, r. Gratt. 213, 217. 
 
 42 Carleton r. H-ivwoo.l. 41 X. II. 314, 31); Kowing v. Mu:ily, 49 
 X. Y. 1j2, IM, Vjj ; 10 Am. Kep. 34t>. 
 
 4l Coolidge V. Parris, S Ohio St. .5>», 597 ; sec Clark t-. Boyer, :J2 Ohio 
 
 •S:. 2D9, 3»l ; p-JSt, Sl"ITa BV M.\£tKIJiD WOMKX. 
 
 4 1 Ml. .\C's HW. ch. 2-53, J J 31, 32 ; Moss. P. S, 1*S2, p. 8!n, J 9 ; Mich. 
 R. S. 1»<2, it 7714, «U5J. 
 
 45 Austin V. Cox. 11? Mass. hi, 60; Hill r. Duncan, 110 Moss. 23S ; 
 Ii:jci I'. MueUer, 41 Mich- 214, 215. 
 
 46 Choen r. Porter. B6 Ind. IM, ine, \X> ; McElfresh r. Kirkendall. 
 ."> Iowa, 224, 227: Euilers v. Beck. IS Iowa, .SS, 87 ; Fer?uso;i r. Brooks, 
 t;.' '.-le. 2-51. 157 ; Kowin? r. Manlr. 57 Barb. 47.'. 4S.! ; Baum r. Mullen, 
 47 X. V. 577, 57*: McCready, 1 Tuck. 374. .$75: Fowler r. Chicester, 28 
 Oa-o St, 3, 14 : MoQufeeu v. Fulgiiam, 27 Tox. 4,i;. 4t;7 ; ante, U 15, 16. 
 
 47 Martin v. Robson, 65 lU. 129. 130, 13) ; IG Xm. Rep. 57i 
 4? iXIorrLs i: Corkhill, S. C. Kan. Oct. 9, 14*4. 
 
 -;i McElfresh v. Kirkendall, 36 Iowa, 224, 227. 
 
 50 Hawes Parties to Actions, { 70. 
 
 51 Rowe V. Smith, 45 X. Y. 2»), 2 VJ ; Baum r. K alien, 47 X^. Y. 577 
 579 ; Fiske i-. B-ik y, 51 X. Y. 150, IM. 
 
 52 Bowe V. Smith, 45 X. Y. 230, 233.
 
 99 COXJUGAl. RIGHTS AXD OBLJGATIOXS. I 67 
 
 53 Fiske V. Bailey, 51 X. Y. 150, l.>i. 
 
 54 Xusser v. Lewis, X. Y. Snp. Ct. June 26, fH ; 6 X. Y. Civ. Proc. R. 
 135. 
 
 55 Gove V. Farmers, ii X. H. 11, U, 41 ; 2 Am. Eep. 168. 
 
 2 67. Conjugal liability ia contract. — There is no lia- 
 bility of a wife as Avife for contracts of her husband, 
 bai a husband a.j husband is genarally liable on hli 
 wife's contrac!:.?. 
 
 '1. Postnuptial. A: camaion law a wife could gener- 
 ally' inuko no contract daring coverture to bind hei-self,^ 
 thougli in certain case.i s!io could as his agent bind 
 him.'' And when under statute or otherwise she can 
 make a valid contract, as husband he is not liable ujwn 
 it,* though he may be as joint i^romissor.* 
 
 2. Antenuptial. At common law a husband takes 
 his wife with her liabilities,"' and he is liable on all her 
 existing contracts,^ whether he is an adult or an infant,^ 
 and whether he receives property with her or not.^ It 
 is only necessary to create his liability that he ba really 
 her husband,* and that the contract be one which is 
 binding on her ;" he is oven liable for necessaries sup- 
 plied liis infant \v\1q ba.'ore marriage.^^ The wife can- 
 no: be sued alone on such a contract," nor can he;'* 
 the suit is against them jointly .i' If the suit is pend- 
 ing when the woman marries, it is revived against him 
 also ; ^ if judgment has been recovered before mar- 
 riage, execution may be had against her alone,*'' or by 
 scire facias it n\a.y be revived against him,'' and the 
 proper. y of both of them may be taken.'^ The ac- 
 knowledgment of the debt made after marriage is not, 
 however, evidence against the husband.'* The hus- 
 band's liability ceases -with coverture, unless it has 
 been fixed by judgment.* If she dies after judgment, 
 he continues liable ; ^' if he dies, his estate is liable.— 
 If not so fixe J, the husband's liability is destroyed by
 
 I 67 CONJTJGAI. RIGHTS A^'D OBLIGATIONS. 100 
 
 a divorce a vinculo,'^ bj' his death/* or by hers.^ But 
 marriage does not suspend or ds^troy her liabili'iy,* so 
 tliat if he dies she is liable,-^ and if slie dies her ad- 
 ministrator is liable to tho extent of assets,'-® even when 
 h3 is her wdover.-'^ So she is liable after divorce a 
 vinculo.^ So the Statute of Limitations runs during 
 coverture,^^ and neither can she so act during coverlure 
 as to revive a promise wliich is barred,^^ nor can her 
 husband revive it against her,^ and one who waits 
 till after coverture to sue usually loses his remedy.'* 
 Bankruptcy of the husband destroyed at common law 
 all right of suit during coverture,'-* but when she hai 
 separate property she may, perhaps, be proceeded 
 against in equity.'^ An antenuptial'" or pnistnuptial'^ 
 agreement has no etfoct on this conjugal liability, nor 
 have married women's statutes which do not expressly 
 refer to it,'® though a different rule is adopted in Illi- 
 nois.*" But in many States a statute expressly destroys 
 the husband's liability,*' or limits it to the extent of 
 the property received by him front her by marriage,** 
 or continues his liability to this extent af.er her death.*' 
 A statute removing his liability may bo applicable to 
 existing marriages, as the wire's creditor's right against 
 her husband is not vested;** but a statute creating a 
 new liability in the husband after her death applies 
 only to marriages entered into after its passage.*' In 
 general, the meaning of these statutes is plain, and 
 tlioy are easily construed.*^ 
 
 1 Post, CON'TP.ACTS OF Marrikd Wokex, {{ 355-408. 
 1 Leeds i'. VaU, 15 Pa. St. l<5 ; p^jgt.. U 85, 98. 
 
 3 Holmes r. Reynolds, r^ Vt. 30. 42. See Frieber r. Stover, 30 Ark. 
 7.^7 ; Franklia r. Foster, 20 illeh. 75 ; Hill v. (iooUrich, 46 >'. H. 41, 42. 
 
 4 Sturmfeltz r. Frickev, 43 Mi 569 ; Holmes v. Reynolds, 55 Vt. 
 3a 42. 
 
 5 Hawt t'. Hariiian, 5 Binn. 43, 50. 
 
 6 Heard r. Stamford, 3 P. Wms. 407, 412 ; Thomond v. Suffolk, 1 
 P. Wms. 4'VJ. 4»>ri : Cowlf v r. Robertson, 3 Camp. 4'W, 4.'» ; Hnmphrevs 
 V. Boyce, 1 iloodv & R.140, HI ; Evans r. Chesttr, 2 Mees. <t W. M7,
 
 101 CONJUGAL KI&HTS AXD OBLIGATIONS. g 67 
 
 84S ; Sharkes v. Bell, 8 Barn. & C. I, 3 ; O'Brien v. Ram, 3 Mod. 186, 
 1 *) ; Moore v. Leseur, li Ala. G06, 610 ; Gray v. Thacker, 4 Ala. i:«, i:{7 ; 
 ll-irrison v. TracK-r, 27 Ark. i-iS, 2)0 ; Dav v. Mfsslck, 1 Houst. 3:iS, Gj. 
 :m ; Burton, 5 Har. (Dl-1.j 441, 444 ; Brvan v. Doolittle, iS Ga. 25?. 25-i ; 
 Prest-ott V. FLshor. 22 111. 3;)0, S.kj ; H iwarth v. Warmser, .SS 111. 48, 4J ; 
 Brijwn V. Lassell •, 6 Bla"::f. 147, 148; 3-i Am. Dec. i:i5 ; Crawford v. 
 Tjrrv, 12 Ind. 4J7 ; Hetri'-k, i:{ Ind. 44. 45,46; Bonnev v. Reardin. 6 
 Bisli, 34, 40 ; Morrow c. WUtLsi Is, 10 Mo:i. B. 411, 412 ; Fultz v. Fox, 
 y Mon. B. 4 >3, 501 ; Caldwell j'. Dr.ike, 4 Jl.irsh. J. J. 246, 247 ; Hamlin 
 V. Bri Ige, 2t Me. 145, 146 ; Anderson r. Smith, 33 Md. 4<i.5, 467 ; Hawes 
 V. Bigelow, 13 Mass. 3-t4, 3.0; Dickson v. Miller, 19 Miss. 5;»4, GM ; 
 Boss t'. Winners, 6 X. J. L. 333; Barnes r. Underwood. 47 X. Y. :151, 
 :tj4 ; Roach v. Quick, 9 We.id. T.i, 23J ; Anjjel v. Feltoii, 8 Johns. 140 ; 
 Williams >•. Kent, 15 Wond. SPO, :«>1 ; Carlton v. Jloore, 2 Jones Eq. 
 201, 207 ; Wilson, 30 Ohio St. 365, 371 ; Carl v. Wonder, 5 Watts, 97, 98 ; 
 Overholt v. Ellswell, 1 Ashm. 200 ; Buckner r. .Smvth, 4 Desjius. Eq. 
 371 ; Jones v. Walkup, 5 Sno?d, 135, 138 ; Parker v. Steed, 1 Lea, 20b, 
 210 ; Tavlor v. Miller, 2 L-^a, 155, 1>1 ; Sheppard i-. Starke. 3 Munf. 2 ', 
 37 ; Cole V. Shurtl;-*T. 41 Vt. 311, 315, 313 ; Cole i-. Seely, 25 Vt. 220, 222 ; 
 Farrar v. Bessey, 24 Vt. 83, 92 ; Piatncr v. Patchen, 19 Wis. 333, Sie. 
 
 7 Roach V. Quick. 9 Wend. 238, 33j ; Cole v. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220, 222 ; 
 60 Am. Dec. 2.53. 
 
 8 Heard v. Stamfor 1, 3 P. Wm. 40i, 412 ; supra, a. 6. 
 
 9 Cowley v. Robertson, 3 Camp. 438, 433 ; Overholt v. Ellswell, 1 
 Ashm. 200. 
 
 10 Caldwell v. Drake, 4 Marsh. J. J. 246, 247. 
 
 11 Bonney v. Reardin, 6 Bush, 34, 40; Anderson t>. Smith, 33 Md. 
 465,467 
 
 12 Hamlin v. Bridge, 24 Me. 145, 147. 
 
 13 Gage i'. Reed, 15 Johns. 403. 
 
 14 Gray v. Thacker, 4 Ala. 136, 137 ; Moore v. Leseur, 18 Ala. 606, 
 610 ; Angel v. F^'lton, 8 JohTis. 14 ) ; Carl v. Wonder. 5 Watts, 97, 98 ; 
 Platner v. Patchin, 19 "*Vis. 3;J;f, Xio. 
 
 15 Parker v. Steed, 1 Lea, 20G, 210. 
 
 16 Evans r. Chester, 2 Mees. & W. 847, 818 ; Cooper f. Hunchin, 4 
 East, 521, 522, 
 
 17 Taylor v. Millar, 2 Lea, 153, 154. See O'Brien v. Ram, 3 Mod. 186, 
 187, 190 ; Haines c. Corliss, 4 Moss. 0.5J. 
 
 18 Benyon r. Jones, 15 Mees. & W. 566, 569 ; Taylor v. Miller, 2 Lea, 
 1»!, 155. 
 
 19 Brown v. Lass»ll9, 6 BHokf. 147. 148 ; 3S .\m. D<»c. 1.^5; Ross i-. 
 Winners, 6 X. J. L. 366 : Sheppard v. Starke, 3 Munf. 2J, .TT : ante, i 'Jl. 
 
 20 Fultz 1'. Fox, 9 Mon. B. 4^*, .=500, 501 ; Bryan v. Doolittle, 33 Ga. 
 2.W, 25S ; Burton, 5 Har. (Del.) 441, 444. 
 
 21 Bryan v. Doollttls, 33 Ga. 255, 2.57. 
 
 22 Burton, 5 Har. (Del.) 441, 444. 
 
 23 WUson, 30 Ohio St. 365, 371 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 448. 
 
 24 Fultz V. Fox, 9 Mon. B. 499, 500, .501 ; Chapline r. Moore, 7 Mon. 
 1.50 ; Mallorv c. Vandenhevden, 3 Barb. Ch. 9. 21 ; Curlton v. Moore, 2 
 Jones Eq. JOl, 207, 20J. 
 
 25 Heard v. Stamford, 3 P. Wm. 409, 411 ; Thomond v. Suffolk, 1 P. 
 Wm. 462, 469; Brvan r. Doolittle, 38 Ga. 2.55, 2.58 ; Williams v. Kent. 15 
 Wend. 360, 362 ; Jon-s t: Walkup, 5 Sneed, 135, 138 ; Cole v. ShurtL-ff, 
 41 Vt. 311, 315, 316 ; Stswart M. & D. { 468.
 
 2 68 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 102 
 
 26 Fultx V. Fox, a Mon. M. 499, 500, 501 ; Gage v. Heed, 15 Johns. 
 ■KKJ ; Mallory v. Vaiiderlieyden, 3 Barb. CU. D, :l-i. 
 
 27 Parker v. Steed, 1 Lea, 206, 210. See Hawk v. Hariniiii, 5 Blnu. 
 43,50. 
 
 28 Huniphrev r. Bovop, 1 >roodv & B. HO, 141 ; Mallorv v. Vaii- 
 derheyden, 3 Barb. Ch. !•, 23; Jones i. Walkup, 5 Saeed, 13.5, I3s. 
 
 29 Day v. Mcssifk 1 Housr. 32-i, 3.30 ; Jones i'. Walkup, 5 Sneed, 135, 
 139 ; Holrues, 2s Vt. 7().5, 767, 703. 
 
 30 See Stewart M. & D. ? 430, n. 19. 
 
 31 Moore v. Lesenr, is Ala. 606, fill ; Kline v. Giithart, 2 Pa. St. 490 ; 
 Hawk V. Harmaii, 5 Binii. 43, .50 ; Farrur i'. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89, 92. 
 
 32 Moore v. Leseur, 18 Ala. 606, 612. 
 
 33 Farrar v. Bessey. 24 Vt. 89, 92. 
 
 34 Sec Hawk r. Harman, 5 Binn. 43, 50. 
 
 35 Miles r. Williams, 10 Mod. ICO, 243 ; MaUory v. Vanderheyden, 3 
 Barb. Ch. 9, 22. 
 
 36 Dickson v. Miller, 19 Ma.ss. .5!M,fi02, 6(M. See Hamllu v. Bridge, 
 24 Me. 145, 146. Consult Jones t. Gla.ss, 48 Iowa, :i45. 
 
 37 Harrison V. Trader, 27 Ark. 2S8, 290; Christian v. Hanks, 22 Ga, 
 1Z5 ; Taylor v. Miller, 2 Lea, 15;$, 154 ; Powell i: Manson, 22 Gratt. 177 ; 
 Stewart M. & D. ?? 32, 43. 
 
 38 Harrison v. Trader, 27 .\rk. 288, 290 ; Stewart M. & D. i 181. 
 
 39 Conner v. Berrv, 46 111. 370, 372 ; Berley v. IVimpacher, 5 Duer, 
 183; Alexander i: Morgan, 31 Ohio St. .')41 ; Fowler r. Chichester, 26 
 Ohio St. 9; Plainer r. Patchin, 19 Wis. 3:«, 3:!6 ; ante, U 15, 16. 
 
 40 Howarth v. Warmser, 58 111. 4>i, 43. See Dickson v. Miller, 19 
 Miss. 594, 00.3. 
 
 41 See Ala. Code, 1876, ?2704; Cal. Civ. Code, ?I70; Wood v. Or- 
 ford, 52 Cal. 412 ; .Md. .\cts 1880, H 31. 32 ; X. C. Kev. 1873, p. 590 ; Pa. 
 Purd. Dig. 1.S72, p. Kior.. 
 
 42 Colo. R. S. 1S77, g 17.>1. 
 
 43 Colo. R. S. IS77, ? 1755; Brvan v. Doollttle, 3S Ga. 2.», 277; Wil- 
 liams V. Kent, 15 Wend. .360, 361. 
 
 44 Fultz r. Fox. 9 Mon. B. 4(9, .'iio, 501 ; rinte, ?? 21-22 ; hut not to a 
 suit already brouijht : Clawson c. Hutchinson, II S. C. 323. 
 
 45 Bryan v. Doolittle, .38 Ga. 2.55, 25S. 
 
 46 See Conlon v. Monro. 9 I. R. C. L. 190 ; Wood r. Orford, hZ Cal. 412; 
 Bryan t'. Doolittle. 3S Ga. 2.5.5, 2.57 ; Renuecker c. Scott, 4 Greene, 185 ; 
 Cannon i>. (iranthani, 45 Miss. 8H ; Davis v. Wilkiiisor\. 48 Miss. 5s5 ; 
 Fultz !\ Fox, 9 Mon. B. 4>19, .500; Williams v. Kent, 15 Wend. 360,362 ; 
 Clawson v. Hutchinson, 11 S. C. 323. 
 
 I 68. Conjugal liability in crime. — A wife is never 
 liable for the crime of her liusband, but a Imsbaiid is 
 liable for all crimes of his wife committed in his pres- 
 ence or witli liis knoM'ledgc and consent. ^ As the case 
 may be, he is liable as principal,^ or as accessory,* and 
 alone* or jointly" with her. Married women .statutes 
 have not changed this liability of liis.^
 
 103 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. ^ 68 
 
 1. If it appears onl}' that a criminal act Avas done by 
 the wife in the i>resence of her liusband, slie is deemed 
 to liave acted under his coercion,* as slie is under Iiis 
 power;" and lie is liable'" alone. '^ She is in his pres- 
 ence, though he is not in sight, if he is near by and she 
 is acting under his supervision.'- 
 
 2. If it appears that a criminal act was done by the 
 wife in the presence of her husband, but of her own 
 free will, he is jointly liable with her,'^ for it is his 
 right " and his duty '^ to prevent her from doing wrong, 
 with force 1* if need ho. Probably his bona fide en- 
 deavors to prevent the act to the extent of his ability 
 would be a defense ; " of course if he aids and abets her 
 he is liable.'^ 
 
 3. If it appears that a criminal act was committed by 
 the wife out of the presence of her husband, but with 
 his concurrence or assent he is liable,'" just as any one 
 is liable for the acts of his agent.-" 
 
 4. If it appears that a criminal act was committed bj'' 
 the wife out of the presence of her husband, and with- 
 out his knowledge or assent, he is not liable at all.^^ 
 
 But a liusband cannot be guiltj' of conspiring with 
 his wifc,^'^ unless the conspiracy was consummated 
 before their marriage,^* or there are other co-conspira- 
 tors.'^* 
 
 1 See Com. x'. Barry. 11.5 Mass. 146 ; 2 Green Cr. R. 285, notes ; 
 post, Crimks op Makkikd Womkx. 
 
 2 See fully Desty Cr. L. H 15, 16, 17 ; and other works on criminal 
 law. 
 
 .■5 llensly v. State, 52 Ala. 10. 12 ; 1 Am. Cr. R. 465. 
 
 4 Reg. V. Manning, 2 Car. & K. 'Mi. See State v. Potter, 42 Vt. 495. 
 
 5 Com. V. Wood, 'J7 Mass. 225, 228. 
 
 6 Goldstein v. People, 82 X. V. 231, 2:i2. 
 
 7 Com. V. Pratt, 126 Mass. 462, 463 ; Com. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225, 
 229 ; Com. v. Barry, 115 Mass. 146 ; 2 Green Cr. K. 285, 287, notes. 
 
 8 Ilenslv )'. State, 52 .\la. 10, 12 : 1 Am. Cr. R. 465; see Desty Cr. 
 L. i Ui<t : Htf.x i: Hamilton. 1 Leach, ."548 ; Edwards v. State 27 Ark. 
 4!i:!: State ?•. Banks, 48 liul. 197; Marshall v. Oakes, 51 Me. 30S. :*)9; 
 Nolan )•. Traber, 49 Md. 4ei0 ; 33 Am. Rep. 277 ; Com. v. Neal, 10 Mass.
 
 gg 69-70 CONJUGAL BIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 104 
 
 152 ; 1 Lead. Crim. C. 91 ; 6 Am. Dec. 105 ; Com. v. Barry, 115 Mass. 146 ; 
 2 Green Cr. R. 2S5, 2H7, notes; State v. Bentz, 11 Mo. 27; Haines v. 
 .State, .^5 N. H. 2()7 : rjolilstein r. People, Hi N. Y. 2:51, 2:«; State v. 
 Williams, &5 N. V. '■'■'M; Davis r. Stiite, 15 Ohio, 72; 45 Am. Dec. 559; 
 Citv V. Vau Roveii, 2 MeCord. 4)).") ; Tlil v. Com. 6 Gratt. 706; State v. 
 Potter, 42 Vt. 4<)5 ; Miller v. State, 25 Wis. :«4. 
 9 Ante, ?? 38, 60. 
 
 10 State )'. Cleaveo, .59 Me. 2;J8, 302 ; 8 Am. Rep. 422, 490. See Hens- 
 ley V. State, .52 Ala. 10, 12; 1 Am. Cr. R. 4fi5 ; Edwards v. State, 27 
 Ark. 49.J; 1 Green Cr. R. 741; Com. v. Barry, 2 (Jreen Cr. B. 2S5, 
 notes. 
 
 11 .She is liable also in capital cases, see post, CKr«E.s of Married 
 
 WOMEX. 
 
 12 Com. V. Ner.l, 10 Mass. 1.52; 1 Lead. Crim. C. 91 ; see Re^. v. 
 Boobcr, 4 Cox C. C. 272 ; Rex v. Archer, 1 Moodv C. C. 14:i ; State r. 
 Nelson, ."» Me. :«•; Com. v. Munsev, 112 Muss. 2s7. 2S!» ; State v. Wil- 
 liams, 65 .N. t . :<«H ; Davis tu State, 15 Ohio St. 72 ; .State r. Parkerson, 
 1 Strob. 16); riil r. Com. 6 Gratt. 706. 
 
 IS .Stat(> V. Cleaves, 51 Me. 2.)S, SOI ; 8 Am. Rep. 422, 4T0 ; Goldstein 
 V. People, S2 N. Y. 2:{1, 2:«. See Reg. r. Insrram, 1 Salk. :iS4 ; Somer- 
 vllle, I .And. lOJ : Phillips, 7 Moii. B. 268 ; State r. Nelsoti, 29 Me. :<29 J 
 Com. v. •l'rv.'n.9':i iliiss. 442; State v. Bentz, II Mo. 27 ; State v. Par- 
 kerson, 1 Strob. 169. 
 
 14 Ante, ?? 60, 62, 63. 
 
 15 Com. >: Woo 1, 97 Mass. 225, 229 ; Com. v. Barrv, 115 Mass. 146 ; 2 
 Green Cr. R. 28.5, 2S7. 
 
 16 Com. V. Barry, 2 (Jreen Cr. R. 285, 287, notes ; ante, § 6.3. 
 
 17 See Com. r. Van Stone, 97 Mass. 54S; King v, Stapleton, Jebb 
 C. C. 93. 
 
 IS Goldstein »•. People, S2 N. Y. 231, 2.33. See Reg. v. Manning, 2 
 Car. & K. !KW ; Rex v. Morris, 2 Leach, 1096; Ross i". Com. 2 .Mon. B. 
 417 ; State '•. Brown, 31 Me. -520 ; Com. v. Nichols, 10 Met. 2.59; Schmidt 
 V. State, 14 M(i. 137 ; State e. Dow, 21 Vt. 484. 
 
 19 Williamson 7-. State, 16 .\Iu. 431, 436. 
 
 20 State c. Colby, 55 N. H. 72, 73 ; State v. Roberts; .>5 N. IL 483, 
 485 ; j}i)st. I vx 
 
 21 State »'. Baker, 71 Mo. 475, 476. See Com. v. Welch, 97 Mass. .593, 
 594; Com. r. Munsev, 112 M;i.ss. 287, 2S9 ; Handy v. Foley, 121 Mass. 
 259, 261 ; 2:$ .Am. Rep. 270. 
 
 22 People v. Mather. 4 Wend. 229 ; 21 Am. Dec- 1'22 ; Com. v. Man- 
 son, 2 Ashni. 31. 
 
 23 Rex )'. Robinson, 1 Leach, .37. 
 
 24 Rex I'. Loiker. 5 Esp. 107 ; Com. v. Wood, 7 Bos. L. R. 58 ; Com. 
 t'. Mansoii,2 Aslim. 31. 
 
 § 69. Other personal rights and liabilities. — The hus- 
 band must p'Jierally, except under express statutes, be 
 joined in all suits in whicli his wife is a party.' 
 
 1 Brown r. Kemper, 27 Md. 606, 672 ; ante, ?? 66, fi7. 
 
 I 70. Property rights and liabilities. — (These are dis-
 
 105 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. §f 71-73 
 
 cussed under the title "Estates of Husband and 
 
 Wiie."i) 
 
 1 Pmt, 11 135-330. 
 
 ^ 71. Bights and obligations as to cMldren. — (These 
 are discussed incidentally iu Stewart on Marriage and 
 Divorce.') 
 
 1 Stewart M. <fe D. \i 400-107. 
 
 Art. II. Actions Arising from Conjugal Riuhts 
 AND Obligations. 
 
 i 72. Suits for restitution of conjugal rights. 
 
 I 7-3. Suit.s for divorce. 
 
 ' ? 74. Suits for miiiiitenance. 
 
 ? 7.5. Writs of .VH/ijj?i>rti'j7, etc. 
 
 ? 7fi. Suits of wlff in which husband is joined, etc 
 
 i 77. Suits for wrongs to spouse. 
 
 i 78. Suits for enticement or liarboriiig. 
 
 i 79. .Suits for criminal conversation. 
 
 i SO. Suits under civil damage act. 
 
 ? 81. Suits for necessaries. 
 
 ? 72. Suits for restitution of conjugal rights. — If one 
 six>use wrongfully left the other tiio latter could for- 
 merly bring suit in the ecclesiastical courts to compel 
 cohabitation,^ this Avas called a suit for the restitution of 
 conjugal rights.'' Such a suit may still be Ijrought in 
 England,' but is unlvnown in the United States* where 
 cohabitation cannot be directlj'' enforced.^ 
 
 1 Orme, 2 Add. Ec. R. 382 ; 2 Eng. Ec. R. :&1, Sm. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. ? 17.5 ; 1 Bisli. M. & D. JJ 171, 172 ; mUe, I 59. 
 
 3 Firebrace, Law R. 4 P. D. 63. 
 
 4 Wostlal^e, 34 Ohio St. 62., 628 ; discussed cases collected iu 
 Stewart M. & I). | 17.5. 
 
 5 Baugh, 37 Mich. 59, 62. 
 
 I 73. Suits for divorce. — (i<'ully discussed in Stewart 
 on Marriage and Divorce.)
 
 \^( 75-76 COMJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 106 
 
 g 74. Suits for maintenance. — In uiost of tlie States a 
 vdle may i)iooeed agaiust her husband in equity to 
 make him svipport her.i 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. 5 17;i, full discussion. 
 
 g 75. Writs ot supplicavit, etc. — Under the common 
 law, on the application of a wife wiio showed lierself to 
 be in danger from lier husband, a court of equity would 
 grant licr a writ, called a writ of suppUcavit, requiring 
 her husband to give security to treat her properly. ^ 
 This writ is unknown in the United States,^ where an 
 ordinary boud to keep the peace serves all its purjioses.^ 
 Under statute a wife if deserted by her husbaiul may 
 have a writ for the protection of her earnings from him 
 in case of his return.* 
 
 1 Kinsr »'. Lee, 2 Lev. I2S ; Tlearl, 3 Atk. rA' : C'laverinsr, 2 P. Vi'ms. 
 202; Uovmioii, Ami), fil; King, 2 Ves. .578; Amb. XW; Heyn, 2 Ves. 
 .fe B. 1S2: l>obl)vii,:! Vc-.s. A B. ISH ; Tuaiiicliitr, 1 Jacob & W. :WS; 
 2 Story Eq. 'i U2:! ; 2 Bisli. M. & D. ? :«2. 
 
 2 Adams, 100 Mass. 3G.5, Sfin, 372 ; 1 Am. Rep. 3 ; Cold, 2 Johns. Ch. 
 141. 142. 
 
 3 Cold, 2 Johns. Ch. 141,142. 
 
 4 C'lrerill, 1 .S\v!ih. & T. 22-5; Aldridsjp. I .Sw.ib. & T. SS ; Thomp- 
 son, 1 .Swab. & T. 2:ii ; Mason v. Mitchi'll, :t4 i^w J. K.v. 6S ; Sharp, ;« 
 Law J. M. C. 152 ; llall, 27 Law J. M. C. lU. 
 
 ^ 76. Suits of wife in which husband is joined and suits 
 of husband by marital right. — A husband is generally 
 liable to be sued with his wife on her antenuptial con- 
 tracts,^ and for her torts,- and to be i)rosecuted with 
 her for lier crimes;* he usually sues with her on her 
 contracts,* and for injuries to her,^ in fact he is com- 
 monly joined vrith her in all her suits.^ He is also lia- 
 ble alone as hiisband for her wrongs done in his 
 presence ; " and has a right to sue alone for any in- 
 fringement of his conjugal rights^ to her services, 
 society, alfection, and lidelity : hence arise rights of 
 action against one who injures his wife,^ or entices her
 
 107 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AXl) OBLIGATIONS. § 77 
 
 or harbors her away from hiin,'" or has sexual inter- 
 course with lier." 
 
 1 Heard v. Stamford, 3 P. Wms. 407, 412 ; ante, § 67. 
 
 2 Ferguson v. Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 252 ; ante, ? G6. 
 
 3 Goldstine v. People, 82 X. Y. 231, 233 ; mite, I G8. 
 
 4 Titus V. Ash, 24 X. H. :i28 ; j^nst, ?? 176, 183. 
 
 5 Craddock v. Goodwin, .54 Tex. .>S1 ; post, ? 176. 
 
 6 Hawes Parties, J 63 : post, §§ 432, 43;J. 
 
 7 Ball V. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 428 ; anU, fj 66, 68. 
 
 8 Ante, ?? .58, 53, 60, 62, 65. 
 
 9 Pollard r. X. .1. 101 V. S. 223, 244 ; post, \ 77. 
 
 10 Burnett v. Burkhead, 21 Ark. 77, 79 ; post, ? 78. 
 
 11 Norton v. Warner, 9 Conn. 172, 174|; post, \ 79. 
 
 g 77. Suits for wrongs to spouse. — 1. Except under 
 some such statute as a civil damage act,' a wife has no 
 right of action for injuries to her liusband,^ thougli she 
 has perliaps a right of action against one who entices 
 him away.* But out of an injury to a wife may arise 
 two actions in favor of her husband* — one in tlie right 
 of tlie wife* in which tlie husband and wife sue jointly 
 for the direct injuries to her,^ the other in the right of 
 the husband in which the husband sues alone for con- 
 sequential damages to liimself.' Thus, Mhere through 
 the neglect of a city a wife was much injured in body 
 she and her husband brought one suit for lier suffering, 
 etc., and recovered,* and then her husband brought 
 another suit for his expenses arising from her illness, 
 his loss of her society and services, and his OAvn loss of 
 time, and also recovered." Since these suits are in dif- 
 ferent rights'" they cannot be joined,'' thougli amis- 
 joinder is cured by verdict.'^ The former abates on 
 the deatli of the wife,'^ survives to her,'* and belongs 
 to her after absolute divorce ;'* the latter is not affected 
 by divorce,'* or by the death of the wife,'^ but abates 
 on the death of tlie husband,"* except where the right 
 to sue in the former action is by statute given to the
 
 § 77 COXJUaAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 108 
 
 Avife alone, 18 the husband may discharge it,2o controls 
 the suit,^' and owns the damages.^ Recoverj' in one 
 suit is conclusive {res adjudicata) as to tlie right to 
 recover in the other,^ but no damages can be allowed 
 in the one wlii';h are allowable in the other : thus, in 
 the joint suit no recovery can be had for special dam- 
 age to the husband'-'* or for loss of services which were 
 the husband's,"' and in the sole suit no recovery can be 
 liad for the pain and suflfering of the wife'* or for 
 expenditures which she inade;^' and when punitive 
 damages have been allowed in one suit this should be 
 considered in estimating the damages in the other.^s In 
 the liusband's suit lie recovers, except in cases of mal- 
 ice, ■'' and actions for crim. con.,^'^ only actual damages ^^ 
 for his loss of the services and society of his wife,^'^ the 
 expenses to him naturally resulting from the injury to 
 her,*3 the cost of the necessary employment of extra 
 help,^* and the loss of his own time;*^ but nothing for 
 liis distress of mind caused bj'^ her suffering, »•' and 
 nothing for her death,*' except by statute,** but only 
 for his loss up to the time of her death.*" The fact that 
 the parties were at the time of the injury living apart 
 goes only in mitigation of damages.*" 
 
 2. As to particular suits : For slander of the wife, 
 luisband and wife sue jointly, if the words are action- 
 able per se;*^ but the husband alone if they are not,** 
 iuid always for any special damage ; ** but the fact that 
 words not slanderous per se made the wife ill, gives no 
 one a right of action.** Husband may sue alone for 
 careless transportation of his wife for which he paid,*^ 
 and jointly with her for failure to transport her.** He 
 may alone sue a druggist for secretly selling his wife 
 laudanum to his damage.*' Separate consideration is 
 given to a husband's suits for enticement *8 and ci*imi- 
 nal conversation.*^
 
 109 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. § 77 
 
 For an injury to the wife before marriage husband 
 and wife sue jointly,^" and the damages, if recovered 
 during coverture, go to tlie husband.^' 
 
 1. P04<, ?.S0. 
 
 2 See Carey v. Berkshire, 1 CiisU. 4'o, 478; Logan, 77 Iiul. 538; 
 Woods t). Coeuan, 44 Iowa, rj. , , ^ j^, 
 
 3 Post, § 78. • ■ , 
 
 4 Brockbank t. Whitehaven, 7 H»rl. <fe N.* 8Sir838f Huiftter'r. 
 Ogdeii, ai Up. C;a», Q. B. Vf2, 140; Pxillafd .;■. N..J. 101 U. S. 223, 244 ; 
 yiiller %K Naugatank, 21 C:onn. 557, 571; Ruder r. Plirdv, 41 Ill.'279. • 
 287; Long t'. Morrison, l-i Jiid. 5!i5. 5y6;. AJtdeMon, 11, Bush, 327, 3:» ; 
 Hooper v. Haskell, 5fi Me. 251, 2.5:*; Laugbliii r: £atoii, 54 >K'. 15fi, 
 159; Michigan v. Coleman, 28 .Mich. 440, 442; Smitii r. St. JosepJ>, 55 
 Mo. 4.T6, 458; 17 Am. Rep. 660; Klein r. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474, 480: 
 Lewis i>. Baboock, 18 Jolins. 443, 444; Crump v. MeKav, 8 Jones, :{2, 
 33 ; Whitcomb v. Barre, 47 Vt. I4S, 151 ; Lindsey v. Danville, 46 Vt. 144, 
 148 ; Wheeling v. Trowbridge, 5 W. Va. '.ib^i, 354 ; Meese v. Fonddu Lac, ■ 
 48 Wis. 323, 328. 
 
 5 Ruder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 287 ; Michigan v. Colemau, 28 Mich. 
 440, 442. 
 
 6 Langhlin ?'. Eaton, .M Me. 1.5fi. 158 ; Saltmarsh v. Cardin, 51 N. H, 
 71, 73 ; post, Sl'its ok Makkied Womkn. 
 
 7 See Baker r. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493; Cross v. Guthery, 2' Root, 
 90,92; 1 Am. Dec. 61 ; Fuller v. Naugatank, 21 Conn. 5.57, 571 ; Ruder 
 V. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 2S7; Roger? r. Smith, 17 Ind. 323; Long v. Mor- 
 rison, 14 Ind. 595, 596: McKiniiey v. Western. 4 Iowa, 420 ; Tuttie (i. • 
 Chicago, 42 Iowa, 518, 521 ;. Neumeister v. Dubuque, 47 Iowa, 465; 
 Mewhirter v. Halten, 42 Iowa, 288,289; Mowry v. Chenev, 43 Iowa, 
 (JOT; Eden r. Lexington, 14 Mou. B. 204; Hooper v. Haskell, 5fi Me. 
 251,2.52; Barnes ?'. Hurd, 11 Mass. 69; Ffllebrown v. Hoar, 124 Ma,ss. 
 580, 585; Berger v. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215 ; Hvatt r. Adams, 16 Mich. ISO, 
 im, 196; Smith v. St. Joseph, ,55 Mo. 4.'.6, 4.5S, 459 ; 17 Am. Rep. 060; 
 Beach v. Rannev, 2 Hill, 309, 316; Hoard v. Peck, 56 Barb. 202, 206; 
 Filer v. N. Y. 49 N. V. 47 ; 10 Am. Rep. :i27 ; Wattson v. N. V. .35 N. Y. 
 487; Phillippi i'. Woeff, 14 Abb. 87 : N. S. 196; Crump v. McKay, 8 
 ■Jones, 32, 'M ; Lindsev i<. Danville, 46 Vt. 144, 147 ; Meese v. Fonddu Lac, 
 48 Wis. .323, .328 ; Kavanaugh v. Janesville. 24 Wis. 618, 621 ; Barnes v. 
 Martin, 15 Wis. 240 ; Hunt v. Winfield, 36 \Vi.s. 154 ; 17 Am. Itep. 482. 
 
 8 Smith t'. St. Joseph, 4S Mo. 449. 
 
 9 Smith V. St. Joseph, 55 Mo. 456 ; 17 Am. Rep. 660. 
 
 10 Ruder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 287. 
 
 11 Brockbank v. Whitehaven, 7 Hurl. & N. 8.34,8.38; Fullerv. Nau- 
 gatank, 21 Conn. 557, .571 ; Lewis v. Babcock, 18 Johns. 443, 444. , . 
 
 12 Lewis V. Babcock, 18 Johns. 443, 444. 
 
 13 Nocross V. Stuart, .50 Me. 87, 89 ; Saltmarsh v. Cardin, .5; -N. H. 
 71, 72 ; .Stroop ?>. Swartz. 12 Serg. & R. 76. Except by statute : Gdrrison 
 V. Burden, 40 Ala. .573 ; Ea:rl v. Pupper, 45 Vt. 27.5, 28:1 
 
 14 Fowler v. Frisbee, 3 Conn. 320, 324 ; Stew'art M. <fe D. ? 465. ' 
 
 15 Chase, 6 Gray, 157, 159 ; Gibson, 46 WiSi 449, .458 ;■ Stewart! M. & 
 D. 5 448. 
 
 16 See Dickeman v. Graves, 6 Cush. 308, 309; Stewart M.. <& D, 
 ? 448 ; post, il'X 
 
 H. & W. — ID.
 
 g 77 CONJUGAL KIGHTS AND OBIilGATIONS. 110 
 
 17 Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. Ifi6, 180, 193. Full discussion : See 
 Cross V. Guthrey, 2 Koot, UO, 92 ; Long v. Morrison, 14 Iiid. 5;i5, 596. 
 
 18 Wood V. Matthews, 47 Iowa, 409, 410 ; Ratcliff v. Wales, 1 Hill, 
 63. Kxcept by statute : Cregin v. Brooiclyn, 56 How. Pr. 32, 465. 
 
 19 Michigan v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440, 442. 
 
 20 Long ?>. Morrison, 14 Ind. .59.5, 597 ; Anderson, 11 Bush, 327, 330 : 
 Ballard u. Ru.ssell, :« Me. 196, 197 ; Southworth r. Packard, 7 Mass. 9c, 
 96; Shattuck v. Cli'ton, 22 Wis. 142. 
 
 21 Cases siipi-a, n. 20 ; Coolidge v. Parris, 8 Ohio St. 594, 597. 
 
 22 Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 26 ; see Ruder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 287. 
 
 23 Lindsey v. Di^nvfUe, 46 Vt. 144, 147. . 
 
 24 AVTieeling*. Trowbridge, 5 W.-Va.'a53, 3.54 : supra, n. 7. 
 
 25 Mewhirter v. Halten,42 Iowa, 288. 2S9, 291 ; 20 Am. Rep. 618; 
 Tattle V. Chicago, 42 Iowa, 518, 521 ; ante, i 65. 
 
 26 Hunter v. Ogden, 31 Up. Can. Q. B. 132, 140 ; King v. Thompson, 
 87 Pa. St. 365, .368 ; 30 Am. Rep. .J64 : supra, Jiotes,^, 5, 6. 
 
 27 Walden v. Clark, 50 Vt. 383, :«5. 
 
 28 Ruder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 287. 
 
 29 See Ruder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279, 287 ; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mtcb. 
 180, 199. 
 
 30 Post, i 79. 
 
 31 Hyatt t>. Adam.s, 16 Mich. 180, 199. 
 
 32 Mewhirter )•. Halten, 42 Iowa, 288, 28") : 20 Am. Rep. 618 ; Hyatt 
 V. Adams, 16 Mich. 180, 199 ; Whitcomb v. Barre, '^ Vt. 148. 152 ; Lind- 
 sey V. Danville, 46 Vt. 144, 148 ; Kavanaugh ?'. .lanesville. 24 Wl.s. 618, 
 621 ; supi-a, n 7. He is eutitled to them ni spite of modern statutes : 
 Ante, J a5. 
 
 33 Smith v. St. Joseph, 55 Mo. 456, 450 ; 17 Am. Rep. 660 ; Lindsey v. 
 Danville, 46 Vt. 144, 150. 
 
 34 Lindsey v. Danville, 46 Vt 144, 149. 
 
 35 Smith v. St. Joseph, 55 Mo. 456, 459 ; 17 Am. Rep. 660 ; LIndsey-v,- 
 DanvUle, 46 Vt. 144, 150. 
 
 36 Filiebrown v. Hoar, 124 Mass. 580, .585 ; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 
 180, 198. 
 
 37 Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180, 18-5. See Baker v. Bolton, 1 Camp. 
 493; Carey V. Berkshire, 1 Cush. 475, 478 ; Neilson v. Brown, 13 R. I. 
 651; 43 Am. Rep. 58. 
 
 38 Stewart M. & D. ? 472. See also cases post, ? 80. 
 
 39 Long V. Morrison, 14 Ind. 595, 596 ; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180, 
 193, 196. 
 
 40 Ballard v. Russell, 33 Me. 196, 117; Laughlin v. Eaton, &1 Me. 
 136, 159. 
 
 41 Dengate v. Gardiner, 4 Mees. & W. 6, 7 ; Smalley v. Anderson, 2 
 Mon. B.- 56, 57; Newcomer v. Kean, 57 Md. 121, 122, 125 ; Beach v. 
 Ranney, 2 Hill, :)09, 316. • See Davies v. Solomon, Law R. 7 Q. B. 112, 
 114. 
 
 42 Dengate v. Gardiner, 4 Mees. & W. 6, 7 ; Beach r;. Ranney, 2 Hill, 
 309, 316. 
 
 43 Savillev. Sweeney, 4 Barn. <ft Adol. 514, 522 ; AIlsop, 2 Law T. 
 N. 8. 290, 291 ; Tbrogmorton v. Davis, 2 Blackf. 383, 384,
 
 Ill CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. § 78 
 
 44 Allsop, 2 Law T. N. S. 290 ; Shafer v. Ahalt, 4S Md. 171, 174 ; Wil- 
 son V. Goit, 17 N. Y. 442, 444 ; Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 N. Y. 54. 
 
 45 Crump v. McKay, 8 Jones, 32, 34. 
 
 46 Pollard v. N. J. 101 U. S. 223, 244 ; Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 
 17, 39. 
 
 47 Herd V. Peck, 56 Barb. 292, 206. 
 
 48 rnst, i 78. 
 43 Post, I 79. 
 
 50 Hay v. Rogers, 4 Mori. 235, 226. S^e Kimbro A First, I'McAr. 
 R5 ; Bell v. Allen, 53 Ala, 125 : Weagle v. Hensley. 5 Marsh. J. J. 378 ; 
 Fightmaster v. Beaslev, 1 Marsh. J. J. eofi ; Bratton v. Mitchell, 7 
 Watts, 115; Armstrong v. .Simartou, 2 Murph. 202; Gibson, 43 Wis. 
 34 ; poM, I 183. 
 
 51 Post, I 183. 
 
 ? 78. Suits for enticement or hartoriag. — 1. A hus- 
 band is entitled to liis wife's society, ' as well as her 
 services,^ and again.st any one who by abducting her,' 
 or inducing her to leave him,^ or keeping Iter separate 
 from liim,* deprives liiin of her society and services, he 
 lias a right of action.^ One, whether a parent^ or a 
 .stranger,^ is liable to the husband for separating his 
 wife from him, .so long as such parent or .stranger is 
 the moving cause of tlie separation ;8 if the wife has a 
 ground for divorce against her husband, andaotrauger 
 being consulted by ho;*^ or a parent," advises her to 
 leave him and get a divorce, and acting on such advice 
 she does so, tlie husband has no right of action, but it 
 is otherwise if a stranger, of his own accord, thus 
 brings about a divorce.''' And parents are justified in 
 opening their daughter's eyes to the bad character of 
 her husband if they use no misrepresentation or phy- 
 sical or moral force to keep her from him, though they 
 thus cause a final separation between them.'' Harbor- 
 ing a wife may be justifiable wlien causing a sepai-atiou 
 would not be;'* it is always so if the husband has for- 
 feited his right of coliabitation.'^ Not only a parent '^ or 
 child," but a stranger'* may give shelter to a wife who 
 has left her husband, but the motives of such harborer
 
 I 1% CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 112 
 
 are important, and must not be to separate husband 
 and wife ; '^ those of a parent are presumed good.'^" And 
 when in addition to giving shelter there is concealment 
 of tlie wife,'^i or denial of access to the husband,-^ or 
 inducement of tlie wife not to return to her husband, ■'^ 
 the harborer is liable. Still the husband must, in the 
 case 6f mere detainer, show demand and refusal.^* In 
 other respects the right of action is very similar tohit^', 
 right of action for criminal conversation.'^ 
 
 2. A wife is entitled to the society of her husband,'* 
 and when she may sue A\'ithout her husband for injuries 
 to her,'^ she may sue one who separates her husband 
 from her.^ 
 
 3. The damages awarded in this action should covei 
 the value to the plaintiff® of the spouse wliose society 
 has been lost,*" as well as actual pecuniary less, if any.*' 
 
 1 ArUe, ii 5<l, 62. 
 
 2 A7ite, i G5. 
 
 3 See White v. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 176. 
 
 4 Barnes V.Allen, TO Barb. G6;t,fi&S; 1 Keyes, 390; 1 Abb. A pp. Doc. 
 Ill, 115. 116. 
 
 5 "Barbee r. Armstead, 10 Ired. .i:«), 5:« ; 51Am. Dec. 401. 
 
 6 Pliiip V. Sqiiii(», 1 Peake, 115 ; Henthon t. C'artwright, 2 Rsp. 4S0 r 
 Winsmore r. (ireeiibuck, Willcs, 577, 5S1 ; Burnett i-. Bnrkheud, '-' 
 Arij. 77, 7!); Wood r. Matthews, 47 Iowa, 40!t, 410; Hadlev r. Hev- 
 wood, 121 Mass. 2:56, 2:«i: 'riinier v. tilstes, 3 Mass. 317,318'; White V. 
 Ross, 47 :Miph. 172. 176 ; Modisett v. McPike, 74 .Mo. 636, 647 ; Barnes v. 
 .\llpn, m Barb. 663, 66S ; 1 Keyes, 3<K) ; 1 Abb. App. Dec. Ill, 115. 116; 
 Schoeivnian r. Palmer, 4 Barb. 22.'), 226, 227; Bennett v. Smith. 21 
 Barb. Hi. 441 ; Hiitoheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. 196. 205; Smith r. I.vke, 
 20 N. Y. Supr. 204,205 ; Barbee v. Armstead, 10 Ired. ,5.30, ,5'« ; 51 Am. 
 Dec. 404 ; Friend v. Thompson, Wright, 6.36, 6.^s; Rabe v. Hanna, 5 
 Oliio, 530, .531 ; Payne v. Williams, 4 Ba.xt. 5H3, .5S.5. Consult eases bo*<, 
 { 79. But see Neilson v. Brown, 13 R. I. 6.51 ; 43 Am. llep. 53. 
 
 7 Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. 196, 202, 201. 
 
 8 Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. 439, 441. 
 
 9 Hartley v. Heywood, 121 JIass. 236, 239 ; svpra, n. 6. 
 
 10 Modisett v. JlcPike, 74 >Io. 636, 646. 
 
 11 White V. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 176 ; Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. 6.36, 
 517.., 
 
 12 Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. a36, 046, 617. 
 
 13 White V. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 17 
 45 ; Payne v. Williams, 4 Baxt. 583 
 
 14 Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 66.3, ( 
 
 13 White V. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 176 ; Bennett i'. Smitl\, 21 Barb. 439, 
 445 ; Payne v. Williams, 4 Baxt. 583, .585.
 
 113 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. g 79 
 
 lo Borthon r. Cirtwri^ht, 2 Esp. 480; Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. 663, 
 6RS ; 1 Abh. App. IJcc. Ill, 116. 
 
 16 Burnett )■. Biirkhead, 21 Ark. 77, 73; Frieiul r. Thompson, 
 Wright, 636, 63S ; Rabe »'. llanna, o Ohio, SW, 531. 
 
 17 Turner v. Estes, 3Ma.ss. 317, 318. 
 
 18 Philp V. Squire, 1 Peake, 115; HutcheSon v. Peck, 5 Johns. 196, 
 201. 
 
 19 Hntcheson i'. Peck, 5 Johns. 196, 205 ; Barnes v. Allen, 1 Abb. 
 App. Dec. Ill, lis ; Friend v. Thompson, Wright, 6:i6, 638 ; cases »ui>ra, 
 n. 6. 
 
 20 Burnett r. Burkhead, 21 Ark. 77, 79; Hntcheson i'. Peck, 5 
 Johns, lilfi, 210 ; Rabe >\ Hanna, 5 Ohio, »», 531. See White v. Ro.ss, 47 
 Mich. 172, 176. 
 
 21 Turner t\ Estes, 3 Ma.ss. 317, 318. 
 
 22 See Barbee i'. Armstcad, 10 Ired. 530. 5^T ; ."1 .\m. Dec. 404. 
 
 23 See Winsmore i'. Greenbank, Willes, .580; Bennett v. Smith, 21 
 Barb. 4:Kt, 442. 
 
 24 See Win.smore r. Greenbank, Willes, 577, 581 ; Barbee v. Arm- 
 stead, 10 Ired. 5:», .53;j; 51 Am. Dec. 404. 
 
 2,T P(i«ty i 79. See Perry ?). Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529. 
 
 25 Lynch x\ Knight, 9 H. L. Ca.s. 577, .58.) ; anif, ? 59. 
 
 27 Van Arn.-im v. Ayers, 67 Barb. .544, 548 ; post, { 
 
 28 See Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. L. C'as. .577, .5.S0 ; Davies v. Solomon 
 Law H. 7 Q. B. 112, 114 ; Van Arnani v. Ayers, 67 Barb. 544, .548 ; Brei- 
 nian v. Paasch, 7 Ahh. N. C. 249, 252 ; Clark v. Harlan, 1 Cin. 418, 4'22 : 
 Westlake, :w Ohio St. 621, 6is ; ;n Am. Kep. 397 ; 19 Abb. L. J. 4!M : 8 
 CeiiU L. J. 47;j. 
 
 29 Payne v. Williams, 4 Baxt. .583, 5Sfi ; jwit, I 79. 
 
 30 Cowing, 33 Law J. Prob. 149, 150 ; Ferguson v. Smetbers, 70 Ind. 
 .5111, .521 ; ;i6 Am. Rep. 186 ; Payue v. WUUams, 4 Baxt. 583, 586 ; wos^ 
 « 70. 
 
 31 Ante, i 78 ; post, f 79. 
 
 ? 79. Suits for criminal conversation. — A husband has 
 besides his riitht to his wife's .society i and services,- 
 the exclusive right of sexual intercourse with her,=' a 
 right on the preservation of which depends the honor 
 and comfort of his home, and the certainty that her 
 oflFspring are his children,* and he has a right of action 
 against any one who commits adultery with her.^ 
 
 1. The action is either trespass or cass;6but under 
 statute it may form a part of a divorce suit for adultery, 
 the complaining husband making his wife's paramour 
 correspondent with her and asking for damages from 
 him.' It is in the nature of a personal suit,^ and diH.=»
 
 g 79 CONJUGAL KIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 114 
 
 with the hufiband,'' but it is not affected b\' divorce,'" 
 or by the death of tlie wife." The gist of the action is 
 tlie adultery or criminal conversation, '^ and the right 
 depends on tlie existence of an actual marriage between 
 the plaintifT and tlie woman at tlie time of the adul- 
 tery.'* 
 
 2. The declaration should allege tlie marriage,'^ and 
 the adultery ; '* but the latter need not be so specitica.lly 
 alleged '•■as in divorce cases;'' counts for loss of ser- 
 vices,'8 and for loss of society'" may be joined, but 
 proof of neither is necessary to support the suit.-*" The 
 sole defense seems to be that the plaintiff consented to 
 his wife's adultery with the defendant,'^' or consented 
 to her living jis a prostitute ''■' — it is no defense that the 
 plaintiff was living apart from his wife before the 
 adultery complained of.^ or continued living with lier 
 thereafter,-* and aftei he knew of it;* or that Jiis wife 
 was unchaste'^ before^' or after''* her marriage with 
 him ; or that he was unchaste;''® or that he treated her 
 badly,*" or was simply careless of her mode of life ; =" or 
 that she readily («nsented to commit the adulterj-,"' 
 though all those facts maj' be proved without allega- 
 tion in mitigation of damages.** Nor is it a defense 
 that the adultery was a crime — rape.*^ 
 
 3. Strict proof of marriage is required ; »^ adultery is 
 proved as in divorce cases.*" Confessions of the wife 
 are not evidence against,*' or her declarations evidence 
 for,*8 the defendant, unless the}' are a part of the i-es 
 (jesta;;^ but the defendant's cxinfessions are evidence.^*' 
 The wife cannot generally testify at all.*' 
 
 4. The damages allowed in suits for criminal conver- 
 sation are jienal rather than compensatory,''- for the 
 plaintiff is entitled to substantial damages though he 
 prove no resulting expense or loss of society or ser- 
 vices.** They are often exemplary,** and courts will
 
 115 CONJUGAI. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. § 79 
 
 rarely set aside a verdict for excess.^^ The jurj^ con- 
 siders the value of tlie wife/* her previous want of 
 chastity/^ her easy fail/** and liow far it was caused by 
 the plaintiff's disregard of his marriage obligations ; ^* 
 the extent of tlie plaintiff's loss,*" how much he saw of 
 her,*' and cared for her : »•* the shock to his feelings,** 
 the dishonor of his bed,*' the doubts cast on the pedi- 
 gree of his children,** the loss of his A\ife's comfort 
 and assistance, *'• her resulting unfitness for domestic 
 duties;*' the defendant's conduct, whether sudden or 
 deliberate;** the defendant's wealth, if he used it to 
 seduce tlie wifa,*" to enhance damages,*" but not his 
 poverty to diminish them."* The jurj' cannot consider 
 the injury to the honor, reputation, and happiness of 
 the plaintiff's /a^rtti^."^ 
 
 1 Aiitf, ii 5.), G:, 78. 
 
 2 Ante, H Go, 77. 
 
 3 Ante, J 59. 
 
 4 YuiKlt V. Hartranft, 41 111. 9, 17. 
 
 6 Cowing, 33 Law J. Prob. 149, 150 ; Colcraft v. Harborough, 4 Car. 
 A P. 49.1,501 ; Winter v. Henn, 4 Car. & P. 4!M, 498; Wilton v. Web- 
 ster, 7 Car. <fe P. 198 ; Duberly v. UtinninK, 4 Term, 657 ; Chamberlain 
 V. Hazlewooil, 6 Mees. & W. 515, 517; Davenport v. Russell, 5 Day, 
 145, 149 ; Norton v. Warner, 9 Conn. 172, 174 ; Cook v. Wood, W Ga. 891, 
 893; Peters r. Lake, 66 111. 2(i6; 16 Am. Kep. 5!t:t; Rea v. Tucker, 51 
 III. 110, 111 ; Ynncit v. Hartranft, 41 III. 9. 12 ; Van Varhter v. McKil- 
 lip, 7 HIaekf. 5.S9 ; McVey v. Blair, 7 Did. .5!M), .592 ; Dallas %k Sellers, 17 
 Ind. 479, 4S0 ; Harrison r. Price, 22 Did. 165, IfiG ; Underwood r. Linton, 
 bi Did. 468, 4r.;); Coleman v. White, 59 Ind. 548, 551; Ferguson v. 
 Smethers, 70 Did. 519, .V21 ; 30 Am. Rep. ISfi ; Verholf v. Van Houwen- 
 lengen,21 Iowa, 42!i. 432 ; .Stunim v. Hummel, 39 Iowa, 478, 480 ; Coii- 
 wavi'. Nicoll.IH Iowa, .533, 5;«!; Dunee c. MeBi i'le, 43 Iowa, 624, 629 ; 
 Wood V. Matthews, 47 Iowa, 409,411 ; KiUby r. Kucker, 1 Marsh. A. K. 
 .391 ; Palmer v. Crook, 7 Gray, 4IS ; Diekcriiian v. Graves, 6 Cush. 308 ; 
 63 Am. Dec. 41 ; Pierce, 3 Pick. 2'i9 ; l.> .\ m. Dec. 210 ; Hadley v. Hey- 
 wood, 121 Mass. 236, 239 ; Hutchins )•. Kiiiimell, 31 Mich. 126; 18 Am. 
 Rep. 164 ; Johnston r. Disbrow, 47 Mich. .59 ; Egbert i\ Greenwalt, 44 
 Mich. 245, 247 ; 38 Am. Rep. 260; .Sanborn v. Neilson, 4 N. H. 501, 510 ; 
 Foulks V. Archer, :n N. J. L. .58,60 ; Harter v. (rill, .33 Barb. 2.83. 285; 
 Ratcliflf 1'. Wales, I Hill, 63 ; Bunnell v. Grenthead, 49 Barb. 106, 107 ; 
 Traill V. Boyer, 24 Barb. 614 ; Preston ?•. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. 1, 12 ; 
 Sherwood r. Titman, .5-5 Pa. St. 77, 79 ; Fry v. Derstler, 2 Yeates, 278, 
 279 ; Forney v. Hallacher, H Serg. & R. 1.59, 160 ; I Am. Dec. 590 ; Torre 
 V. Summers, 2 Xott <fc McC. 267, 271 ; Blunt v. Little, 3 Mason, 102, 106 ; 
 Shattuck V. Hammond, 46 Vt. 466, 469 ; 14 Am. Rep. 631. 
 
 6 Chamberlain v. Ilazlewood, 5 Mees. & W. 515, 517; Yundt ''. 
 Hartranft, 41 111.9,17; Van Vachter v. McKillip, 7 Blaekf. 678, 580 ; 
 15 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 449.
 
 §79 
 
 CONJUGAL. EIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 116 
 
 7 Spe Conrarti, L. R. 1 Pro. & T). fi.3 ; 35 Law J. M. C. 49 ; West, Law 
 R. 2 Pro. & D. liW ; -40 L. J. M. V. 11 ; Underhill Torts, r\ile 32. 
 
 8 Garrison v. Burden, -10 Ala. 5i:j. 
 
 9 Vumlt )'. Hartranft, -II 111. 912. 
 
 10 Michel )•. Dunkle,84 Iiifl. ^4 : 43'Am. RsT). lOto ; Wood %<. Mat- 
 thews, 47 Iowa, 40J, 4il ; Dickermaii v. Graves, G C'ush. 30S ; Ratclilf v. 
 Waies, 1 Hill, G;i. 
 
 11 Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 III. 9, 12. 
 
 12 Wood V. Mat.Uews, 47 Iowa, 409, 410. See Wilton v. Webster, 7 
 Car. & P. 198. 
 
 13 Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr, 20.57, 2050; Birt v. Barlow, Dong. 171, 
 174 : Kihhv v. Riicker, 1 Marsh. A. K. -Wl ; Hntchins v. Ivinimell, 31 
 Mich. r.'U; 18 Am. Rep. Ib4 ; Dan v. Kingdom, 1 Thomp. & C. 492; 
 i'orney v. Hallacher, 8 Serg. & R. 1.59, 160. 
 
 14 Hauck V. Grantham, 22 Ind. 53. 
 
 15 See Stumm v. Hummel, .39 Iowa, 478, 480. 
 
 16 See 15 .\m. Law Reg. N. S. 449. 
 
 17 Stewart M. & D. i 244. 
 
 18 See Yundt v. Hartrauft, 41 111. 9, 18 ; ante, { 77. 
 
 19 Ante, 5 78. 
 
 20 Wilton r. Webster, 7 Car. & P. 198 ; Ynndt v. Tlartranft, 41 111. 
 9, 17 ; Bigaouette v. Paulet, VH Ma.ss. 123 ; 45 Am. Rep. 307. 
 
 21 Duberly v. Gunning, 4 Term, 651,6.52 ; Norton r. Warner, 9 Conn. 
 172, 174 ; .'Muinin v. Hummel, 3J Iowa, 478, 482 ; .Sanhorn r. Neilson, 4 
 N. H. 501, 511 ; Bunnell v. Greathead, 49 Barb. 106, 107; Sherwood v. 
 Titman, 65 I'a. St. 77, 80, 81. 
 
 22 Cook )■. Wood, .30 Ga. 891, 893 ; Sanborn v. Neilson, 4 N. H. 501, 
 610; Bunnell v. Greathead, 49 Barb. 106, 107. 
 
 23 Yundt v. Hartranft, 41 111. 10, 17 ; Michel r. Dunkle. .^ Ind. .544 : 
 43 Am. Rep. 100. But see Sherman v. Titman, 55 Pa. .St. 77, 79 ; Fry v. 
 i)erstler, 2 Yeates, 278, 279. 
 
 24 Wilton V. Webster, 7 Car. & P. 198 ; Stumm v. Hummel, AT 
 Iowa, 478, 483 ; infra, n. 2.5. 
 
 25 Vorholf V. Van Houwenlengen, 21 Iowa, 429, 4:C See Clauser r. 
 Clapper, -59 Ind. .548, .552 ; Stumm v. Hummel, 39 Iowa, 478,483; San- 
 born V. Neilson, 4 N. H. 501, .510. 
 
 26 Elsam r. F.iucett, 2 Esp. .562,563; Winter v. Henn, 4 Car. ife P. 
 414, 4!).s; Norton r. Warner, 9 Conn. 171, 174 ; Rea v. Tucker. 51 III. 110, 
 111 ; Clauser .". Clapper, .59 Ind. .548, 551 ; Ferguson v. Snictlicrs,70 Ind. 
 519, 521 ; 36 Am. Rep. 186; Conwav v. Nicoll, .54 Iowa, .513, 5:«i ; Harri- 
 son )'. l"rice, 22 Ind. 165, 168; .Sanborn v. NcilsDu, 4 N. H. .501, 510; 
 Foulks %'. A rcher, 31 X. J. L. .58. (K) ; (Sardiier v. Maderia, 2 Yeates, 466 ; 
 Torre i'. Summers, 2 Nott & McC. 267, 271 ; 10 .\m. Dec. 597, 
 
 27 Conway v. Nicoll, 34 Io\va, 5;{:J, .5.!6 ; supra, n. 26. 
 
 28 Winter r. Henn, 4 Car. & P. 494, 498 ; supra, n. 26. 
 
 29 Norton v. Warner, 9 Conn. 172. 174 ; Rea r. Tucker. 51 111. 110, 
 111 ; Harrison v. Price, 22 Ind. 165, 166; Sanborn v. Neilson, 4 N. H. 
 501, .510 ; Shattock v. Hammond, 4t> Vt. 466, 469 ; 14 .\ m. Rep. 631. 
 
 30 Norton r. Warner, 9 Conn. 172, 174 ; Coleman v. White, 43 Ind, 
 429, 430 ; Palmer )\ Crook, 7 (Jray, 418. 
 
 .31 Puberly v. Gunning, 4 Term, 657 ; .Tones v. Sparrow, 5 Term, 2.57 ; 
 Winter v. Jl'enn, 4 Car. & P. 494, 499 ; Colcraft r. Harborongh, 4 Car.
 
 117 CONJUGAL RIOIITS AND OCLIGATIOXS. J 73 
 
 <t P. 409, 5D1 : niunt ?'. Littlp, :{ Mason. 102. 10.!; Van Vachter v. Mc- 
 Killip, 7 Bhickf. .-►■*.), r,M ; Pierc.', :i Pick. 2<.r.) ; l."> Am. Dec. 'im ; Sanboin 
 V. Neiison, 4 N. H. .iOl, .510. 
 
 XL PJisani v. Fancett, 2 Esp. 362 ; Ferguson v. SniPthers. 70 [ii'I. .">] '. 
 .'^21 : .ifi Am. Rpp. 186; Big.iouette v. Panlet, IM Mass. 12.i; -l.j Am. 
 Kep. :«J7. • 
 
 Xi See cases cited suprn, notes 2'!— "S ; Harrison v. Price, 22 Ind. Ifi.!, 
 Ifii; : Verholf v. Van Hoinvenlengen, 21 Iowa, 4.'!), 4.i:i ; infra, notes 
 47-fil. 
 
 .a Egbert v. Green wait, 44 Mich. 24.5, 247 ; 38 Am. Rep. 2G0. 
 
 35 Stewart M. & D. J 1:5.5 ; .?i(;;m, n. 13. 
 
 .% Stewart M. <fe D^ i'e 24.5-247, Mi-:m. 
 
 .37 McVey V. Blair, 7 Ind. 590, o'Jl ; Underwood r. Linton, 54 Ind. 
 4G.S, 40!). 
 
 :JS Harris 1'. Rnpel, 14 Ind. 209. 
 
 3'> See Bennett r. Smith, 21 Barb. 4.39,446 ; Barnes v. Allen, 1 Abb. 
 App. Dec. 111. IKi; Preston r. Bowers, ISOIiioSt. 1, 12. 
 
 40 Si.nborn v. Neilsou. 4 X. II. .501, 50S. 
 
 41 Ante, ? 50. 
 
 42 Ynndt w Hartranft, 41 III. 9, is tho leading case. 
 
 43 Vundt r. Ilartrarft, 41 111. !l. 12, 13, 17; Stiimm v. Ilummel, .39 
 Iowa, 478, 4S0 ; Wilton r. Webster, 7 Car. & P. 198. 
 
 44 Peters v. Laive. fif. 111. 20(! ; IS Am. Rep. .59.3. 
 
 45 Duberlv >'. GuiiTiiiig, 4 Term, 0.51, fi.5o, fvifi ; .lohnston )'. Disbrow, 
 47 Mich. 59 ; Torre r. Simimers, 2 Nott & McC. 207, 271 ; 10 Am. Dec. 597. 
 
 46 2 Sedg. Dam. 517, note ; Cowing, .^3 Law J. Prob. 149, l.V) ; Winter 
 V. Henn,4 Car. & i'. 4!I4, 498; Ferguson i'. Smethers, 70 Ind. 519, 620, 
 521 ; :«! .\m. Rep. 180. 
 
 47 Conway v. Nicoll, .34 Iowa, .533, 536 ; xitprn, notes 26, 27, 28. 
 
 48 Ferguson v. .Smethers, 7u Ind. 519, .521 ; 3G Am. Rep. 156. 
 
 49 Coleman v. White. 43 Ind. 429, 430 ; suprn, notes .30, 31. 
 
 50 Bromley v. Wallace, 4 Esp. 237,2.38. See Pavne v. Williams, 4 
 Ba.xt. 583, 586. 
 
 51 Colcraft t'. Harborongh, 4 Car. A P. 499, .501. But .see Dallas v 
 Sellers, 17 Ind. 479. 
 
 .52 Bromley v. Wallace, 4 Esp. 237, 2:i3 ; Harter v. Crill, :« Barb. 283, 
 28.5. 
 53 Johnston v. Disbrow, 47 Mich. .59. 
 
 •54 Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 III. 10, 12, 17 ; Wilton v. Webster, 7 Car. 
 & P. 198. 
 
 .5.5 Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 III. 10, 12, 17. 
 
 56 Y'undt v. Hartranft, 41 III. 10, 18. 
 
 57 Davenport v. Hu.ssell, 5 Day, 145, 149. 
 
 .58 Stumm v. Hummel, 39 Iowa, 478, 4S0. 
 
 .59 Cowing, 33 Law J. Prob. 149, 1.50 ; Wilson v. Leonard, 5 Ir. Ju'. 
 (O. S.) 1 Exch. 96. 
 
 60 Peters i'. Lake, 66 III. 206 ; Rea v. Tucker, 51 III. 110, HI. 
 
 61 James )'. Biddington, 6 Car. & P. .589. 
 
 62 Ferguson v. Smethers, 70 Ind. 510, 521 ; .36 Am. Rep. 186.
 
 II 80-81 CONJUGAL BIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. 118 
 
 g 80. Suits under civil damage acts. — In many States 
 there are statutes which give a right of action to any 
 one who is injured in person, property, or means of 
 .support 1 by the drunkenness of another, against the 
 liquor seller who supplies such other with drink ; and 
 under such statutes a husband has a riglit of action for 
 loss of the wife's services,^ and a wife for loss of the 
 husband's support,^ caused by intoxication, and may 
 recover actual* and in certain cases exemplary dam- 
 ages.* Such suits are unknown independently of 
 statute.^ 
 
 1 Kellerman v. Arnold, 71 111. 632 ; Jackson v. Noble, 54 Iowa, 641 ; 
 Moran v. (Joodwiii, \W Muss. loS ; 39 Am. Rep. 443 ; Mead r. Striitlon, 
 87 N. Y. 443 ; 41 Am. Rep. 386 ; Volaiis v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 5'.>6 ; 30 Am. 
 Rep. 337. 
 
 2 Welch V. Jugenheimer, 56 Iowa, 11 ; Moran v. Goodwin, 130 
 Mass. 15S ; 39 Am. Rep. 443. 
 
 3 Shroder v. Crawford, fM 111. .^57 ; Hall v. Barnes, 82 111. 22.8 ; Kel- 
 lerman V. Arnold, 71 111. 6;U; Neuerberg r. Gaultcr,4 III. .\pp. :{48 ; 
 Schafer v. Smith, 63 Ind. 226; Mitchell v. Rails, 57 lud. 2.V,t; Richmond 
 ti. Shickler, 57 Iowa, 486 ; Jackson i\ Noble, .54 Iowa, 641 ; Macleod v. 
 Geyer, 5:i Iowa, 615; Loan v. Hiney, 53 Iowa, 8'.» ; Wcilz i: Kwen, ,50 
 Iowa, .34 ; Werner v. Edmistoii, 24 Kan. 147 ; Gilmore v. Matthews, 67 
 Me. 517 ; Barrett v. Dolan, i:» Mass. :«i6; 39 Am. Rep. 4.56 ; Brooks v. 
 Cook, 44 Mich. 617; 38 Am. Rep. 282 ; Steele v. Thompson, 39 Mich. 
 733; 37 Mich. 25; Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 3(W ; 31 Am. Rep. 409; 
 Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493; 41 Am. Rep. :«6 ; Hill i-. Berrv, 75 
 N. Y. 225 ; Volans r. Owen, 74 N. Y. .526 ; 30 Am. Rep. 337 ; Davis v. 
 Standish, 26 Hun, 608 ; Beam v. Green, 33 Ohio St. 444. 
 
 4 Schafor v. Smith, 63 Ind. 226 ; Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304. 
 
 5 Kellerman 1'. Arnold, 71 111. 6.32; Weitz v. Ewen, 50 Iowa, 34; 
 Richmond r. Shickler, .57 Iowa 486; Steele !». Thompson, 42 Mich. 
 594 ; Davis v. Standish, 26 Hun, 608. 
 
 6 Woods 1'. Coenan, 44 Iowa, 19. 
 
 § 81. Suits for necessaries. — Suits against a husband 
 by a party wlio, at tlie request of the wife and on the 
 credit of the husband, lias furnished supplies or per- 
 formed services, are commonly called " suits for neces- 
 saries." They are of two kinds: (I) Those in which 
 the right of action is based on the wife's agency in law 
 to pledge her husband's credit for the support which he 
 owes 1 but denies — considered in Stewart on Marriage
 
 119 CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIOXS. § 81 
 
 and Divorce ;' (2) those in which the riglit of action is 
 based on the wife's agency in fact to make pjirciiases or 
 engage services for her Inisband's liouse and family — 
 considered liereafter under agency of wife for husband.^ 
 
 1 Ante, i M. 
 
 2 Stewart M. <fe D. 5 180. 
 
 3 I'oxt/ii^'^
 
 § 82 AGENCY BETWEEN. 120 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONJUGAIi AGENCY. 
 
 Art. I. Agency Between Husband and Wife in 
 GKNErfAL, gjj 82, 83. 
 II. AoEN("Y OF Husband for Wife, ?? S4-S8. 
 III. Agency of Wife for Husband, Jg 89-98. 
 
 Article I. — Agency Between Husband and Wife 
 IN General. 
 
 { 82. In law and in fact. 
 
 5 s:!. Division of the subject. 
 
 2 82. Agency botweon husband and wife in law and in 
 fact. — An aj;ent is a person whose act on bclialf of 
 another, called the principal, is duly authorized.' Such 
 authority may be derived from the law, and an agcncij 
 in law is thus created; or from tlie principal, in wliich 
 case an agency in fact is constituted.'' All a(!ts which 
 one spouse may do for tlie other because tliey are lius- 
 band and wife are done by virtue of an agency in law; 
 for all otlujr acts which one spouse may do for the 
 other tliere must exist such others prior mandate, con- 
 temporaneous assent, or subsequent ratification — an 
 F.gency in fact.* 
 
 1. In kiiv. A logical application of the common-law 
 fiction tliat husband and wife are one* would make all 
 tlic acts of one in law the acts of the other, but as the 
 wife's normal status is one of lost identity'* and legal 
 disability,^ iier acts are not legally acts at all, and bind 
 no one ; onh' when the husband's disregard of liis con- 
 jugal obligations renders her condition abnormal ha.s 
 she any authority in law to act for him — as when he 
 refuses to support her and she pledges his credit,^ or
 
 121 AGENCY BETWEEX. g 82 
 
 deserts her and she sells his chattels for her suste- 
 nance.8 On the other hand, the hiisl>and does at com- 
 mon law cover and stand in the place of his wife ;^ he 
 may, for example, release an antenuptial debt due to 
 her,'" or their joint right of action for a tort to her ; " 
 notice to him may be notice to her ;'2 and even such of 
 her property as does not pass to him absolutely is, 
 while he is her husband, within his possession and 
 control." Besides this common-law agency of the luis- 
 band, statutes in some States give him some authorit\' 
 to deal with his wife's separate propertj'^," as in Missis- 
 sippi, wliere he may buy supplies for his wife's planta- 
 tion for which she must pay.'^ 
 
 2. In fact. There is nothing in the marriage relation 
 to prevent one spouse from being agent for tlie other,'* 
 though the unitj^ of husband and wife may render 
 void a contract between them for compensation ; " and 
 therefore whatever a husband can do through any 
 agent he can do through his wife,'^ and a wife who 
 may act by agent at all may act by her husband as 
 her agent." In some States statutes prohibit, to some 
 extent, agency between husband and wife.'* 
 
 1 Ewell's Kvans Agency, p. 1. 
 
 2 See works on Agency, and cnsos cited infra. 
 
 3 McLaren )•. Hall. 2fi Iowa, 2'i7, :ior>: Antwooi v. Meredith, 37 
 Miss. 6:5.5, (HI ; Debenham v. Mellon, Law K. 5 Q. B. 3U4, 402. 
 
 4 Auie, ? ?«. 
 
 5 O'Ferrall r. Simplot, 4 Fowa, SSI, :tSO ; nnte, ? •'iS ; post, I 330. 
 
 6 Post. Stati-s ok- M.aurjkd Womkx, 5§ 331-3.39. 
 
 7 Stewart M. cfe D. ? 180; ante, 5? M, 81. 
 
 8 A hern v. Easterby, 42 Conn. .546, .S50 ; Stewart M. & D. U 174, 177 ; 
 post, i 'M. 
 
 9 Winehrinner v. Welsiger, 3 Mon. 32, 34 ; Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 
 N. H. U.H, 124; niUe.'i^S. 
 
 10 Mobley v. Leophart, 47 Ala. 257, 261 ; post, { 176. 
 
 11 Ballard v. Russell, ^% Me. 196, 197 ; 54 Am. Dec. 620 ; ante. ? 77. 
 
 12 Chew r. Henrietta, I McCrarv, 222, 226 ; White v. King, S3 
 Ala. 162, 167; Railroad v. BrooUs, Si 111. 293; Moore v. Wade, 8 Kan. 
 380 ; Jarden r. Pnmphrey, :56 Md. m\, :!64 ; Treadwell v. Hernden. 47 
 Miss. 46; Hess v. Cole, 23 X. J. L. 116; Leavitt v. Griger, 1 Paige, 
 
 H. & \V. -11.
 
 ^g 83-84 AGENCY OF HUSBAXD FOR WIFE. 122 
 
 42\, 422 ; McCullough v. Wilson, 21 Pa. St. 436, 441 ; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 
 Wis. 449 ; 19 Am. Rep. 772. 
 
 13 Post, U 141-183. 
 
 14 See Baker v. Flournov, 58 Ala. 650; Marke v. Cowles, SS Ala. 
 4'ii) ; Samplev v. Watson, 43 Ala. 377 ; O'Brien v. Foreman, 46 Cal. SO, 
 SI ; Lawrence v. .Sinnamon, 24 Iowa, 80 ; Holman v. Gillette, 24 Mich. 
 414; Clopton V. Mntheiiev, 4S Miss. 498; Cook v. Llgon, M Miss. 368, 
 373 ; Antwood v. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635, 641. 
 
 15 Cook V. Ligon, 54 Miss., 368, 373, 375. 
 
 16 Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 481, 492, 493. 
 
 17 Abbey r. Deyo, 44 Barb. 374, 3.S0 ; ante, ii 41-^3 ; post, ? 87. 
 
 18 McGregor v. Sibley. 69 Pju St. 388 ; post, U 89-98. 
 
 19 Wells I'. Smith, 54 Ga. 262, 263 ; post, U 84-88. 
 
 20 Sanford !'. Johnson, 24 Minn. 172, 173. 
 
 § 83. Agency between husband and wife — Subject di- 
 vided. — A husband's agency for his wife, and a wife's 
 agency for her husband, in law and in fact, must be 
 considered. But this chapter deals mainly with agency 
 in fact of husband' and of wife ;^ the wife's agency in 
 law arises onlj^ Avhere the husband has disregarded or 
 neglected some marriage obligation, and is treated in 
 Stewart on Marriage and Divorce," and the husband's 
 agency in law is discussed under his marriage '•ights 
 over her person * and property.* 
 
 1 Post. ?2 84-.S8. 
 
 2 Post, 5? S:Mt8. 
 
 8 Stewart M. & D. ?5 174, 177, 180, 389. 
 
 4 ^?i<e, §? 57-71. 
 
 5 Post, ii 141-183. 
 
 AbTICI-E II. — AOEXCY OF HtTSBAXD FOR WiFE. 
 
 5 84. Appointment of husband. 
 
 { 85. Scope of authority of husband. 
 
 { 86. Proof of husband's agency in fact. 
 
 { 87. Compensation of husband. 
 
 J 88. EfTect of fraud. 
 
 { 89. Special instances and illustrations. 
 
 § 84. Appointment of husband as agent for wife. — A 
 husband maj' act in place of his wife either by her 
 authorization or bv authoritv of law.'
 
 123 AGE>-CY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. g 84 
 
 1. As her ngcnt in law ho acts s'.mply by virtue of his 
 rights over her person' and i)roperiy,^ and his author- 
 ity Ls co-deleruiinate with these rights.* Thus, he 
 may sue for her earnings,^ because he is entitled to 
 them hy law;^ and for the same reason at common 
 law liis receipt for a legacy to her was valid.' 
 
 2. As her agent in fact he must have her prior author- 
 ity, contemporaneous assent or subsequent ratification,^ 
 his agency may be revoked^ and is revoked by her 
 death.'" And except in the exercise of certain powers,'^ 
 whatever a married woman can do herself she can do 
 through an agent, ''^ and whatever she can do through 
 an agent she can do through her husband ; " but she 
 cannot accomplish by agent what she could not do in 
 person.'* Iler authority maj'^ be given in the usual 
 modes, by power of attorney ,'» by parol,'*' or hj con- 
 duct ; " whether it was given is a mere question of 
 fact.'8 If she allows her liusband to use her property 
 as his own, she is bound by his dealing with it,'^ but 
 not if lie holds it wrongfully.* If without objecting 
 she sees her rents paid to him,'^' or sees him sell her 
 chattels,''^ she is bound bj^ estoppel ; ^* but slie cannot 
 be bound hy estoppel where she could not have been 
 bound directly.^* If she accepts improvements on her 
 property ordered by her husband,'^ or a deed made to 
 her at his request,^* she is bound ; so if siie assents to 
 his sale ^' or mortgage* of her personal property, but 
 she cannot ratify what she could not have autliorized.® 
 and her mere silence is not ratification^" — this is a 
 question of fact.^' Thus, if a Avife authorizes her hus- 
 band to sell her land and there is no fraud on him,^^ 
 or collus:<,'n between him and the grantee,^ and she 
 duly executes the deed, slie cannot attack it on the 
 ground of her husband's fraud on her ;3' nor, having 
 authorized her husband to sell, can she attack the sale
 
 g 84 AftENCY OF HX7SBAND FOR WIFE. 124 
 
 on the ground that he has violated her private instruc- 
 tlons.3^ She may employ hiia as her clerk ^^ the master 
 of her vessel,^^ her ostler,'''* the collector of her roiits,^^ 
 the cultivator of her farm,*" the general manager of her 
 separate property" or separate business;** she may 
 make him her special agent to sell," to buy," to ex- 
 change,** to build ;*fi and in such cases slie is entitled to 
 tlie benefits,*' and bound for the liabilities *8 resulting 
 from his acts, whether Avith respect to himself,*' or to 
 third parties."" So she may be liable for his tort as her 
 agent.si And his admissions may be evidence against 
 her.°2 
 
 1 Ante, ? 82. 
 
 2 Ante, H 57-Sl. 
 
 3 Seepo«^^? H1-1S3. 
 
 4 Post, 5 85. He may accept a deed for her; McOehee i<. White, 
 31 Miss. -11, 4fi ; or elect for her, see f 'liiKlbourne v. Itockoliflf, .SO Me. 
 354, :?61 ; Shallenher^er ?•. Asliwortli, 2.5 Pa. St. 152, I*! ; Owen v. Han- 
 cock, 1 Head, 5fi:?; Danbrulge r. Mliige, 4 Rand. 3U7, 403. 
 
 5 Cranor v. Winters, 75 Ind. 301, 30:! ; ante, ? 6.5. 
 
 6 Fully, ante, i fi.5. 
 
 7 Mobley v. Leophart, 47 Ala. 2.57, 2fil ; post, ? 176. 
 
 8 Lichtenberffor v. Grahnm, .50 Ind. 2ss, 2:iO ; Mcl.aren v. Hall, 26 
 Iowa, 297, 305 ; Aiuwood v. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635 ; 641 ; post, i 85. 
 
 9 Lyon V. Green, 42 "Wis. 548, 554. 
 
 10 Cunningham, Myr. Prob. 76. 
 
 11 Rogers v. Brooks, 30 Ark. 612, 628 ; Whitescamer v. Bonner, 9 
 Iowa, 484 ; post, ? 390. 
 
 12 Vail ?'. Meyer, 71 Ind. 1.50, 165; Allen r. Johnson, 48 Miss. 418; 
 Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 374, 379, :«1 ; post, I 364. 
 
 13 Voorhes v. Bonesteel, 16 Wall. 16, 31 ; Wolls r. Srnith, -54 Ga. 262, 
 263; Walker v. Carrington, 74 III. 440. 465; Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 
 600, 604 ; Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, 99. 
 
 14 Wilber v. Abernethv, ,54 Ala. 644, 648; Wood v. Terry, 30 Ark. 
 385, 393 ; C'happell v. Boyd, 61 Ga. 662, 669 ; Baron v. Voorhtes, 12 La. 
 An. 8.52 ; Kenton v. McClellan, 43 Mich. .564, 566 ; Lash v. Mitchell, 71 
 N. Y. 199, 200. 
 
 15 Woodman t'. Neal, 48 Me. 268. V>\\t sea ante, liil,iZ; jwst, I 9IS. 
 
 16 Merrill v. Parker, 112 Mass. 250. 2.>3. 
 
 17 McLaren v. Hall, 26 Iowa, 297, .305 ; infra, notes 21-24. 
 
 18 Yazel v. Palmer, SI 111. 82, So ; Tooliilge r. Smith, 129 Mass. .5.>1 
 5.5S : Paine v. Farr, lis Mass. 74, 77 ; Merrick r. Plumlev, 99 Mass. 573 ; 
 Hill ('. Chambers, 30 Mich. 428 ; Early v. Rolfe,95 Pa. St. 58,61 ; Ham- 
 ilton V. Brooks, 61 Tex. 142, 146.
 
 125 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. ? 84 
 
 19 Griffin v. Ransdell, 71 Inrl. 440, 445 ; Yazel v. Palmar, Rl III. 82, 
 85; Coleman i'. Semnifs, 56 Miss. 321, 32j; bpaulding r. Drew, 55 Vt. 
 253, 257. 
 
 20 Yazel v. Palmer, 81 III. 82, 83. 
 
 21 Mann, 50 Pa. St. 375, asi. 
 
 22 Low V. Gray, 56 Miss. .318, 320. But see Canty v. Sanderford, 37 
 Ala, 91 ; post, I 121. 
 
 23 Pos^ ch. xxiii., ? J 409, eiseg. 
 
 24 Wood V. Terry, 30 Ark. .3,83, 39.3. 
 
 .25 Arnold?'. .Spurr, 130 Msiss. 347,340. Ratifies by accepting benefit: 
 Morrison v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 337 ; Marts v. Cumberland, 44 S.3. L. 478. 
 
 26 Coolidge v. Smith, 129 Mass. .5.54, 557. 
 
 27 Delacroix v. Nolan, 7 La. An. 682. 
 
 28 Merrill v. Parker, 112 Mass. 2.50, 2.5.^ 
 
 29 Chappell v. Boyd, Gl Ga. 662, 669. 
 
 30 Ladd v. Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135, 143 ; 9 Am. Rep. 445 ; post, § 86. 
 
 31 Merrick r. Plumbly, 99 Mass. 56B, .573: Cooledge v. Smith, 129 
 Ma.ss. .5.>1, b'-^ ; supra, n. 18. 
 
 32 Lavassar v. Wasliburne, .50 Wis. 200, 202. 
 
 33 Ames v. Hilton, 70 Me. .%, 47 ; Comegys v. Clarke, 44 Md. 108, 110. 
 
 34 Warner v. Warren, 46 N. Y. 22S, 231 ; Lavassar v. Washburne 50 
 Wis. 200, 202 ; post, S 110. 
 
 35 Griffin v. Ransdell, 71 Ind. 440, 444. 
 
 36 rnl>herlv v. Scott, 98 111. 38, 40; Bellows v. Rosenthal, 31 Ind. 
 llfi, lis; poxl, J 89. 
 
 37 Rciman v. Hamilton, 111 Mass. 245, 246. 
 
 38 Manderback v. Mock, 29 Pa. St. 43, 47. 
 
 39 Early r. Rolfe,95Pa. St. .58, f>0. 
 
 40 Bennett v. Stout, 98 111. 47, .52. 
 
 41 Coleman r\ Semmcs, .56 Miss. .321, 329. 
 
 42 Porter v. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 109 ; Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, 99. 
 
 43 Griffin v. Randsell, 71 Ind. 440, 444 ; Lichtenberger v. Graham, 
 50 Ind. 288, 290 ; Burchard v. Frazer, 23 Mich. 221, 236. 
 
 44 Wells V. Smith, bi Ga. 262, 264 ; Myers v. King, 42 Md. 65, 70. 
 
 45 Pike v. Baker, m 111. 163, 167. 
 
 46 Murphy v. Bright, 3 Grant, 296. 
 
 47 Wells V. Smith, 34 Ga. 262, 261 ; Cooper ?'. Ham, 49 Ind. 49.3, 497, 
 cases cited ; Myers v. King, 42 Md. 65, 70 ; Buckley i: Wells, 33 N. Y. 
 .51S, .521 ; Knapp v. Smith. 27 N. Y. 277, 280 ; Spooner v. Reynolds, 50 
 Vt. 437, 444 ; Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 95, <W ; cases cited, p-tst, J 89. 
 
 43 Wells V. Thorman, 37 Conn. 318, 319; Griffin r. Ransdall. 21 Ind. 
 440, 444; Coolidge r. Smith, 129 Mass. 5.54, .55:); Owen v, Cawly, 36 
 N. Y. 600, 605 ; Early v. KoHe, 95 Pa. St. 58, 60 ; post, i 85. 
 
 49 Johnston, 31 Pa. St. 4.30, 4.54 ; post, § 
 
 50 Baker v. Roberts, 14 Ind. 5.52, ,^5.3. 
 
 51 Lindner v. Sahler, .57 Barb. 322 ; Graves v. Spier, 58 Barb. M9 ; 
 post, cli. xxiv. But see ante, I 66. 
 
 52 Ante, ? .56.
 
 g 85 AGENCY OP HUSBAND FOR WIFE. 126 
 
 § 85. Scope of husband's authority as agent for wife. — 
 1. The husband's agency in law^ is co-determinate with 
 his rights as husband over his ^\ife's person and prop- 
 erty ; ^ he has no power to act for her in her separate 
 existence.^ Thus, as husband he has no authority to 
 employ counsel to represent her separate property,* 
 and with respect +o such property notice to him is not 
 notice to her,^ except when he is her agent in faci ;^ ho 
 cannot create a mechanic's lien on her property' or 
 encumber it even for necessary repairs ; ^ or sell her 
 realty,^ or personalty ; '" or receipt for debts due her ; " 
 or i-elease her mortgage ; '^ nor can he make her mem- 
 ber of a business association ;" or render her liable for 
 borrowed money ;i* or give her note even for a debt 
 due bj' her.'» 
 
 2. The husband's powers as agent in/act^^ are meas- 
 ured as in other cases by the scope of authoritj'' con- 
 ferred ;'" they are the same as if he were acting for a 
 stranger.'^ Thus, authority to collect a note does not 
 give him the power to compromise,'* though the gen- 
 eral management of the wife's estate carries with it the 
 power to submit her riglits to arbitration;™ nor does 
 t'-ie right to manage and control include the right to 
 sell; 21 nor can he as agent to collect his wife's rent, 
 waive her right to distrain."'''' The scope of liis authority 
 i i a question of fact.^ If he exceeds his authoi-ity he is 
 personally liable."'' 
 
 1 Ante, \\ 8-2, 84. 
 
 2 See Chew v. Henrietta, 1 McCrenry C. Ct. 222.226 : White ?■. King, 
 ST Ala. 162, 1C7 ; Gore v. Carl, 47 Conn. 2i)l, •2i):{ ; Windsor r. Uell, iil «a. 
 fil, 674!; Nevins )■. Gourley, 95 111. 20(!, 2i:i ; Klein c. .Seibolii, x ) III. .'j40, 
 h\-\ Johnson r. TntowiliT, 'io Ind. :i.5:J ; FitZfjcriUil v. MoCartv, .>> 
 1 iwa, 702, 70(1 ; Davis v. Kitt-liie, .V> Iowa, 71'J, 721 ; Price v. Li-vd" I. 4'5 
 I (\va, filiri : ('iia(Il)onrnc v. Kockcliff. 30 Me. iM, .361 ; Jarden v. l>nni- 
 plircv, :^> Md. .'.HI, ;!6» ; Kerchnor v. Kempton, 47 Md. .508, .dss ; CaliiU 
 )•. Lee, 5.5 Md. 31'J, 325: Merrill v. Parlcer, 112 Mass. 2,50, 255; Fort v. 
 Battle, 13 Smedes & M. 133, 137 ; McGehee v. White, 31 Miss. 41, 4r. ; 
 (iarnett r. Berrv, 3 Mo. App. 197, 200; Eystra v. Capelle, 61 Mo. 57 -t, 
 5-tO ; .siilvev v. Summer, 61 Mo. 2.53 ; Atwater v. Underhill, 22 N. J. Eq. 
 539, 604 ; G"reen v. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 5(M ; Coolidge v. Parris, 8
 
 127 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. g 86 
 
 Ohio St. 504, 597, 598 ; Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 53, 57 ; Trimble v. 
 Kels. 37 Pa. St. 448 ; Daiidridge r. Mitige, 9 Rand. 397, 403 ; Ladd v. 
 Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135, 143 ; 9 Am. Rep. 445. Consult anfe, i 82, n. 14 ; 
 J 84. 
 
 3 Atwater v. Underbill, 22 N. J. Eq. 599, 604 ; McLaren v. Hall, 26 
 Iowa, 2J7, 305. 
 
 4 Kerchner v. Kempton. 47 Md. 5ft8, 588. 
 
 5 Treadwell v. Hernden, 41 Miss. 46 ; Pringle v. Dunn, 37 Wis 449 ; 
 19 Am. Rep. 772. 
 
 6 White V. King, 53 Ala. 1(52, 167 ; Jarden v. Pumphrev, 36 Md 361, 
 364 ; Chew v. Henrietta, 1 McCreary C. Ct. 222, 226. Compare R. R. v. 
 Brooks, 81 111. 2J3. 
 
 7 Garnett v. Berry, 3 Mo. App. 197, 200. See Jarden v. Pumphrey, 
 36 Md. ;i61, .m ; Md. R. C. 1873, p. 696, J 10. 
 
 8 Dearie v. Martin, 78 Pa. St. 53, .57. 
 
 9 Evstra v. Capelle, 61 Mo. 578, 580; Ladd v. Hildebrant, 27 Wis, 
 135, 143 ; 9 Am. Rep. 445. 
 
 10 Klein v. Seibold, 89 111. 510, 542. 
 
 11 Gore V. Carl, 47 Conn. 291, 293 ; Windsor v. Bell. 61 Ga. 671, 674 ; 
 Kevins v. (Jourley, 95 III. 206, 213 ; Trader i: Lowe. 45 Md. 412; Read 
 V. Earle, 12 Gray, 423, 42") ; Meriill v. Parker, 112 Mass. 2.50, 25.5. Other- 
 wise as to her property n(jt separate: Mobley v. Leophart, 47 Ala. 
 257, 261 ; Wc^mes, 19 Md. 334, 344 ; banders v. Forgasson, 59 Tenu. 249, 
 251 ; post, U 243, 386. 
 
 12 Trimble v. Reis, 37 Pa. St. 448. 
 
 13 Boyd V. Merrill, 52 111. 151. 
 
 14 Davis V. Ritchie, 55 Iowa, 719, 721. 
 
 15 Fitzgerald v. McCarty, 55 Iowa, 702, 706. 
 
 16 Ante.. R 82, 84. 
 
 17 Atwaterv. Underbill, 22 N. J. Eq. 599, 604. See Bakers. Roberts, 
 14 Ind. 552, .53 ; Carver, .553 Ind. 241, 244 ; Cahill v. Lee, 55 Md. 319, 325 ; 
 Merrick v. Pluniley, 99 Miss. .566, .573 ; Coleman v. Semmes, 56 Miss. 
 321, 329 ; posi. Married Womkx Tkadkks, ch. x.xvii. 
 
 18 Llvesley v. Lasalette, 28 Wis. 38, 41. 
 
 19 Carver, 53 Ind. 241,244. 
 
 20 Coleman v. Semmes, 56 Miss. 3U, 3'29. He can submit to arbi- 
 tration only the rights he can dispose of: Milner i'. Turner, 4 Mon. 
 240, 247 ; Fort v. Battle, 13 Smedes & M. 13;{, i:J7. 
 
 21 O'Brien v. Foreman, 46 Cal. 80, 82. 
 
 22 Cahill v. Lee, 5.5 Md. 319, .325. 
 
 23 Merrick v. Plumley, 99 Mass. .566, .573 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 
 199,201; 27 Am. Kcp. 38. 
 
 24 Wilder v. Abernethv, 5! Ala. 644, 640 ; 25 Am. Rep. 734 ; Glover 
 V. Alcott, 11 Mich. 470, 487. 
 
 g 86. Proof of agency in fact of husband for wife. — To 
 bind a wife for tlie act of her husband it must be shown 
 that he did it as her agent ^ within the scope of his 
 authority,'^ and tliat it was an act by which a married
 
 g 86 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. 128 
 
 woman could be bound. ^ His agency is proved as that 
 of a stranger's,* though the fact that he is husband is 
 relevant,^ as in most cases the husband is tlie fittest 
 person to be his wife's agent.^ No unusual evidence is 
 required of her to show he acted as her agent J though 
 when he has been in business in her name,* slight evi- 
 dence will justif}- the inference that he acted on his 
 own account.^ And if she shows that property in his 
 possession belonged to her separate estate, he will, 
 unless a gift to him is proved,'" be deemed to have 
 held it as her agent. '^ So a deposit of money by her 
 subject to his order is a mere power to him to draw, 
 not a gift. 12 Possession of personal property is prima 
 facie evidence of title,'^ and of right to collect in case of 
 a bond,'* but the possession may bo shown to be 
 wrongful.'^ To charge a wife by agent strong evi- 
 dence is said to be necessary. '^ His declarations are 
 evidence as part of the res gestae.^'' 
 
 1 Ante, I 84. 
 
 2 Ante, ? 85. 
 
 3 Kash t'. Mitchell, 71 X. Y. lon, 201 ; 2T Am. Rop. .IS. 
 
 4 See Ynzel r. Palmer, 81 111. 82, .s.5 ; Coolklge v. .^mith, 129 Massi 
 .^>4, .55-* ; Paine v. Farr, 118 Muss. ~A, 77 ; Merrick c. Pluinlcv, !i«» Mass. 
 57:5 ; Hill I'. Chambers, :5n Mich. 42S ; Early v. Kolfe, 'Jo Pa". St. 58, 61 ; 
 Hamilton v. Brooks, .51 Tex. 142, 146. 
 
 5 Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. .St. .58, 60. 
 
 6 Bennett r. .Stout. 98 111. 47. .52. Perhaps, prima fncie, he is her 
 a?ent to do all things which it is customary for husbands to Uo for. 
 their wives. Compare, ymst, J 90. 
 
 7 Jlyers v. King, 42 Md. 65, 70. 
 
 8 FnM, ? 87. 
 
 9 Brownell ?•. Dixon, 37 111. 197, 207. See Erdman v. Rosenthal. CO 
 Md. 312, 310. 
 
 • 10 M'ales V. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45, M. See Hileman, 85 Ind. 1 ; 
 McXally v. Weld, .SO Minn. 209. 
 
 11 Patten, 75 111. 446, 4-51. But see Dillenberger v. Wrisberg, 10 Mo. 
 App. 4rw. 
 
 12 Cunningham, Myr. Prob. 76, 78 ; pos/, ?? 127, 128. 
 
 13 Brownell v. Dixon, .•!7 111. 197, 207 ; pmt, \ lia. 
 
 14 Griffin v. Ransdell, 71 Ind. 440, 445. : 
 
 15 Yazel V. Palmer, 81 111. 82, 85. _ J
 
 129 AGEXCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. g 87 
 
 16 Carver, 53 Ind. 241, 244 : Eystra v. Capelle, 61 Mo. 578, 580. 
 
 17 Livesley v. Lasalette, 28 Wis. 38, 41. 
 
 g 87. Compensation of husband as wife's agent — 
 1. General rule. A husband may, a.s his wife's agent, 
 manage her separate property or separate business ^ 
 with or without compensation ; ^ but neither he nor any 
 creditor of his has in the absence of special agreement 
 any right in the property managed, earned, or accumu- 
 lated through his agency.^ Partnerships between hus- 
 band and wife are not included within this discus- 
 sion.* 
 
 2. Express contract. Contracts between husband and 
 wife are in mu.st States void,^ and tlierefore tliere is 
 usually no express contract hj a Avife to pay her hu.s- 
 Ijand for his services.* In cases when such contract 
 can' and does exist, she may even be made his gar- 
 nishee;^ but in the ab.sence of such contract neither he 
 nor any creditor of his has any right against her or her 
 property.* 
 
 3. Implied contract. There is no implied contract 
 that a wife will pay her husband for his services. '" His 
 first duty is to support her and his family," and in 
 helping her to make her property productive he is but 
 discharging this duty,'^ and is presumedly amply com- 
 pensated with tiie home and support she allows him.'^ 
 Moreover, as one's talents and capacity to labor are not 
 property,'* and as therefore no debtor can be made to 
 Avork for his creditors,'' a husband Mho is entitled to 
 his wife's sei vices may give them to her even against 
 his creditors,'* and may likewise give her his own 
 labor, '^ but not his accumulations. '^ 
 
 4. Apparant or pretended agency. A hu.3band may 
 thus as his wife's agent manage her property or busi- 
 ness without acquiring any rights in said property or 
 business, or subjecting it to the claims of his creditors.'*
 
 f 87 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR AVIFE. 130 
 
 But while apparently her agent and pretending to act 
 in that capacity, he may be conducting a business of 
 his own under lier name simplj^ for tlie purpose of 
 evading his creditors,-'*' or he may be using her proj)- 
 erty as a gift to iiim ^i or as a loan ; ^"^ in such cases the 
 business is his and the remedies of his creditors 
 against the assets tliereof are fulL^ So when she has 
 no power by statute to trade, but with his consent is in 
 a business which lie conducts,^* it is his business;^ the 
 right of his creditors against a business which he con- 
 ducts can be questioned only when by statute slie can 
 trade alone. ^^ When he has been using licr property in 
 his business, her rights are at best those of a creditor.^' 
 In some cases where a wife has amassed a fortune 
 througli the efforts of lier husband, it has been held 
 that a court of equity would in favor of his creditors 
 make some apportionment'-* — treat the liusband and 
 wife as it were as partners.^ Whether the Ijusiness is 
 the husband's or tlie wife's is simply a question of fact,^ 
 the burden of proof being generally on the wife to show 
 that the business was hers.^i So whether there is fraud 
 is a question of fact.^^ 
 
 5. Illustrations. Thus where a husband \di\x his 
 team did a great deal of work on his wife's property, 
 and his creditors attempted to sell the crop for his 
 debts, the court held that he could give to her the labor 
 of himself and his beasts, and that the accretions to her 
 property continued hers and could not be toviched by 
 his creditors.^' Where a manufacturer of large experi- 
 ence failed, and then started up again with his wife's 
 money and in her name, and made a fortune, the court 
 allowed her her monej' and interest, but held the 
 remaining profits liable for his debts.-'** Where, while 
 the wife's earnings belonged to her husband, he con- 
 sented that she should trade in her own name, but took
 
 131 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. § 87 
 
 part himself in the business, the business was held his, 
 and therefore liable for his debts.^^ 
 
 6. Statutes. In some States there are statutes ex- 
 pressly referring to this subject.^* 
 
 1 ^n«€, ?? 84. 85. 
 
 2 SeeLewisv.Johns,24Cal. 98, 103; Gage v. Dauchx, 34 N. Y. .293, 
 299 ; Rush V. Vought, 55 Pa, St. 437, 445 ; Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 
 457, 4.58. 
 
 3 See fullest discussion : Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 85, 79-96. 
 
 4 Except as below : Seepo«<, ch. xxvii. 
 
 5 Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 Mon. B. .540, 545 ; ante. U 41-44. 
 
 6 Gage V. Dauchy, H N. Y. 293, 297, 299 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 
 374, 380. 
 
 7 Discussed, ante, ?? 40-44. 
 
 8 Lewis f. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 103 ; Keller v. Mayer, 55 Ga. 40fi, 410 ; 
 Kingman v. Franks, N. Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 6, 1884 ; 26 D. Reg. 937 ; Miller 
 V. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, 100. 
 
 9 Mclntyre v. Knowlton, 6 Allen, .565, 567 ; Webster v. Hildreth, .33 
 Vt. 457, 458 ; infra, n. 19. 
 
 10 Lewis V. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 103. 
 
 U Cooper V. Ham, 49 Ind. 393,416; Com. v. Fletcher, 6 Bush, 171, 
 172 ; Gage v. Dauchy, 34 N. Y. 293, 297 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343, 
 346 ; ante, i 64. 
 
 12 Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. 393, 416. 
 
 13 Mclntyre v. Knowlton, 6 Allen, 565, 566. 
 
 14 Cases cited infra, notes 15, 16. 
 
 15 Abbey v. Devo, 44 N. Y. 343, MT, Rush r. Vought, Zo Pa. St. 4S7, 
 445 ; Hodges t>. Cobb, 8 Rich. 50, 56. 
 
 16 Peterson v. Mulford, 36 N. J. L. 481, 487 ; Hoyt v. White, 46 N. H. 
 45, 47 ; ante, i 65. He cannot give her money already earned by her : 
 Ante, i 65. 
 
 17 Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, 99 ; infra, n. 19. 
 
 18 Isham v. Shafer, 60 Barb. 317, .3:il ; Rush v. Vought, 55 Pa. St. 
 437, 445 ; Holdship v. Patterson, 7 Watts, ,547. 
 
 19 Aldridge v. Muirhead, 101 U. S. 397, 399; Voorhes v. Bonesteel, 
 16 Wall. 16, 31 ; Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 103 ; Coon v. Rigden, 4 Colo. 
 275, 287, 288 ; Martinez v. Ward, 19 Fla. 175, \Ss, 1S9 ; Keller v Mayer, 
 65 Ga. 406, 409 ; Wells v. Smith, 54 Ga, 262, 264 ; Olsen v. Kern, 10 111. 
 App. 578, 582 ; Langford v. Ghieson, 5 111. App. :«2 ; Cubberly v. Scott, 
 98 111. 3^,40; Bongard v. Core, 82 HL 19,20; Bellows ti. Rosenthal, 31 
 Ind. 116, 118; Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. .393, 400, citing many cases; 
 Cam %). Roves, 55 Iowa, 650 ; Parker v. Bates, 29 Kan. .597 ; Com. v. 
 Fletcher, 6 Bush, 171, 172; Mclntvre r. Knowlton, 6 Allen, .56.5, .567; 
 Merrick v. Plumley, 29 Mass. .566; Rankin v. West, 25 Mich. 200; 
 Hossfeldt V. Diil. 28 Minn. 469; H.imilton v. Booth, .5.5 Miss. bO! 30 
 Am. Rep. 500 ; Gloss v. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 157 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 
 K. Y. Ui, 346; 44 Barb. 382; Owen v. Cawley, :« N. Y. 600, 604, 605; 
 Smith V. Sweeny, 35 N. Y. 234, 2.35; Gage v. Dauchy, 34 N. Y. 293, 297, 
 299 ; Buckley v. Wells, 33 N. Y. 518, 521 ; Knapp v. Smith, 27 N. Y. 277, 
 280 ; Rush V. Vought, 56 Pa. St. 437, 445 ; Holdship v. Patterson, 7
 
 § 88 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOR WIFE. 132 
 
 Watts, 547 ; Hodffes v. Cobb, 8 Rich. 50, 56 ; Webster v. Hlldreth, 33 
 Vt. 457, 458 ; Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, 79-!)", citing many cases ; 
 Feller V. AUlen, 23 Wis. :JOI, :»4 ; Boss v. Gomber, 23 Wis. 284, 280; 
 Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113; 32 Am. Rep. 757. But see Penn v. 
 Whiteheads, 12 Gratt. 74, 80 ; Wilson v. Loomis, 55 III. 352, 354. Com- 
 pare cases infra, n. 28. 
 
 20 See Hurlbut v. Jones, 25 Cal. 225 ; Wortman v. Price, 47 111. 2^ ; 
 Brownell v. Dixon, 37 111. 108,208; Cooper ?'. Ham, 4;i Ind. 3a:j, 4I(); 
 Laing II. Cnnningham, 17 Iowa, 510 ; National v. Spragne, 20 N. J. Eq. 
 13.25; Knapp v. Smith, 27 N. Y. 277,280; Woodsworth v. Sweet, 51 
 N. Y. 8 ; Gage v. Dauchy, 34 N. Y. 2y3, 298. 
 
 21 See Dent v. Sloug-h, 40 Ala. 518 ; Freeman v. Orrer, 5 Duer, 476. 
 
 22 Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509, 520. 
 
 23 Brownell v. Dixon, .37 111. 198, 208 ; Gage v. Dauchy, 31 X. Y. 293, 
 298. 
 
 ai National v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13, 25. 
 
 25 Wortman v. Price, 47 111. 22, 24 ; Erdman v. Rosenthal, 60 Md. 
 312, 310 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343, 347 ; Bucher v. Ream, 68 Pa. St. 
 421, 426. 
 
 26 Shackleford, 6 Bush, 149, 159. See Wortman v. Price, 47 III. 22, 
 24; Alt V. I.aforette, 9 Mo. App. 91 ; Pawley v. Vogel, 42 Mo. 21)1; 
 Lvman v. Place, 20 N. .1. Eq. 30 ; National v. Spragne, 20 N. .T. Eq. 13, 
 25"; Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472, 4S0 ; Bucher v. Ream, 68" 
 Pa. St. 421,426. 
 
 27 Wortman v. Price, 47 III. 22, 24 ; Glidden v. Tavlor, IG Ohio St. 
 509, 521 ; inf7-a, notes 21, 26. 
 
 28 Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. 393, 416 ; Com. v. Fletcher, 6 Bush, 171, 
 172; Glidden ?;. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509,520; Feller v. Alden, 23 Wis. 
 301, 305. 
 
 29 In Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. -Wi. the wife wnn allowed only 
 her money and legal interest ; in Xatioiial r. Sjirague, 20 N. .1. Eq. 13, 
 the %yh(ile was held liable for the liiisbaiid's debts. To treat them as 
 partners would be fairer when there is really a mingling of goods, 
 etc. : I'ost, I 129. 
 
 30 Keller V. Maver, 55 Ga. 406, 409 ; Knapp v. Smith, 27 N. Y. 277, 
 280 ; .\libe> r. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343, 347. Of course, her capacity to trade 
 is a question of la%y. 
 
 31 Discussed, pout, ?? 118-121. 
 
 32 Myers r. King, 42 Md. 65, 70 ; ante, ? 86. 
 
 33 Miller v. Peck, IS W. Va. 95, 102. 
 
 »1 Glidden %\ Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509, 520, 521. 
 
 35 National v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13, 2.5. 
 
 36 Se(! Porter v. Gomba, 43 Cal. 165, 160 ; Youngworth v. Jewell 15 
 Nev. 45. 
 
 \ 88. Instances and illustrations of husband's agency for 
 wife. — When a husband holds what is shown to be liis 
 wife's separate property' he is presumed to hoUi it as 
 her agent, • unless he proves a gift or loan from her to 
 him,' and the increase and profits thereof coming into
 
 133 AGENCY OF HUSBAND FOU WIFE. I 88 
 
 his hands are prima facie hers, and are free from any 
 claim of his crediliors.'' So property' bought for her 
 with her money is prima facie hers/ and she maj^ shoAv 
 that though he used his moncj' he bouglit for her,° If 
 he lives and works on his wife's estate he may do so as 
 tenant,'' or as agent and guest ; " and if he trades with 
 her money he may do so as her agent, ^ her creditor ,9 or 
 her donee. 1" If he improvers her properirj'' the improve- 
 ments are hers.^i If in exchanging '-or buying'-* prop- 
 erty for her he commits a fraud, slie is liable. A statute 
 providing that she may carry on business, but not 
 when it is inanaged by her husband, merely protects 
 his creditors and does not remove her liability." If 
 she gives her husband an order for her share of an 
 estate and it is paid him, she is bound though lie never 
 pays it over to her.'^ Property of hers which is his by 
 martial right, is his although he receives it as her agent 
 in fact.'* In procuring a policj^ on his life issued in her 
 name and for her l)enefit a husband acts simply as his 
 wife's agent. '^ When a husband contracts for his wife 
 in his own name he may sue on the contract in his own 
 name.'^ 
 
 1 Spe Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. lofi ; :^tplliiig(^r •;'. Bailsman, 45 Pa. 
 St. 522 ; GrahiU (>. Moyer, 46 Pa. St. 5;;0. 
 
 2 Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45, 64 ; nnte, l 8fi. Compare aiile, 
 
 • 3 Buckley v. Wells, a3 N. Y. 518, 521 ; ante, i 87. 
 
 4 Davis V. Fredericks, 104 TT. s. filS ; Mison v. Bowles, 117 Mass. 
 8". : Spooii'T V. Ile.vjiolds, 50 Vt. 4:!7, 444. Compare Moulton v. Halov, 
 57 N. H. 184 ; ante, I 42. 
 
 5 Myers v. King, 42 Md. 65, 70. 
 
 6 EliJTh V. Taylor, 37 111. 247, 240 ; Duncan v. Jackson, 7 111. App. 
 110; Mooreland v. M.vuil, 14 Bush, 474. 
 
 7 Boss ?'. Gombor, 23 Wis. 284, 286. See Stout r. Perrv, 70 Ind. 501. 
 Compare Xeal v. Perkerson, 61 Ga. 345 ; Fiske v. Bailey, 51 N. Y. 
 
 151. 
 
 8 Cooper v. Ham, 40 Ind. 393, 416 ; ante, i 87. 
 
 . 9 Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 50:), 521 ; ante, ? 87. 
 
 10 Dent )■. Slough, 40 Ala. 518 ; T^ichtenberger v. Graham, 50 Ind. 
 288 ; ante, ? 87. 
 
 IT. & W.-12.
 
 § 89 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR UUSBAND. 134 
 
 U Swaine v. Daane, 48 Cal. 3.>S ; Robinson r. Huffman, 15 Mon. B. 
 80, 83 ; WUkinson, I Head, 305, 310 ; White v. HUdretU, Si Vt. 261, l!67 ; 
 post, ? 131. 
 
 12 See Vanneman v. Powers, 7 Lans. 18.i ; Baum v. Mullen, 47 
 N. Y. 57:); Graves v. Spier, 53 Barb. 363. Not formerly BirUseye v. 
 Flint, 3 Barb. 500. 
 
 13 E. R. r. Brooks, 81 111. 293. See Baum i'. JIullon, 47 X. Y. 577. 
 
 14 Porter i\ Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 103. 
 
 15 Clark r>. Smith, 13 S. C. 5S5. 
 
 Ifi Kidwell V. Kirk,^atrick, 70 5Io. 214. Compare Westmoreland v. 
 Foster, 60 Ala. 448. 
 17 Southern v. Booker, n Ilolsk. 606. 
 13 Wilson V. Sands, 36 Md. 33, 41. 
 
 Article III, — Agency of Wife for Husband. 
 
 { 83. Appointment of wife. 
 
 J no. Wife's agency arising out of husband's absence, etc. 
 
 i 91. Illustrations of wife's want of authority. 
 
 ? 92, Scope of wife's authority. 
 
 5 9:J. Wife as husband's agent In business, 
 
 i 94. Wife as husband's agent in household. 
 
 { 95. Wife as iiusband's agent for necessaries. 
 
 i 96. Authorities as to necessaries. 
 
 { 97. Proof of wife's ageney for husband. 
 
 { 98. Determination of wife's agency for husband. 
 
 g 89. Appointmont of wife as husband's agent. — A wife 
 may act as her husband's agent either by his authoriza- 
 tion or by autlioritj' of law.'^ Slie has, however, no 
 authority in hiw to act for him,' except for the pur- 
 pose of realizing her right to support;* in all oilier 
 cases any act of liers to be liis must have, expressly or 
 impliedly,^ his jirior authoritj' contemporaneous assent, 
 or subsequent ratification.® 
 
 1. Prior authority. If a man places' his wife at the 
 head of the household,* or in charge of his business* or 
 property," he confers upon her such powers as persons 
 in these positions usually exercise,'^ He may make 
 her his agent in a purcliase by promising her to pay for 
 what she buys on his credit,''^ or in a sale by writing to
 
 135 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. ^ 89 
 
 her to sell his good-j and pay his debts ;>* or generally, 
 by power of attorney." So he may make her a special 
 agent to collect rents/' and by telling another person to 
 pay to her he makes her his agent to receive.^^ So by 
 ratifying her acLs on one occasion he may constitute 
 her Ms agent for future acts of the same kind." 
 
 2. Asse7it estoppel. If, tliough his wife has no author- 
 it}^ to act for him, a husband stands by and sees her do 
 so witliout objection, and a tliird party relying on this 
 deals with her, he is estopped from denj'ing her author- 
 ity .'» Thus, if he sees her selling her proi^erty,'^ or his 
 property ^ without asserting his rights, he cannot after- 
 wards deny her right to sell ; so if he suffers her to 
 collect debts,'^! which in law are his.-"^ But his mere 
 knowledge that she is making contracts does not render 
 him liable on them.^* He is liable for her torts'^ and. 
 crimes '^ committed in his presence. 
 
 3. Ratification. If his wife witliout authority has 
 done some act for him,'^^ m^j^j \^q subsequently with full 
 knowledge of the facts'^ recognizes it as his, he ratifies 
 her act and makes it liis.* Thus, he ratifies her act 
 when he accepts a boiler,'^ or liquor,^^ ordered by her 
 on his account ; when he says a note she has signed in 
 his name is all right,'' or promises to pay for something 
 bought in his name;*'^ when he delivers property of 
 his which she has sold ; ^ or when he sees her using 
 goods she has bought on his credit '' and does not 
 object.^ He may ratify some acts Avithout ratifying 
 all.^^ But he does not by resuming cohabitation witli 
 his wife ratify her acts done during a separation.^^ 
 
 4. Exception. If the wife has acted and has been 
 dealt with on her own account, her liusband is not liable 
 for her acts ;^8 \i j;^ doubtful whether he can ratify such 
 acts,'* or render himself liable therefor except on a new 
 consideration.^** Thus, where a lightning rod agent on
 
 § 89 AGEXCY OP WIFE FOR HUSBAND. 133 
 
 her order and credit put rods on her husband's house, 
 he was held not liable." So where goods were so sup- 
 plied to her.*2 To whom credit was gh'en is a question 
 of fact for the jury.^^ 
 
 1 Bir'lsall V. Dunn. 10 Wis. 235, •2:!S. See DorUl v. Acklom, (5 M;in. 
 & (4. 67:MW1 ; ]Ju:iiialio(! ?•. Williams, 2-1 Ark. 2fi4, 208; Benjamin. 15 
 Conn. Ml, .iTA ; 3) Am. Dec. :«4 ; isingleton v. Maiiii, 3 Mo. 4Go, 468 ; 
 Savage v. Davis, 18 Wis. (iOS, 612. 
 
 2 Ante. \ 82. 
 
 3 I^-ijumin. 15 Conn. 347, 3.>1 ; 31 Kvc\.. Dec. 3S4 ; Wheeler v. Mor- 
 gan, 2'J iCaii. Sri ; Stewart M. & D. \ ISO ; ante, \ (!4 ; post, i 91. 
 
 4 Stewart il. & D. ? ISO ; post, ?? !)0, 9o ; ante, § 64. 
 
 5 S.ivvyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 4.^6, 430 ; post, I 97. 
 
 6 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 3M, 402 ; Law K. fi A pp. 
 C. 24, 33; Benjamin. 15 fonn. :M7, :«1 : 3) Am. Dec. .'iSl : Ho'ch v. 
 Miles, 2 Conn. (i3,H, (U5 ; Goflfrev v. Brooks. 5 Har. (Del.; 3!)(i ; (inlick 
 V. Urover, .31 N. J. L. lfS2, 1S4 ; 33 X. J. L. 463 ; Hopkins c. MoUinieu.x, 
 4 Wend. 465, 467; Wehster i\ McGinnls, h Binn. 23.5, 236; Reakert i'. 
 Saiifortl, 5 Watts & S. 164, 16S ; Leeds v. Vail, 15 Pa. St. 1.S5, IHS ; De 
 Hov I'. Dennis, 14 Rich. Eq. 27 : Meader v. Page. .3-1 Vt. 306, 30'i. 310 ; 
 Delano )>. Blancliard, 52 Vt. .578, 584 ; Butts v. Newton, 2J Wi.s. 6i2, 
 63J ; cases pos<, J 91. 
 
 7 Til" mere fT-t that she lives in his house or attends to his busi- 
 ness is prima facie evidence of this : Post, H 93, 94, 97. 
 
 8 See Fllker r. Emerson, 16 Ohio St. 653, G-j5 ; 42 Am. Dec. 5)2; 
 Savage v. Duvis, 18 Wis. 603,013; post, 'i 94. 
 
 9 See Rotch v. Miles, 2 Conn. 63S, 615; Jenkins v. Flinn, 37 Ind. 
 34S, 352 ; Webster v. McGinnis, 5 Biiin. 2.30, 236 ; jmst, ? 93. 
 
 10 See Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 356 ; 3.T Am. Dec. 3S4 ; post, i 90. 
 
 11 Po.?^ ?| 90, 92. 
 
 12 Day v. Burnham, 36 Vt. 37, .39. 
 
 13 Shoemaker v. Kunkle, 5 Watts, 107, IOS. 
 
 14 Whitten, 3 Cush. 101, 193, 197. 
 
 15 Cheney v. PL>rce, 38 Vt. 515, 52.5. 
 
 16 Stall !). Meek, 70 Pa. St. IHl, 1S2. 
 
 17 Compare Filiner r. Lynn, 4 Nev. & M. .5.59, .562 ; and Bray v. 
 Beard, 5 Mo. App. 534. .S 'e j/ost, i 94. 
 
 IS See Thra.sh'^r ?•. Tuttle. 22 Me. 3:a. 336 : HuflT v. Pri"e, .50 Mo. 228, 
 230 : R'sikert v. Sanford, 5 Watts & S. 164, I6S ; Delano v. Blanchard, 
 52 Vt. .578, .584. Compare ante, ? 84. 
 
 19 Huff V. Price, 50 Mo. 228, 230. Compare Cheney v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 
 515, 52.5. 
 
 20 Delano v. Blanchard, .52 Vt. -578, 5S4. 
 
 21 Thrasher v. Tuttle, 22 Me. 335, .3:}6. 
 
 22 Post, ? 176. 
 
 23 Reakert v. Sanford, 5 Watts & S. 164, 16S. Seepo««, § 97. 
 
 24 Ante, i 66. 
 
 25 Ante,i(i%
 
 137 AGENCY OF WIFE FOrt HUSBAND. ^ 90 
 
 2fi Not if she acts aiirl is dealt witli on her own account: Mei;i"rs 
 V. Munsoii, 53 IikI. 13S, W.. See infra, n. ;is. He can ratify it if it is 
 clone for lier benefit : Millard v. Harvey, 34 Beav. 237. 
 
 27 Gulick V. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463, 467. 
 
 2^ Micls'leb^rry r. Harvey, 58 Ind. 523, 5-5 ; Hopkins v. Mollinieux, 
 4 Went. 465, 467 ; Sawyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 4.W, 4J0 ; post, i 97. 
 
 29 Hill It. Sewalil, 5 ; Pa. St. 271, 273. 
 
 30 Tuttle V. Holland, 4 ! Vt. 542, 545. 
 
 31 Shaw I'. Emery, 33 Mo. 434, 480. See Dresel v. Jordan, 104 Mass. 
 407, 413. 
 
 32 Day v. Burnham, 36 Vt. 37, 39. 
 
 33 Pike v. Baker, 53 111. 163, 166. 
 
 34 Cothran v. Lee, 24 Ala. 380. 381 ; Oilman v. Andrus, 28 Vt. 241, 242. 
 
 35 Heney v. Sargent, .54 Cal. 306, 317. 
 
 36 Butts V. Newton , 2a Wis. 632, MO. 
 
 37 Oiiison V. H-rili?', 45 Inl. 73, 76; 15 Am. Rep. 258. But see 
 Rennick v. Ficklin, 5 Mon. B. 166. 
 
 38 See Bentley v. Griffin, 5 Taunt. 3.50; Taylor ^i. Brltton, 1 Car. 
 & P. 144, n. ; Dixon v. Hurrell, 8 Car. & P. 817 ; Metcalfe v. Shaw, 3 
 Camp. 22 ; Harvy v. Norton, 4 Jur. 42, 43 ; Jewsbury v. Newbold, 26 
 Law J. Ex. 247 ; Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227, 241, 242 ; Taylor v. 
 Shelton, 30 Conn. 122, 127, i:S ; Morris v. Root, 65 Ga. 686, 688 ; Con- 
 nerat v. Goldsmith, 6 Ga. 14 ; Jenkins v. Fliiin, 37 Ind. 34!i, 352 ; Mein- 
 ers V. Munson, 53 Ind. 138, 142 ; Weisker v. Lowenthal, 31 Md. 413, 418; 
 Powers V. Rnssell, 26 Mich. 17!t ; Swett v. Pcnrire, 24 Miss. 416 ; Cook 
 II. Ligon, 54 Miss. 3r,S ; Hill r. Gor)rlrich, 46 N. H. 41 ; Wilson v. Her- 
 bert, 41 N.J. L. 454, 461 ; Stimniers v. Macomb, 2 Wend. 454 ; Sim- 
 mons ?'. McElwain, 26 Barb. 420; Moses v. Fogartie, 2 Hill (S. C.) 
 .335; Happek v. Hartbv, 7 K.ixt. 411, 414 ; Catron c Warren, 1 Cold. 
 a58 ; Roberts r. Kellev, 51 Vt. 97, 101 ; Bugbee v. Blood, 48 Vt. 497, 501 ; 
 Carter v. Howard, 39 Vt. 106, 110. 
 
 39 Meiners v. Munson, 53 Ind. 138, 142. 
 
 40 Hapi>ek v. Hartby, 7 Baxt. 411, 414. 
 
 41 Meiners D. Munson, 53 Ind. 138, 142. 
 
 42 Weisker v. Lowenthal, 31 Md. 413, 418. 
 
 43 Bentlev v. Griffin, 5 Taunt. 356; .lewsbury v. Newbold, 26 Law 
 J. Ex. 247 ; Weisker v. Lowenthal, 31 Md. 413 ; supra, n. :« ; post, l 97. 
 
 g 90. Wife's agency for husband ariiinj from his absence 
 or sickness. — If a husband is absent u'oni home and has 
 left his wife in charge of his house, liis business, or his 
 property, she has, as his agent, such powers Avith res- 
 pect thereto as persons in such positions of trust usu- 
 ally exercise ;i and her powers are more extensive if 
 his absence is long.^ While, except in eases where slie 
 jiledges his credit for support wliich he owes but de- 
 nies her,' her agency for him. is a mere question of
 
 g 90 AGENCY OP WIFE FOR HUSBAXD. 138 
 
 fact,* and he is not bound by her acts if he has forbid- 
 den her to act for liim, whether the party who seeks to 
 bind him knew of such prohibition or not," yet if he 
 holds her out or allows her to act as his agent, he is 
 estopped from setting up any secret instructions to 
 her; 6 and, therefore, it seems, if lie has left her in 
 charge of his affairs, his private directions do not limit 
 her authority to act for him.' To illustrate : During 
 her husband's absence a wife is the head of the family,^ 
 and may do all things relating to the family and family 
 home, whicli wives usually do;' she may throw open 
 her husband's house in hospitality^ ; '" she may employ 
 laborers for his farni;^' slie may repair his property,''^ 
 and do all tilings neeessar^^ to preserve it;" she may 
 employ counsel to protect his rights ; '* she may feed 
 his cattle with his crops ; ^'' she may hire out liis liorse, 
 perliaps,'6 and she may cany on his business in the 
 usual way." But she lias only usual and customary 
 powers ; '^ she cannot make a contract for him cnit of 
 the ordinary course of his business and at special 
 rates;'' she cannot sell his property,"^" unless this is 
 necessary to i^rocure sui^port,-'' or he has abandoned 
 all riglits in it to her ; ^' she cannot revoke a special 
 license given by him to enter his premises,^ or give a 
 license wliicli he cannot revoke.'^' Wliere her husband 
 is ill she has much the same powers as wlien lie is 
 absent.'^ But his lunacy deprives her of all autliority 
 in fact,^ save to put liim in an asj'lum.-' 
 
 In all these cases, however, she may have authority 
 in law and by the mere fact that she is his wife to 
 pledge his credit for necessaries,'* or to sell his goods 
 for necessary support for herself and family.-* 
 
 1 Krebs v. O'Gradv, 23 Ala. 7ifi. 732; Lawrence »•. Spear, 17 Cal. 
 421, 424 ; Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 353, 3.54; 39 Am. Dec. :«4 ; Rotcli v. 
 Miles, 2 Conn. fi38, 645; Kellogg v. Robinson, :{2 Conn. .3;J5, 341 ; Cas- 
 teel, S Blackf. 240, 242 ; 44 Am. Dec. 763 ; Fi.sher v. Conwav, 21 Kan. 18, 
 24 ; Buford v. Speed, 11 Bush, 338, 343 ; Scbindel, 13 Md. 108, 120 ;
 
 139 AGENCY OF "WIFE FOR HUSBAND. § 90 
 
 Edgerlv v. Whalan, 100 Mass. 307, SOS ; Nelson v. Garey, 114 Mass. 418, 
 41i» ; Chamberlain t\ Davis, Xj X. Y. 121, 129 ; Brouer v. Vanderburgh, 
 31 Barb. 6-18, (U;) ; Church c. X.aiulers, 10 Weiul. 7il, 8n ; Cox v. Hoff- 
 man, 4 Dev. & B. 180, 181 ; Rosenthal c. Mavhugb, 33 Ohio St. 155, 161 ; 
 Alexander v. Miller, H! Pa. M. 210, 220 ; Webster r. :Me(iinnis, 5 Bum. 
 23-5, 2:16; Hell v. Sewald, .52 Pa. St. 271 ; Humes v. Taber, 1 R. I. 4ft4, 
 473; Cheek v. Bellows, 17 Tex. fil3, 616; Meader v. Page, 3!» Vt. :i06, 
 :«8; Spencer v. Storrs, :i8 Vt. 156, 158 ; Sa%vyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 486, 
 490 ; Felker v. Emerson, 16 Vt. 653, 655 ; 42 Am. Dec. 532 ; Savage r. 
 Davis, 18 Wis. 608, 612 ; Butts v. Newton, 29 Wis. 032, 639 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. i 174. 
 
 2 Meader v. Page, 33 Vt. 306. 309. 
 
 3 Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 3M ; 39 Am. Dec. 334 ; Stewart M. & D. 
 ? 180. 
 
 . 4 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 394, 402 ; Law R. 6 App. C. 
 24,33; Rotch v. Miles, 2 Conn. 638, 645; Godfrey v. Brooks, 5 Har. 
 (Del.) .396; Gulick r. Grover, 31 N. J. Eq. 182, 184; 33 N. J. Eq. 463; 
 Hopkins 1'. Mollinleux,4 Wend. 465, 467 ; Reakert v. Sanford,5 Watts 
 & H. 164, 168 ; Leeds v. Vail, 15 Pa. St. ia5, ia8; DeHay v. Dennis, 14 
 Rich. Eq. 27 ; Meader v. Page, 3) \'t. 306, .309, 310 ; Delano v. Blanch- 
 ard, 52 Vt. 578, .584 ; Butts v. Newton, 29 Wis. 632, 630. 
 
 5 Debenham v. Jl'dlon. Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 32 ; Law R. 5 Q.B. D. 
 394, 399, 401 ; Jolly v. Hecs, 15 Com. B. N. S. 628 ; Clark v. Cos, 32 Mich. 
 204, 213 : Keller v. Phillips, 39 Ves. 351. Compare Barr v. Armstong, 56 
 Mo. 577, 581, .588. 
 
 6 Debenham »>. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24,33. See Thrasher v. 
 Tnttle, 22 Jle. 335, 33'! ; Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 228, 2:» ; Reakert v. San 
 ford, 5 Watts & S. 164, 168 ; Delano v. Blanchard, 52 Vt. 578, 584. 
 
 7 Church v. Landers, 10 Wend. 79, 80. See Rotch v. Miles, 2 Conn. 
 638, 649. 
 
 8 Felker v. Emerson, 16 Vt. 653, 655 ; 42 Am. Dec. 532 ; Sawyer v. 
 Cutting, 23 Vt. 4s6, 490. 
 
 9 Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 3.58 ; 39 Am. Dec. 384 ; Weaver v. Page, 
 39 Vt. 306, .309; Savage v. Davis, 18 Wis. 608, 613. 
 
 10 Humes v. Taber, 1 R. I. 464, 473. 
 
 11 Rotch V. Miles, 2 Conn. 038, 646. 
 
 12 McAfee v. Robertson, 41 Tex. 355, 3.58. 
 
 13 Butts V. Newton, 29 Wis. 072, 639. 
 
 14 Rotch I'. Miles, 2 Conn. 464, 473 ; Buford v. Speed, 11 Bush, 338, 
 343. 
 
 15 Felker v. Emerson, 16 Vt. 0.53, 655 ; 42 Am. Dec. 532. 
 
 10 Church 1'. Landers, 10 Wend. 79, SO. But see Savage v. Davis, IS 
 Wis. 608, 610, 614. 
 
 17 Krebs v. O'Grady, 23 Ala. 720, 732 ; 58 Am. Dec. 312. 
 
 18 Sawyer v. Cutting, 2! Vt. ISO, 490. 
 
 19 Reakert v. Sanford, 5 Watts & S. 104, 168. 
 
 20 Butts V. Newton. 29 Wis. 632, 639. See Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 
 a53, 3.54 ; 39 Am. Dec. 384. 
 
 21 Lawrence v. Spear, 17 Cal. 421, 424 ; infra, n. 29. 
 
 22 Butts ('. Newton. 29 Wis. 632, 638 ; Stewart M. & D. 5 177. 
 
 23 Kellogg V. Robinson, 32 Conn. Sio, 341. 
 
 24 Nelson v. Gray, 114 Mass. 418, 419.
 
 I 91 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. 140 
 
 25 Alexander v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 215, 219 ; Sawyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 
 4Sfi, 491. 
 
 20 Alexander v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 215, 220. 
 
 27 Davis v. Merrill, 47 N. H. 208, 211. 
 
 2S Stewart M. & D. ?? 177, 180. 
 
 29 Roland v. Logan, 18 Ala. 307, 310 ; Lawrence v. Spear, 17 Cal. 421, 
 424; Ahern v. Easterbv, 42 Conn. .546, .559; Benjamin, 15 Conn. .347, 
 354; m Am. Dec. .384; Casteel, 8 Blackf. 240, 242; 44 .\ni. Dec. 763: 
 Rawson v. Spangler, 62 Iowa, 59, fil ; 18 C;ent. L. J. 29, .30; Cunnina;- 
 ham V. Reardon, 9f Mass. 538; Rosenthal v. Mavhugh, 3;{ Ohio St. 
 155, 161 ; Alexander v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 21.5, 219, 220 : .Sawver v. Cut- 
 ting, 23 Vt. 486 491 ; Norcross v. Rodgers, 30 Vt. 588, .589. But see 
 Edgerly v. Whalen, 106 Mass. 307, 308. Sae Stewart M. & D. U 174, 177. 
 
 ^ 91. Illustrations of wife's want of authority. — Unless 
 a husband has in some way appointed his wife his 
 agent .she has no authority to act for him^ except to 
 pledge his credit for necessaries.'^ Thus, no conti-act 
 made by her during coverture binds him;* he is not 
 liable for rent of her separate property ; ^ payment to 
 her of money due him is no discharge,^ nor is her 
 receipt; 6 .she cannot indorse a note payable to her 
 which belongs to him ; ^ or draw his money from 
 bank ; ^ she cannot sell his goods ; ^ he is not liable for 
 money deposited with her;'* her recognition of his 
 debt does not take it out of the Statute of Limitations ; " 
 she cannot manage his law suit ;'^ one Avho receives his 
 property from her is liable to him in trover.^* To ren- 
 der him liable in such cases her agency in fact must be 
 proved.'* 
 
 1 Sawyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 486, 490 ; ante, {I 89, 90. 
 
 2 Ant<:, i'i 81, 89 ; pos<, § 5 ; Stewart M. & D. n8f>- 
 
 3 Whitworth v. Hart, 22 Ala. 343 ; Dunnahoe ?•. WiJIiams, 24 Ark. 
 261, 2GS ; Benjamin, IS Conn. ;547, 354 ; 39 Am. Deo. :584 ; Jaycox it. Wing, 
 66 111. 182 ; Wilbur, 13 Met. 4(M ; Leeds v. Vail, 15 Pa. St. 1^5, 188 ; Mayse 
 V Briggs, 3 Head, 36, 38 ; ante. ? 67. Except as to community: Cousins 
 V. Kelsey, 33 La. An. 880, 882. He may sonietireies adopt them if 
 executed: Ham v. Boody, 20 N. H. 411, 413 ; 51 Am. Dec. 235 ; Lowry v. 
 Naff, 4 Cold. 370, 374. 
 
 4 Biery t-. Ziegler. 93 Pa St :<67 ; 39 Am. Rep. 7.56. 
 
 5 Felch V. Beand.-y, 40 Cal. 439. Compare White, 3 Miss. 931. 
 
 6 Thrasher v. Tuttle, 22 Me. 335, 336. 
 
 7 Stevens v. Beals, 10 Cush. 291, 292 ; 57 Am. Dec. 108. See Roland 
 V. Logan, 18 Ala. 307.
 
 141 AGENCY OF WIFE FO:i IIUSEAXD. ^i 92-93 
 
 8 Allen V. Williamsburgh, 2 Abb. N. C. 342, »45. 
 
 9 Dunnahoe v. Williams. 24 Ark. 264, 26S ; Lewis r. Buttriek, 102 
 Mass. 412 ; Brown i'. Hannibal, 33 Mo. 30!i ; Bain v. Doran, 54 Pa. 8t. 
 1_4 ; Alexander v. Miller, IG Pa. St. 21.5, 219 ; ante, i 90. 
 
 10 Gilbert v. Plant, 18 Ind. 308, 311 ; Andrews v. Ormsbee, 11 Mo. 
 440. 
 
 11 Morris V. Roots, 6.5 Ga. 686, 6H8. 
 
 12 Cobbett V. Hudson, 15 Q. B. 9S8, 989. See Hughes v. Mulvey, 1 
 Sand. 92. 
 
 13 Edgerlv v. Whalan, 106 Mass. 307, 308 ; Green v. Sperrv, 16 Vt. 
 390, 392 ; 42 Am. Rep. 519. 
 
 14 I'osl, I 97. 
 
 2 92. Scope of wife's authority as agent for husband. — 
 A wife may be he'- husband's special or general agent ; ^ 
 .slie may have authority to do a particular act, or to act 
 in a certain character.'^ Her autliority in its scope 
 includes all powers proper and usual to effectuate the 
 purposes of the agency.^ Thus, if her husband puts her 
 in charge of his farm she may cultivate it, but not sell 
 it ; * if he gives her control of his business slie may make 
 all usual contracts therein, but not accominodation 
 notes; 5 if he lives with her and she has charge of the 
 domestic part of liis establislinient, she may employ ser- 
 vants and order what is needed, but she may not buy 
 extravagant and extraordinary things.^ If she exceeds 
 her authority he is not bound, ^ though she may be.^ 
 
 1 Sawyer v. Cutting. 23 Vt. 486, 490. 
 
 2 Ewell's Evans Agency, 102, 1.35. 
 
 3 Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, .3.% ; 39 Am. Iiec.384 ; post, ?? 93, 94 ; ante, 
 ?90. 
 
 4 Butts V. Newton, 29 "Wis. 632,639 ; svpra, n. 3. 
 
 5 Holme."? v. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463, 467 ; 31 N. J. L. 182. 184 • post, 
 §93. 
 
 6 Savage v. Davis, 18 Wis. 60S, 613; Freestone v. Butcher, 9 Car. A 
 P. 643 ; iMSt, I 94. 
 
 7 Goodrich v. Tracy, 43 Wis. 314, 320. 
 
 8 Cody V. Phelps, 47 Mich. 431. See Miller v. Watt, 70 Ga. 385, 387. 
 
 § 93 Wife as husband's agent in business. — Veiy slight 
 acts on the part of the husband will constitute his wife 
 his agent in his business ;i there seems to be a pre-
 
 I 92 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND, 142 
 
 sumption, rebuttable of course, ^ if the business is car- 
 ried on in a house where tliey live together that she is 
 his agent ;* and a jury is justified in finding her agency 
 for Iiini from the fact that she was seen twice in liis 
 store in charge of it,* or tliat he Avas absent and there 
 was no one else to attend to it.^ If she is in business 
 not by authority of statute, but siniplj^ bj'- his consent,^ 
 it is his business,'' and lie is liable for her acts,^ even if 
 she carries it on as a partner,* or in her name ; ^^ but he 
 is not liable if she trades under a special statute," for 
 then the business is hers;'' if it is his business he is 
 liable, not if it is hers,'* If she is his agent thus by 
 implication she has only the usual and ordinary pow- 
 ers that persons in such a jjosition exercise ; " she may 
 bu3^ goods suitable for the trade ; '^ she may give notes 
 if such is the course of the business,'^ but not other- 
 wise," and not accommodation notes;'* nor if he has 
 given a note can she take it back and give another in 
 its place,'* In keeping his tavern she cannot make a 
 long and special contract for horse feed at reduced 
 i-ates.-^ If she has authority only to give his note, she 
 must make it in his name or as his agent, ■^' A note in 
 her own name will not bind him.^^ If she exceeds her 
 authority,"^ ho may of course ratify her acts;'^* as by 
 suing on a note given her as part of a transaction she 
 had no authority to conduct,® So he is bound by false 
 representations made by her as agent in the course of 
 his business. 26 But if all the credit is given the wife, 
 the husband is not bound. 2" 
 
 1 See also ante, >d 89, 'M ; ivjst. J 97. 
 
 2 See Debonham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 32 ; post, | 94. 
 
 3 McKinlej- v. McGregor, 3 Wharf,. 369. 
 
 4 Plummer v. Sills, 3 Nev. & M. 422. 
 
 5 Rotch V. Miles. 2 Conn. «:«, 045 ; ante, i 90. 
 
 6 Bost, Marrikd Womex TK.\nKRS, ch. xxvil. 
 
 7 Ante.,lie5,S7.
 
 143 AGENCY OF AVIFE FOB HUSBAND. g 94 
 
 8 Godfrey v. Brooks, 5 Har. (De' ) 396 ; Oxnard v. Swanton, S9 
 Me. 125. 
 
 9 Everit v. Watts, 10 Paige, 82. 
 
 10 Petty V. Anderson, 3 Bing. 170. 
 
 11 Colby V. Lamson, 39 Me. 117 ; Gillies v. Lent, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 255. 
 
 12 I'ost, eh. xxvii. 
 
 13 Oxnard v. Swanton, 39 Me. 125. 
 
 14 Benjamin, 15 Conn. ai7, a56 ; 39 Am. Dec. 3S4 ; ante, ? 92. 
 
 15 Phillipson v. Hayter, Law R. 6 Com. P. 38, 41. 
 
 16 Holmes ii. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463, 466 ; 31 N. J. L. 182, 184. 
 
 17 Reakert v. Sanford, 5 Watts & S. 1&4, 168. 
 
 18 Holmes v. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463, 467 ; 31 N. J. L. 182, 184. 
 
 19 Shaw V. Emery, .38 Me. 484. 
 
 20 Webster v. McGinnis, 5 Binn. 235, 236. 
 
 21 Galusha v. Hitchcock, 29 Barb. 193, 194. 
 
 22 Minard v. Mead, 7 Wend. 68, 69. 
 
 23 Ante, i 92. 
 
 24 Ante, \ 89. 
 
 25 George v. Cutting, 46 N. H. 130. 
 
 26 Taylor v. Green, 8 Car. & P. 316, 319. 
 
 27 Ante, i 89, n. 38. 
 
 2 94. "Wife as hu&band's agent in hQasehold. — The hus- 
 band is head of hi.s family,' and in regulating his house- 
 hold may or may not put his wife in charge of certain 
 department.? thereof, and make her his general agent in 
 all matters appertaining to their domestic life,* whether 
 he has or has not made her his agent is always, except 
 when she relies on her agency in law for support,^ a 
 mere question of fact to be determined from all the cir- 
 cumstances of the case;* whether a particular act was 
 within the scope of her agency is a mixed question of 
 law and fact.^ 
 
 1. Appointment. (1) If husband and wife are perma- 
 nently separated, and the wife has an establishment, 
 even if it has been given her by him, it is hers, and 
 there is no presumption that she may keep it up at his 
 expense.* (2) If they are only temporarily separated 
 through his absence, and she is apparently in charge 
 of his establishment, there is a very strong presumption
 
 \ 94 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. 144 
 
 tliat she is his general a^T^ent in the nianagemont of i'.' 
 (3) If tiioy are living together, but are boarding or liave 
 no establisliment, the fact of their cohabitation raises no 
 presumption whatever of anj^ agency of hers for liim.^ 
 (i) If thej"" are living together, and are keeping liouse, 
 there i-s a presumption that she has charge of the 
 domestic part tliereof .^ The presuinptions of her agency 
 m cases (2) and (4) are rebuttable,'" and the husljand 
 may relieve hinjself of liability by showing that his 
 domestic arrangements excluded any such agency on 
 her part," or tliat he prohibited her from acting on lii-; 
 account ; ''^ and it nailcer^ no difference wliether the tliird 
 par^j'^ was informed of tliis or not. '^ But if it appears 
 that he in some way allowed her to seem to'have charge 
 of his house or recognized her acts as his agent 
 tlierein,'^ the mere fact that he privately forbade her to 
 act for him will not relieve him of liability.'' And 
 when he has once recognized her agency, though 
 lie may revoke it at any time,'* such revocation will 
 have no effect as to persons with whom he has allowed 
 her to deal as his agent unless they are specially noti- 
 fied thereof." In fine, her agency is in kind, though 
 perhaps not so limited in scope,^^ the same as that of a 
 steward or servant placed in charge of his house ;'* and 
 therefore it makes no difference whether she is his 
 legal wife or not.'^" But if all the credit is given to her 
 lie is .not liable.^' 
 
 2. Scope of authoritif. When the wife is her hus- 
 band's agent in managing the household, her authority 
 covei's all such matters as wives in such a position 
 usually attend to,"" and includes the right to do what- 
 ever is necessary, proper, or usual to effectuate the pur- 
 poses of her agency. ^^ Thus, she may deal on his credit 
 with butcher, baker, etc.^^ She may give reasonable 
 charity J ''^ she may extend usual hospitality ^^6 j^^g may
 
 145 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. § 94 
 
 employ necessary servants ; ^^ and may in fact procure 
 on his credit all such things as belong to the class 
 "necessaries," '^8 whether really needed or not.^ But 
 she cannot thus procure extraordinary and extravagant 
 things,^" although if she thus exceeds her authority he 
 may ratify her acts,^' and is therefoi-e liable for what- 
 ever things he permits her to receive into his house,^^ 
 unless he supposes she has paid for them.^^ rpj^g extent 
 of her authority naturally depends largely on their 
 station in life.'* 
 
 1 Ante, 2 6Q. 
 
 2 See 1 Bish. M. & B. ? 355. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. J 180 ; «?i«e,?§ 64, 81 ; post, ?? 95, 96. 
 
 4 Reicl V. Teakle, 13 Com. B. 627 ; Rvan v. Sams, 12 Q. R. 460 ; De- 
 beiiham v. MellOTi, L. R. 6 App. (;. 24, 32; Clark v. Cox, 32 Mich. 209, 
 213 ; Keller v. Phillips, 3;i N. Y. 351 ; ante, J 89, n. 6. 
 
 5 See Reneaux v. Teakle, 8 Ex. 680 ; Lane v. Iremonger, 13 Mees. 
 & W. 368; Parke v. Kleeber, 37 Pa. St. 251; discussion in 2 Smith, 
 L. C. 404, et seq. 
 
 6 See Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24 ; Law R. 5 Q. B. 
 D. 395 ; Manby v. Scott, 1 Lev. 4 ; 2 Smith, L. C. 402, 
 
 7 Rotch V. Miles, 2 Conn. 638, 645 ; ante, ? 90. 
 
 8 Debenham \). Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, .33 ; Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 
 395. 
 
 9 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. .394, 402 ; Clifford v. 
 Laton, 3 Car. & P. 15, 16 ; Reneaux v. Teakle, 8 Ex. 680: Phillijison )•. 
 Havter, Law R. 6 Com. P. 38, 41, 42 ; Ruddock v. Marsh, 1 Hurl. & N. 
 601 ; Emnictt?). Norton, 8 Car. & P. .506, 510; Freestone?- Butcher, 9 
 Car. & P. 643 ; Montague v. Benedict, 3 Barn. & C. 631, 6.35 ; Hughes r. 
 Chadwick, 6 Ala. 651 ; Benjamin, 15 Conn. .347, 3.57 ; .39 Am. Dec. 381 ; 
 Shelton V. Hoadley, 15 Conn. 535; Johnston v. Pike, 14 La. An. 731 ; 
 Furlong v. Ilysom, 35 Me. 332 ; Eames?>. Sweetser, 101 Mass. 78 ; Har- 
 shaw V. Merrvman, 18 Mo. 106 ; Pickering, 6 N. H. 120, 124 ; Tebhetts 
 V. Hapgood, .34 N. H. 420 ; Sterling v. Potts, 5 N. J. L. 773 ; Keller v. 
 Phillips, 39 N. Y. 351 ; Cromwell v. Benjamin, 41 Barb. 5.58 ; Meade 
 )'. Page, 39 Vt. 306, 308 ; Sawyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 4S6, 490 ; Bugbee v. 
 Blood, 48 Vt. 499, 501 ; Savage v. Davis, 18 Wis. 608, 61.3. 
 
 10 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 32, .37 ; 50 Law J. Q. 
 B. D. 1.55; Law R. 5 Q. B. D. .394, 402 ; 49 Law J. Q. B. D. 497 ; Clark v. 
 Cox, .32 Mich. 204, 213 ; supra, n. 9 ; post, I 
 
 11 See Barr v. Armstrong, .56 Mo. 577, 581. Giving her an allowance 
 is not alone sufficient: Ruddock i'. Marsh, 1 Hurl. & N. 001, 604 ; Holt 
 V. Bfien, 4 Barn. & Adol. 3,52. 
 
 12 Morgan ti. Chetwynd, 4 Fost. & F. 451, 458, 459. 
 
 13 Debenham )'. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 32 ; Law R. f Q. B. D. 
 394, 402 ; Joily v. Rees, 15 Com. B. N. S. 628. 
 
 14 See ante, 1} 89, 90 ; post, ? 97. 
 
 15 Debenham r. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 33. 
 
 XL & Vv'. -13.
 
 g 95 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. 146 
 
 Ifi Wallis 1'. Be(l(1ick,23 Week. R. 1 ; Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 
 5 Q. B. D. 3!W, •403 ; Daubney v. Hughes, 60 N. Y. 186, 191 ; post, ^ 'JS. 
 
 17 Caiiy I'. Pattoii, 2 Ashni. 140. 
 
 IS Benjamin, 1.') Conn. 3-17, 357 ; 30 Am. Dec. 38-1 ; infra, n. 22, 23. 
 
 1!) Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 394, 390 ; Law R. 6 App. 
 C. 24, 33. 
 
 20 Blades v. Free, 9 Barn. & C. 167, 171 ; Robinson v. Nahon, 1 
 Camp. -4") ; Watson v. Threlkeld, 2 Esp. 637. 
 
 21 Ante, J 89, n. 38. 
 
 22 Rurldook V. Marsh, 1 Hurl. <fe N. 601, 601 ; Emmett v. Norton, 8 
 Car. & P. 506, .510; Phillipson v. Havter, Law R. 6 Com. P. :«, 42; 
 Montague v. Benedict, 3 Barn. <fe C. 6!I, 635 ; Pickerins, 6 N. H. 120; 
 1 24 ; Bughee v. Blood, 48 Vt. 439, Wl ; Meader v. Page, 3!» V{. iVm, 308 ; 
 Suwver v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 486, 490 ; Savage v. Davis, IS Wis. 608, 6i:J ; 
 ante, U 90. 92. 
 
 23 Benjamin, 15 Conn. :U7, 356, :{.58 ; 39 Am. Dec. 384 ; ante, i 92. 
 
 24 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, 36. 
 
 25 Spencer v. Stores, :i8 Vt. 156, 158. 
 25 Humes v. Taber, 1 R. I. 464, 473. 
 
 27 White V. Cuvler, 6 Term, 176 ; Condon v. Callahan, 9 Abb. N. C. 
 407, 411. Compare Rotch v. Miles, 2 Conn, 638, 646. 
 
 28 Bost, i 95 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 180. 
 
 2;) Ruddock v. Marsh, 1 Hurl. <fe N. 601, 604 ; post, ? 95. 
 
 30 Freestone v. Butcher, 9 Car. & P. 643. 
 
 31 Mickelberry v. Harvey, 58 Ind. 523, 525 ; ante, 5 89 ; post, ? 95. 
 
 32 Oilman v. Andrus, 28 Vt. 241, 242. See Waithman v. Wakefield, 1 
 Camp. 120, 121 ; Atkins v. Curwood, 7 Car. & P. 756, 760. 
 
 33 ^Morgan v. Chetwynd, 4 Fost. <fe F. 451, 459. 
 
 34 Keller v. Phillips, 39 N. Y. 351 ; post, ? 95. 
 
 § 95. Wife as husband's agent for necessaries. — Such 
 food, lodging, clothing, attendance, etc., as iisiially 
 make a part of a wife's life in the station in Avhich her 
 husband allows her to move — such things as enable 
 her to live decently and in a manner fitting her condi- 
 tion and estate — are necessaries.^ She may be amply 
 supplied with such things, or may be in actual need of 
 them ; they may be necessaries and yet not necessary.^ 
 A husband maybe liable for necessaries supplied his 
 wife on his credit* by virtue of her agency for him in 
 law or in fact.* She is his agent in law when she is 
 without fault and without means, and he refuses or 
 neglects to supply her with them ; they must be neces-
 
 147 AGENCY OF WIFE FOB HUSBAND. § 96 
 
 saries, she must actually need them, and he must be 
 bound to support her.» She is his agent, in fact, when 
 he has so appointed her,^ and it would seem that it 
 would make no difference whether slie were already 
 suiiplicd with articles of the kind or not, unless the 
 party supplying her knew it, or supplied both her 
 needs and the excess himself;^ for she would be act- 
 ing api:)arontly witliin tlie scope of her authority. ^ 
 whicli authority depends not on her needs but on her 
 husband's act in holding her out as his agent.^ Still 
 tlio fact tliat necessaries were sufficiently supplied by 
 tlie liusband would bo relevant to prove that she was 
 not his agent in fact to buy them.'" A husband usuallj'' 
 makes his wife his agent in fact to purchase necessaries 
 by putting lier at the liead of tlie domestic department 
 of liis liouse, or in charge of his children, or by paying 
 lier bills, or accepting the benefit of her orders, or 
 allowing her to use goods bouglit, knowing tliat he is 
 expected to pay for them; but all such circiimstances 
 are merely facts by wliich lier agency may be proved. '^ 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. ?? ISO, 380 ; 2 Smith, I.. C. 40i, etseq. : Morgan v. 
 Chetwynd, 4 Fost. <fe F. 451, 45J ; Rayiies v. Bennett, 114 Mass. 424 ; 
 prist, i 96. 
 
 2 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 a. B. D. 394, 397. 
 
 3 Ante, ? 89, n. 3«i. 
 
 4 Ante, U 82, 89-94. 
 
 5 Stewart M. & D. ? 180 ; ayite, ? 64. 
 
 6 Ante, U 83, 90. 
 
 7 See Holt v. Brian, 4 Barn. & Add. 252 ; Bentley v. Griffin, 5 
 Taunt. :io6. 
 
 8 Ante, \\ 92, 94. 
 
 9 Ante, ?? 8;)-91, 94. 
 
 10 See Ruddock v. Marsh, I Hurl. & N. 601, G04 ; pnst, ? 97. 
 
 11 Ante, U 89, 90, 94 ; fully, post, i 97. 
 
 '<j> 96. Authorities as to necessaries. — The decisions as 
 to a liusband's liability for necessaries are very numer- 
 ous. Many o' thein are collated in Stewart on Mar- 
 riage and Divorce,! and in Smith's Leading Cases.^
 
 2 96 AGENCY OF WIFK FOR HUSBAND, 148 
 
 But for farther convenience references are here given 
 to leading decisions in England,^ Alabama/ Arkansas, » 
 California,^ Connecticut,' Delaware,^ Georgia,^ Illinois, lo 
 Indiana,*! Iowa,'- Kansas,''' Kentucky,'* Louisiana,!^ 
 Maine, 1^ Maryland,'^ Massachusetts,'* Michigan,*^ Miss- 
 issippi,^'' Missouri, '■^1 Nebraska,^'^ New Hampshire,'^ 
 New Jersey, ^^ Now York,-'^ North Carol! na,"^^ Ohio,-' 
 Pennsj'lvania,-® Rhode Island,-'^ South Carolina,"" Ten- 
 nessee,^' Texas,^'^ Verinont,^^ and Wisconsin.^' 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. H 180, 38n, J.jo. 
 
 2 2 Smith, L. C. pp. 4(M, et seq. 
 
 3 Debenham )'. Mellon, Law R. 2 App. C. 2-1 ; 50 Law .T. Q. B. D. 
 ' 155; S. C. Law K. 5 (i. B. T). :«M ; 4;) Law J. Q. B. D. 4117: Kastlaiid v. 
 
 Burchell, Law K. S Q. B. D. 431 ; 47 Law J. Q. B. D. oOO, auU cases 
 •cited in these cases. 
 
 4 Pearson v. Darri'igto;i, '\1 Ala. 2':7 ; C'othran v. Lee, 24 Ala. ."(80 ; 
 Zeisrler v. Daviil. Z'> Ala. 12:J ; Hughes v. Chadwick, 6 Ala. 651 ; Harris 
 V. Davis, 1 Ala. 2.jft. 
 
 5 Dunnahoe ?•. 'Willianis, 24 Ark. 264. 
 
 6 Heney v. Sargent, 54 Cal. .306. 
 
 7 Kenyon v. Farris, 47 Conn. .510; ."JS Am. Eep. 8(5; St. John v. 
 Bronson. 40 (!onn. 75 ; Sliflton v. Hoadlev, 15 Conn. 5:55 ; Beniamin, 15 
 Conn. a47 ; 39 Am. Dec. iA\ ; Ketch v. Miles, 2 Conn. KiS. 
 
 8 Bifldle v. Frazier, .3 Houst. 2.58 ; Bennett v. Chamberlain, 5 Har. 
 CDel.^ ;{.)! ; Contine t\ Pliillipps, 5 Ilur. i Del.") 428 ; Kemp v. Downliaur, 
 5 Har. (.Del.) 47 ; Fredcl r. Eves, 4 Har. (Del.) 3S5. 
 
 9 Mo-ris )'. Root, ft5 Ga. 6SG ; Suiter v. Hueston, 50 Ga. 242 ; Mit- 
 chell i>. Treanor, U Ga. ;}24 ; .56 Am. Dec. 421. 
 
 10 Wilson )•. Bishop, 10 111. App. 5.S8 ; Compton 7^. Bates, 10 III. 
 App. 78 ; Compton c Coopers. 10 111. App. 86 ; Scbunckle r. Bierman, 
 89 III. 4.54 ; Dow r. Kvstcr. 7.1 111. 2.-vl ; Gotts v. Clark, 7S 111. Zlw ; M-- 
 Millen v. Lee. 7S III. 44:!; Trotter, 77 111. 510; Bevier r. Gallowav, 71 
 III. 517 : Ross, 69 HI. 5G:) ; Rea v. Durkee, 25 111. SOS ; Cornelia v. Ellis, 
 11 lU. 584. 
 
 11 Miekleberrv i-. Harvey, .58 Ind. .52.3 ; Meiners v. Munson, 53 Ind. 
 138; Board?'. Schmoke, 51 Ind. 416; Oinson »-. Heritage, 45 Ind. 73 ; 1.5. 
 Am. Rep. 2.58 ; Jenkins ?'. Flinn, 37 Ind. 349 ; Day v. Wormsley, 3.5 
 Ind. 145 ; Litson v. Brown, 26 Ind. 489. 
 
 12 County V. McDonald, 46 Iowa, 170; Porter?'. Briggs,. 38 Iowa, Ifif! ; 
 18 Am. Rep. 27 ; De.scelles r. Kadmus, 8 Iowa, 51 ; Reuneckea v. 
 Scott, 4 Greene, 185 ; Johnson v. Williams, 3 Greene, 97. 
 
 13 Harttmann v. Tegart, 12 Kan. 177. 
 
 14 Bonney r. Reardin, 6 Bush, 34 ; Rennick v. Ficklin, 5 Mon. B. 
 166 ; Henderson i'. Stringer, 2 Dana, 291. 
 
 15 Johnston v. Pike, 14 La. An. 731 ; Bowen v. Frjndell, 17 La. An. 
 299. 
 
 16 Thorp V. Shapleigh, 67 Me. 235 ; Burkett v. Trowbridge, 61 Me. 
 251 ; Furlong v. Hysom, 35 Me. 332.
 
 149 AGENCY OP WIFE FOR HUSBAND. g 97 
 
 17 Anderson v. Smith, 3S Mtl. 465; Weisker v. Lowenthal, 31 Md. 
 413; Soliindel, 12 Md. 120; Brown, 5 Gill, 249; Addison v. Bowie, 2 
 Bland, 619, 626. 
 
 IS Raynos v. Bennett, 114 Mass. 424 ; Mills v. Shirley, 110 Mass. 1.59 ; 
 Almv V. Wilcox, 110 Mass. 442; Eames v. Sweetser, 101 Mass. TS ; 
 McCiellen v. Adams, 19 Pick. 333 ; Wood v. O'Kelley, 8 Cush. 406. 
 
 19 Clark v. Cox, .32 Mich. 204. 
 
 20 Cook V. Lyon, .54 Miss. 368 ; Garland, .50 Miss. 691. 
 
 21 Barr v. Armstrong, .56 Mo. .577 ; Harshaw v. Merryman, 18 Mo. 
 106; Reost> 1'. Chilton, 26 Mo. .598 ; Singleton v. Mason, 3 Mo. 465; 
 Bray ik Beard, 5 Mo. App. 584. 
 
 22 Spaun v. Mercer, 8 Neb. 3.57. 
 
 23 Morris v. Palmer, .39 X. K. 123 ; Tehhets v. Hapgood. 34 N. H. 
 420; Walker ?j. Leighton, 31 N. H. Ill ; Pickering, 6 N. H. 120. 
 
 24 Wilson V. Herbert, 41 N. J. L. 4.54 ; .32 Am. Rep. 243 ; .Snover v. 
 Blair, 25 N. J. L. 94 ; Sterling, 5 N. J. L. 773. 
 
 25 Catlin v. Martin, 6') N. Y. 393 ; Keller v. Phillips, 39 X. Y. .351 ; 
 People V. Pettit, 74 N. Y. 320; Cromwell t. Benjamin, 41 Barb. 5.58; 
 Johnston v. Allen, 39 How. Pr. 506; Allen, 9 Dalv, 198; Webber v. 
 Sparnliake, 2 Redf. 2.58 ; Thercott v. Bagioli, 9 Bosw. 578 ; Church v. 
 Landers, 10 Wend. 79. 
 
 2R Pool V. Everton, 5 Jones, 241. 
 
 27 Hare v. Gibson, 32 Ohio St. 33 ; 30 Am. Rep. .565. 
 
 28 Rigonev v. Neiman, 73 Pa. St. 3:;0 ; Hultz v. Gihbs, 66 Pa. St. .360 ; 
 Breinig v. Meitzler, 23 Pa. St. 156 ; Alexander v. Miliei-, 16 Pa. St. 215 ; 
 C\innin<jfhani v. Irwin, 7 Serg. & R. 247 ; 10 Am. Dec. 4=;8 ; Rpakert ?'. 
 S inford, 5 Watts & S. 161 ; Markley v. Wartman, 9 Phila. 236; Mc- 
 Kinley v. McGregor, 3 Whart. 369. 
 
 29 Graham ?>. Coupe, 9 R. I. 478 ; Gill v. Read, 5 R. I. .343. 
 
 30 Clement v. Mattisoii, 3 Rich. 93; Moses v. Fogartie, 2 Hill, 335 ; 
 AVilliams v. Prince, 3 Strob. 410. 
 
 31 Brown v. Patton, 3 Humph. 13.5. 
 
 32 Black v. Bryan, 18 Tex. 4.53 ; Morgan v. Hughes, 20 Tex. 141 ; 
 Payne v. Bentley, 21 Tex. 452. 
 
 33 Thorne v. Kathan, 51 Vt. 520 ; Roberts v. Kellev, 51 Vt. 97 ; 
 Bngbee v. Blood, 48 Vt. 499 ; Woodward r. Barnes, 43 Vt. 3:;n ; 46 Vt. 
 3 '.2 ; 14 Am. Rep. 626 ; Spencer r. Storrs, 38 Vt. 156 ; Carter v. Howard, 
 39 Vt. 106 ; Meader v. Page, 39 Vt. .306 ; S iwver v. Cutting, 2 ! Vt. 486 ; 
 Felker v. Emerson, 16 Vt. 653 ; Dav v. Burnham, 36 Vt. 37 ; Gilman v. 
 Andrus, 28 Vt. 241. 
 
 34 Brown v. Warden, .39 Wis. 432 ; Butts i\ Newton, 29 Wis. 632 ; 
 Sturtevant v. Starin, 18 Wis. 608 ; Birdsall v. Dunn, 16 Wis. 235. 
 
 ? 97. Proof of wife's agency for husband. — Except in 
 one case,i agency of wife for hn.sband is a mere ques- 
 tion of fact,^ provable as any other fact^ by any evi- 
 dence showing her appointment in one of the several 
 modes.* Tlie burden of proof is on the party alleging 
 the agencv.= The wife cannot testifv as to the fact of
 
 § 97 AGEXCT OF WIFE FOR HUSBA>'D. 150 
 
 her agency,^ though that fact being proved her declara- 
 tions as his agent bind him." The fact that a ^voman is 
 bearing his name is no evidence that she is his agent,^ 
 but a Avoman's agency for him being sliown the fact 
 that she is hLs wife or is treated as such,^ is relevant to 
 determine the scope of her agency.^" More particu- 
 larly,— 
 
 1. Business agency.^^ If husband and wife live to- 
 gether and she transact business, tlie presumption is 
 that she is his agent.^^ Evidence that she was seen sev- 
 eral times in his counting-room apparently transacting 
 his business justifies a finding that slie was his business 
 agent ; ^^ so does proof of the fact that he went away 
 and left her in charge of his business.** 
 
 2. Domestic agency.^'^ Proof that a man and woman 
 are coliabiting as husband and wife raises a presump- 
 tion'* wliich may be rebutted'^ that she is his mun- 
 ager,'8 his domestic agent to buy necessaries, etc.,** but 
 further facts shoA\ing that he authorized, assented to, 
 or ratified her acts, must be proved to establish her 
 agency if they are living apart,^ or the ai'ticles are not 
 necessaries,^* or the presumption from cohabitation is 
 rebutted. 22 So tliat if the parties are living apart the 
 proof of their marriage raises no jiresumption of agency, 
 but the partj' alleging it must establish its existence in 
 law-" or in fact,^' The usual evidence in these cases is 
 of previous payment by the husljand of the wife's 
 bills,^ his acceptance of the benefit of her acts,'^^ or his 
 permitting lier to keep goods he knows he is expected 
 to pay for.'^ The fact that he paid for articles ordered 
 for domestic use is evidence of her authority to have 
 him cliarged for the education of their child.-* The 
 mere entry of charges as against her is not conclusive 
 that credit was not given to him.^ 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. JISO ; ante, H 89, 90.
 
 151 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAXD. § 98 
 
 2 Debenhain r. Mellon, Law E. 6 App. C. 24, 32 ; Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 
 3&4, 400, 402 ; atite, i 89, n. G. 
 
 3 Brander v. Cobb, 2 La. An. Sns ; McKee >■. Kent, 24 Miss. 131; 
 Hughi'S V. Mulbev, 1 SaTirt. if2 ; Cox ?-. Hofifman. 4 I)ev. & B. 180; 
 Abbott f. Maokini'-v, 2 Miles, 220 ; McKinley r. McGregor, 3 Whart. 
 363; Gray v. Otis. 11 Vt. 61i. 
 
 4 Ante, ?? 83, 90. 
 
 5 Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 3.S4 ; 33 Am. Dec. 3*4 ; Savage v. Davis, 
 IS Wis. OOi, 614. 
 
 6 Barr v. Armstrong, 56 Mo. 577, 58!); Butts v. Newton, 39 Wis. 
 632, 641 ; ante, 'i 56. 
 
 7 Singleton v. Mann, 3 Mo. 326, 329 ; Pickering, 6 N. H. 120, 124 ; 
 ante, i 56. 
 
 8 Goneme t'. Franklin, 1 Fost. & F. 465. 
 
 9 Ante, i 94. 
 
 10 Benjamin, 15 Conn. 349, 353 ; 39 Am. Dec. 384 ; Furman v. CMcago, 
 62 Iowa, 395, 398, 393 ; ante, H 92-95. 
 
 11 Ante, I 93. 
 
 12 McKinley v. McGregor, 3 Whart. 369 ; ante, ? 93. 
 
 13 Plummer v. snis, 3 Xev. & M. 422 ; ante, \ 93. 
 
 14 Rotch I'. MUes, 2 Conn. 633, 645. 
 
 15 Ante, { 94. 
 
 16 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. .394, 402 ; Cliflford v. 
 Laton. 3 Car. & P. 15, lu ; Reneaux v. Teakle, 8 Ex. 680 ; Tebbits v. 
 Hapgood, 34 X. H. 420 ; anU, J 94. 
 
 17 Debenham v. Mellon, Law E. 6 App. C. 24, 32, 37 ; Jolly v. Rees, 
 15 Com. B. X. S. 628 ; ante, I 94 ; post, i 9S. 
 
 18 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, .^. 
 
 19 Ante, U 04, 9o. 
 
 '20 Jenner )'. Hill, 1 Fost. & F. 203 ; Johnston r. Sumner, 3 Hurl. & 
 X". 261, 266 ; Mitchell v. Treanor, 11 Ga. 324 ; .5u Am. Dec. 421 ; Reg. v. 
 Durbee, 2.5 III. .50:! ; Mott !•. Comstock, 8 Wend. •>44 ; Pool r. Everton, 
 5 Jones, 241; Canv v. Patton. 2 Ashm. 140; Walker v. Simpson, 7 
 Watts & S. 83 ; 42" Am. Dec. 216 ; Mickelberry v. Harvev, 58 Led. 523, 
 525. 
 
 21 Harrison v. Gradv, 12 Jur. X. S. 140 ; Phlllipson r. Hovter, Law 
 R. 6 Com. P. 38 ; Freestone i'. Butcher, 9 Car. & P. 643, 645. 
 
 22 Barr v. Armstrong, 56 Mo. 577, 588. 
 
 23 Cliflford v. Laton, 3 Car. <fc P. 15, 16; Mainwaring r. Leslie, 2 
 Car. & P. .507 ; Edwards t'. Tow les, 5 Man. & G. G2i ; Bird v. Jones, 3 
 Man. & R. 121 ; Hardie !•. Grant, 8 Car. <fc P. 512. 
 
 24 Mickelberry v. Harvey, 58 Ind. 523, 525 ; infra, n. 20. 
 
 25 Rennick v. Ficklin, 5 Mon. B. 166. 
 
 26 Walthman v. Wakefield, 1 Camp. 120, 121 ; a7tte, \ 89. 
 
 27 Morgan v. Chetwynd, 4 Fost, & F. 451, 459. 
 
 28 McGeorge v. Egan, 7 .Scott, 422. 
 
 29 Godfrev v. Brooks, 5 Har. ;Del.) 396 ; Furlong v. Hvsom, 35 Me. 
 332 ; ante, { 83, n. .58. 
 
 § 98. Determination of wife's agency for husband. —
 
 § 98 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. 152 
 
 1. Agency in fact. A wife's agency irt fact to act for her 
 husband determines when he becomes insane ^ or dies,'^ 
 and wlien he revokes it.^ He maj^ revoke it (1) by giv- 
 ing notice to tliird parties not to deal with her on his 
 credit.* Tliis notice is not generally necessary,* but if it 
 is necessary it must be actual ^ — a general newspaper 
 advertisement, for example, is no notice to one who 
 does not see it.' (2) B3' prohibiting her from acting as 
 his agent.8 Such prohibition is effectual wliother it be 
 known to tlie parties with whom she deals or not ; ^ 
 stm, if her husband continues to allow her to act as his 
 agent he is estopped from setting up a private proliibi- 
 tion ; '** and he must give actual notice of the prohibi- 
 tion to all jjersons with whom he has previously 
 allowed her to deal as liis agent.'' This prohibition 
 must be clear and definite,''^ but it may be inferrable 
 from circumstances,'^ as when he himself assumes 
 comjilete control of the household,'* or when they 
 break up housekeeping.'* So giving the wife an allow- 
 ance may be a revocation of her authority to pledge 
 his credit,'^ but not unless it appears that it was meant 
 to have this effect.'^ Wlien a wife's agency in fact is 
 revoked, her agency in law may nevertheless re- 
 main.'* 
 
 2. Agency in law. A wife's agency in law to act for 
 her husband determines when he dlos,'° but not when 
 he becomes insane;^ nor can he by any act of his, 
 such as notice not to trust her,^' destroy it.^' 
 
 1 Alexanrlor r. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 215, 219, 220. See Davis v. Merrill, 
 47 N. H. 20S, 211. 
 
 2 Blades v. Free, 9 Barn. <fe C. 167, 170; Smout v. Ilberry, 10 Mees. 
 & W. I ; stinson v. Prescott, 15 Gray, SSo, 337 ; Giiiocliio v. Porcella, 
 3 Bradf. 277. 
 
 3 Like any other agency in fact. Consult Ewells Evans Ag. pp. 
 76, et seq. 
 
 4 Barr v. Armstrong, 56 Mo. 577, 581 ; Daubney v. Hughes, 60 N.Y. 
 187,189. SeeMonsonv. Williams, 6 Gray, 416; Rumney?>. Keyes,7N. H. 
 571 ; Conir v. HUdebrand, 1 Ind. 555 ; Walker v. Leighton, 31 N. H.
 
 153 AGENCY OF WIFE FOR HUSBAND. ? 98 
 
 in ; McCutchen v. McGaliav, 11 Johns. 281 ; 6 Am. Deo. .37:! ; Roller v. 
 Phillips, :f9 N. V. "ol : 0?clcn v. Prentice, 33 Barb. 160 ; Cromwell v. 
 Benjamin, 41 Barb. 553. 
 
 5 Infra, n. 9. 
 
 6 See Ewell's Evans Ag. p. -134. 
 
 7 Woodward v. Barnes, 43 Vt. 330, 334 ; 46 Vt. 332 ; 14 Am. Rep. 62fi. 
 
 8 Morsran v. Chetwvntl, 4 Fost. & F. 451, 458 ; Debenham v. Mel- 
 lon, Law K. 5 Q. B. D. 394, 402 ; Law R. 6 App..C. 24, 33 ;. Clark v. Co:;, 
 .32 Mich. 204, 213 ; Woodward v. Barnes, 43 Vt. 330, ■3:« ; 14 Am. Rep. 
 626. 
 
 9 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 6 App. C. 24, .32 ; Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 
 394, 399, 40!; Jolly v, Rees, 15 Com. B. N. 8. 623; Mizen v. Pick, 3 
 Mees. & W. 481. 
 
 10 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. App. C. 21, 33 ;' ante, I 83. 
 
 11 Wallis V. Beddick, 22 Week. R. 1 ; Debenham r. Mellon, Law R. 
 
 5 Q. B. D. 394, 40 i ; Daubuey v. Hughes, CO N. Y. 187, 191 ; Cony v. Pat- 
 ton, 2 Ashm. 1-iO. 
 
 12 Morgan V. Chetwyud, 4 Fost. & F. 451, 4.5S. 
 
 13 Ante, I 97. 
 
 14 Consult ante, ? 94. 
 
 15 See Edwards v. Towels, G Scott N. R. G41 ; Bird v. Jones, 3 Man.. 
 
 6 R. 121. 
 
 16 See Seaton v. Benedict, 5 Bing. 28 ; Holt v. Brien, 4 Barn. & 
 Aid. 252 ; Dennys x\ Sargeant, 6 Car. & P. 419 ; Mizen v. Pick, 3 Mees. 
 & W. 481. 
 
 17 See Ruddock v. Marsh, 1 Hurl. & N. 601, 604 ; ante, ? 9.5. 
 
 18 Woodward v. Barnes, 43 Vt. 330, 334. 
 
 19 Snjyra, n. 2. Consult ante, ? 64 ; Stewart M. <fc D. ?? 180, 452, 459. 
 
 20 Richardson v. Dubois, Law R. 5 Q. B. 51,53; Read v. Legard, B 
 Ex. 637 ; Alexander v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 215, 220 ; ante., i 64. 
 
 21 Harris v. Morris, 4 Esp. 41, 42. 
 
 22 Stewart M. & D. § 180.
 
 §§ 99-100 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. 154 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Postnuptial Settlements — Dealinos. 
 
 Art. I. In General, H 99-101 
 
 II. Form, H 102, 103. 
 
 III. Consideration, H 101-108. 
 
 IV. Fraud, ^ 109-112. 
 
 V. Creditor's Rights, H 113-118. 
 
 VI. Possession, H 119-121. 
 
 VII. Remedies, {} 122-124. 
 
 VIII. Particular Kinds op, H 125-134. 
 
 Article I. — Postnuptial Settlements in General. 
 
 I 99. Term " postnuptial settlement " defined. 
 { 100. Valid, void, and voidable settlements. 
 ? 101. On what validity depends. 
 
 § 99. Term "postnuptial settlement" defined. — The 
 term " postnuptial settlement," as used in this chapter, 
 includes all transfers of property, direct or indirect, 
 between husband and wife. (Art. viii.) The party 
 from whom the property passes is called the settlor; 
 the party to whom, the seMee. 
 
 I 100. Valid, void, and voidable settlements. — A post- 
 nuptial settlement may be wholly valid as to all the 
 world, or partly valid and party invalid. Thus, post- 
 nuptial settlements are usually valid between the par- 
 ties ;i one maj'' be binding on the settlor,"^ his heirs and 
 representatives,^ and his voluntary assignees,* but in- 
 valid as against his creditors ; * valid as to some (subse- 
 sequent) creditors,* but invalid as to others (existing) 
 creditors ; ^ valid as to part of the property settled, but 
 invalid as to the rest ;* invalid as an absolute grant but
 
 155 POSTXUPTIAIi SETTLEMENTS. ? 100 
 
 valid as a security.* Whether a settlement is, when it 
 is valid between the parties, but otherwise invalid, void, 
 or voidable, does not seem to be clearly determined.'" 
 Thougli "void" is usually the word used,'' the better 
 oijiniou seems to be that it is voidable only.'^ For a 
 bona fide [)urchaser for value from a settlee whose title 
 is invalid against creditors, gets a valid title even 
 against such creditors,'^ which could not be the case 
 if the original settlement was absolutely void against 
 them;" and this is true of both realty '» and person- 
 alty ; 'fi so property previously conveyed in fraud of 
 creditors does not pass by a deed from the settlor for 
 the benefit of such creditors ;^^ so, only a creditor can 
 allege the invalidity of the settlement.'^ The reason 
 the word "void" is so often used is that in the great 
 mass of cases no special proceeding need be resorted to 
 to have a settlement declared void, but the question of 
 validity may be determined in any proceeding at law 
 or in equity to which both the settlor and settlee or 
 their respective successors are parties.'* 
 
 1 CushWii, 5 Md. 44, 50 ; post, U 104, 115, 123. 
 
 2 Garner v. Gravy, 54 Iiul. ISS, liC 
 
 3 Jones V. Obenchaln, lOGratt. 259, 267. 
 
 4 Eogers v. Fates, 5 Pa. St. 1.54, 158. 
 
 5 Niller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 611 ; post, 5? 113-118, 
 
 G Plummer v. Jarmon, 44 Md. 6:52, 630 ; poH, ? 117. 
 
 7 Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610, 615 ; post, 'i llfi. 
 
 8 Farni'TS v. Long, 7 Bush, 337, a40; Wickes v. Clarke, 8 Paige, 
 101, 172; pn.it, ? 100. 
 
 9 Herschfeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 456, 4ftS ; post, H 106, 132, 
 
 10 See Bump Fraud. Convey, ch. xvi. ; post, i 114. 
 
 11 Holland ?i. Croft, 20 Pick. 321, 33,S ; Schumann v. Peddicord, 50 
 Md. 560, 563 ; Mulford v. Peterson, :» N. J. L. 127, 132. 
 
 12 Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. 515, 527 ; 9 Am. Dec. 235. 
 
 13 Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 2,52, 272; Eldred v. Drake, 43 Iowa, .569, 
 570; Oriental Bk. v. Haskins, 3 Met. 332, .340; 37 Am. Dec. 140 ; Farm- 
 ers V. Brooke, 40 Md. 249, 257 ; Phelps r. Morrison, 24 N. J. Eq. 196, 198, 
 19:) ; Anderson v. Koberts, 18 Johns. 515, .525, .530; 9 Am. Dec. 235. Not 
 of course in case of notice : Green v. Early, 39 Md. 223, 229. 
 
 14 See Levi v. Booth, 58 Md. 305, 311.
 
 W 101-102 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEilENTS. 156 
 
 15 Eldred r. Drake, 43 Iowa, 569, 370. 
 
 15 Farmers r. Brooke, 40 5Xd 240, VT,. 
 
 IT Scheffer v. Seltz, Md. Law Koc. Mar. 22, 18S4. 
 
 18 Coshwa, 5 Md. 44, 50 ; pwU \ 123. 
 
 13 Poil, EE3tEDIE3, \\ 123-124. 
 
 \ 101. On what tli3 validitj of postnuptial settlements 
 dapends. — The validity of a postnuptial settlement de- 
 pends or may depend on, (1) the capacity of husband 
 and wife to contract together; (2) the form of the settle- 
 ment ; (3) the consideration ; (4) the absence of fraud 
 or duress ; (.5) the rights of third parties standing in the 
 position of creditors. The capacity of parties has al- 
 ready been discussed (sections 40-4(3) ; the other above- 
 mentioned topics are treated in this chapter (articles 
 ii.-v.). 
 
 Article II. — Form of Postxtptial Settlements. 
 
 I 102. AVTien formalities are necessary. 
 
 \ VP,. Various form^s of settlements. 
 
 \ 102. When formalities are necessary. — In some States 
 all transfers of property between husband and wife 
 must be recorded,' or ratified by a court ; * in others, a 
 wife must file a statement of all her separate property 
 of which her husband ha.s possession;' and generally 
 a married woman cannot release her marriage rights 
 except by ^v^iting or deed.* But acts requiring record 
 of marriage settlements apply only to those in consid- 
 eration of marriage,* not to postnuptial settlements.* 
 Otherwise the formalities are the same as in transfers 
 between strangers.' 
 
 1 Teagne *. Downs, 79 X. C. 280, 287 ; Lewis v. Caperton, 8 Gratt. 
 148, 165. 
 
 2 Bowman f. Kaufman, 30 La. An. 1021, 1025; Keller v. Ruiz, 21 
 La. An. AS ; Atkinson, 15 La. An. 401, 492. 
 
 3 Smith r. Hewett, 13 Iowa, 94, 96 ; Jones, 19 Iowa, 236, 239 240 ; 
 prttl, i'i 120. 121.
 
 157 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. §§ 103-105 
 
 4 Randies, &i Ind. 93, 100 ; post, \\ 270-2?2. 
 
 5 Stewart M. <fc D. {e »i-36. • 
 
 6 Banks i-. Brown, 2 Hill Ch. 558, oH', ; 30 Am. Dec. 380 ; overruling 
 Price V. White, 1 Bail. Ch. 244, 263. 
 
 7 As to desirability of formalities, seeposi, ?| 120, 121. 
 
 g 103. Various forms of postnuptial settlement. — Post- 
 nuptial settlements may be formal or informal, and in 
 their various forms are hereinafter particularly dis- 
 cussed, (article viii.). 
 
 Article III. — Consideration in Postnuptial Set- 
 tlements. 
 
 J 104. Nc?ces.sity of consideration. 
 
 \ 10.5. Kinds of consideration. 
 
 { 103. Adequacy of consideration. 
 
 { 107. Effect of consideration. 
 
 ? 108. :Miscellaueous points as to conslderatloti, 
 
 § 104. Necessity of consideration in postnuptial settle- 
 ments. — A consideration is necessary to render an exec- 
 utory contract enforeible, whether at law' or in equity,^ 
 and to render an. executed .settlement valid as against 
 creditors; 3 but voluntary .settlements or executed gifts 
 are binding between the parties.* A voluntary settle- 
 ment is one without consideration.' The word " consid- 
 eration "' used alone means, in this article, con5ideration 
 recognized by law — that is to say, valuable or real 
 consideration. 8 
 
 1 1 Parsons Cont. 427 ; infra, n. 2. 
 
 2 Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610, 61.5. No gift good without deliverv: 
 Pos^ li r20, 127. 
 
 3 Sexton r. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 220 : 1 Am. L. C. 171 ; post, ?? 109, 
 113-118. As to scope of word " creditors," see post, i 115. 
 
 4 Plummer v. Jarman, 44 Md. fifi, 637: Peirce ?•. Thompson. 17 
 Pick. .31)1, :W3 : Wilder r. Brooks, 10 Minn. 50, 54 ; Reid v. Gray, 37 Pa. 
 bt. 508, 510 ; j>ost, li 124, 127. 
 
 5 Post, i'i 105-107. 
 
 6 Post, ? 105. 
 
 H. & W.— 14.
 
 'i 105 POSTNUPTIAL, SETTLEMENTS. 158 
 
 I 105. Kinds of consideration in postnuptial settlem3nt3. 
 — Postnuptial settlements are made in consideration 
 of love and afiection, or of some valuable thing, or of 
 some nominal thing. 
 
 1 Love and affection. "Love and affection " is a 
 meritorious consideration :- it serves often to explain a 
 grantor's purpose and to disprove a fraudulent intent ; - 
 it is a good consideration as against the grantor and liis 
 representatives ; ^ but it is not a valuable consideration,' 
 it will not sustain an executory contract at all,* or a 
 settlement in prejudice of the riglits of creditors.^ 
 Existing marriage is a consideration of tlie same kind ;^ 
 as is a liusband's desire to make provision for the sup- 
 port he owes^ liis wife.^ 
 
 2. Valuable consideration. Each of (lie following is a 
 valuable consideration : A release of dower,^" or homo- 
 stead,!' or previous settlement, ^^ or separate jiroperty 
 rights ; ^^ an antenuptial enforcible promise to make a 
 settlement ;" an existing debt'* tliough bai'red by lim- 
 itations ; 1^ a wife's equity of settlement ; '' use of prop- 
 erty with understanding that it should bo replaced ; '^ 
 cash received as a loan ; '* rents collected as agent ; ^° 
 wife's right of survivorship in mortgage to her.''^^ It is 
 a valuable considei'ation for a settlement that a court 
 of equity would have compelled its execution.^* If 
 husband and wife, each of them having interests, no 
 matter how much, or of what degree, or of what qual- 
 ity, come to an agreement which is afterwards embod- 
 ied in a settlement, it is a bargain and a transaction on 
 valuable consideration.^^ 
 
 3. Nominal consideration. Each of (he following i ; 
 a mere nominal consideration — really no consideration 
 at all : The wife's property which by law is the hus- 
 band's ; 2^ dower previously voluntarily released ; ^^ 
 property previously voluntarily given up;^" cohabita-
 
 159 POSTXTJPTIAIi SETTLEMENTS. g 105 
 
 tion, ■when this is a dutj^ ; -' the wife's services, when 
 these belong to hei* husband.''* 
 
 1 McMillan v. Peacock, 57 Ala. 127, 123 ; Clayton v. Brown, 17 Ga. 
 217, 220; Majors v. Everton. 8!) 111. 56. 57 ; 31 Am. Rep. 65; Herder, 
 23 Kan. 391, 392 ; Orr, 8 Bush, 156, 1.59 ; Todd v. Wickliff, 18 Hon. B. 
 866.!)0«; Worthlngton v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172, 19S ; Peirce v. Thompson, 
 17 Pick. 301, 393 ; Wells v. Treadwell, 28 Miss. 717. 726; Whitaker, 52 
 N. Y. 308, 371 ; 11 Am. Kep. 711. 
 
 2 Wells V. Treadwell, 28 Miss. 717, 72G. 
 
 3 Orr, 8 Bush, 156, 159 ; Peirce v. Thompson, 17 Pick. 3J1, 39.!. 
 
 4 Claj'ton V. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 220 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 5 Whitaker, 52 N. Y. 368, 371 ; 11 Am. Rep. 711. 
 
 6 Clayton ii. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 220 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 7 Llovd V. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 485 ; Simpson v. Graves, Riley Eq. 
 232 ; Stewart M. &'D.ll .33, 473. 
 
 8 Ante, i 64. 
 
 9 Pale V. Lincoln, 02 111. 22, 26 ; Herschfeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 4."i6. 
 465; Wilder v. Brooks, 10 Minn. 50, 54; Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610, 6.5 ; 
 Jones V. Obenchain, 10 Gratt. 259, 262. Consult ante, i 87. 
 
 10 Sykes v. Chadwick, 18 Wall. 141 ; Hoot v. Sorre'l, 11 Ala. 386, 
 400 ; Nalle v. Lively, 15 Fla. 130 ; Sedgwick v. Tucker, 90 Ind. 271, 277; 
 Brown v. Rawlings, 72 Ind. 505 ; Randies, 6! Ind. 9.5 ; HoUowell v. 
 Simonson, 21 Ind. 398, 400 ; Unger v. Price, 9 Md. 552 ; BuUard v. 
 Briggs, 7 Pick. 53.3, 53S; 19 Am. Dec. 292 ; W-m-.I v. Crotty, 4 Met. 59; 
 Randall, 37 Mich. 503, 572 ; Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340, ;J44 ; Garlick v. 
 Strong, 3 Paige, 440; Searing, 9 Paige, 2S.J ; Kellv v. Case, 18 Hun, 
 472, 474 ; Duffy v. Insurance, 8 Watts & S. 413, 434 ; Banks v. Brown, 
 Riley Ch. 131, 135 ; 30 Am. Dec. 380 ; Payne v. llutchesou, 32 Gratt. 
 812. 
 
 11 Sproul V. Atchison, 22 Kan. 336, 340 ; Keyes v. Rines, 37 Vt. 260, 
 264. 
 
 12 Phila. r. Riddle, 25 Pa. St. 259, 262. 
 
 13 Worthington v. Farber, .52 Ala. 45, 47; Maraman, 4 Met. (Kv.) 
 84, '89; Drui-v r. I'.riscoc. 42 Md. 1.54, 162 ; Tellvr v. i'.islu.p. ,S Minn. 226, 
 228; Buttcrrti'lil r. Stanton, 41 Mi.ss. 15, .l.l ; (Jickc;-/'. Mai ti:i, ."'0 Pa. St. 
 138,140,141; Pfciircr c. Lytic, r,s Pa. St. ::s'i, :;:n ; Uca.ly c. Bragg, 1 
 Head, 511, 515 ; Williams v. Powell. 12 (iratt. 372, :i6~> ; Rose ik Brown, 
 H W. Va. 122, 136 ; Wochoska, 45 Wis. 423, 420. 
 
 14 Stewart M. & D. ? 3.3. See Mechanics r. Tavlor, 2 Cranch C. C. 
 507; Andrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 401, 421 ; Harper v. Scott, 12 Ga. 125 ; 
 Lvne V. Bank, 5 Marsh. J. J. ;>45, .V)2 ; Bi'lfonl v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 
 26.5, 271 ; Reade i'. Livingston, 3 Johns, ch. 4.S1, 4SS ; 8 Am. Dec. 520 ; 
 Saunders v. Ferrill, 1 Ired. 97, 102 ; Caines v. Marley, 2 Yerg. 582, 588. 
 
 15 Wilson V. Sheppard, 28 Ala. 023, 629 ; Jones v. Brandt, 69 Iowa, 
 332, 347 ; Latimer r. Glenn, 2 Bush, 535, .541 ; Lehman v. I-evy, 30 La. 
 An. 74.5, 7.50 ; Pfeiffer c. Lytle, 58 Pa. St. 386, 391 ; ante, I 45. 
 
 16 French v. Mothy, 03 Me. 326, 328. 
 
 17 Montefiore v. Bchrens, Law R. 1 Eq. 171; Bradford r. Golds- 
 bo.-ough, 15 Ala. 311, 315 ; McCaulev v. Rodes,7 Mon. B. 462 ; INIcClun- 
 iiluin V. r.easlev, 17 IMon. B. Ill, 114 ; Oswald v. Hoover, 43 Md. 300, 
 :;0;); Stockctt c. Ilollidav, 9 Md. 4.S0, 49.S ; Partridge ?'. Havens, 10 
 P.iige, 018, 024, 025 ; Waldeii, ;J3 Gratt. 83,95, 90 ; Poiadjxter v. Jeffries, 
 loCi:att. 30.;, 373.
 
 § 106 posTXurTiAL settle:jents. 160 
 
 18 Butterfield v. Stanton, 44 Miss. 15, 35. 
 
 19 Teller v. Bishop, 8 Minn. 220, 228. 
 
 20 Barker v. Morrill, 55 Ga. 3:52, 3:?4. 
 
 21 Stoekett v. HoUiday, 9 Md. 4S0, 403. 
 
 22 Wvkes ». Clarke, 8 Paisre, 171, 172 ; Poindexter v. Jeffries, 15 
 Gratt. 3G:i, 373 ; Putiiam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. 3Xi, 337. 
 
 23 Teasdale v. Braithwaite, Law R. 4 Ch. D. 85, 90 , 46 Law J. Cb. 
 396. 
 
 24 Ream v. Karnes, 90 Ind. 167, 172 ; Buohanan v. Lee, 69 Ind. 117 ; 
 Bayne v. State, Md. Law Ree. Aug. 23, 1884 ; Oswald v. Hoover, 43 
 Md 360, 368 ; Plummer v. Jarman, 44 Md. 032, 637 ; Peirce v. Thomp- 
 son, 17 Pick. 391, 393 ; Gicker v. Martin, 50 Pa. St. 138, 141. 
 
 25 Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340, 344. 
 
 26 Whittlesv v. MnMahon, 13 Conn. 138 ; 26 Am. Dec. .382 ; Lvne v 
 Bank 5 Marsli. J. J 545, .552 ; Sabel v. Slingluff, .52 Md. 132, 134 ; Kuhn 
 ->'. Stansfield, 28 Md. 210, 216 ; Terry v. Wilson, 63 Mo. 493, 4!I9 ; Wood- 
 son V. Pool. 19 Mo. .340, .344 ; Clark v. Rosekrans, 31 N. J. Eq. G65, 667 ; 
 Johnston, 31 Pa. St. 450, 454; Perkins, 1 Tenn. Ch. 537; Cheatam v. 
 Hess, 2 Tenn. Ch. 763. 
 
 27 Ante, ? 59. 
 
 28 Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 265, 271 ; ante, § 6.5. 
 
 g 106. Adequacy of consideration in marriage settle- 
 ments. — As a general rule, if a consideration is real (val- 
 uable) its adequacy is not inquired into.' But inade- 
 quacy of con.si deration is evidence of fraud.* And as 
 against creditors the consideration for a settlement 
 must be fair and reasonable,^ the payment of a trivial 
 sum,* or such a disproportionate consideration as two 
 hundred and seventy dollars, for property worth two 
 thousand dollars,* or four hundred dollars for property 
 worth eighteen hundred dollars,^ will not defeat credi- 
 tors' rights ; ' as to them the settlement is voluntary to 
 the extent of the excess ;8 and though if the settlee has 
 acted in good faith he or she will be protected as a cred- 
 itor,8 and the settlement treated as a securitj* for the 
 actual consideration, 10 in the case of bad faith he or she 
 will not be protected at all.'' 
 
 1 Hoot V. Sorrell, 11 Ala. .3.87. 400 ; Drury it. Briscoe, 42 Md. 1»1, 163 ; 
 Duffv v. Insurance, 8 Watts & S. 413, 435 ; Banks v. Brown, Riley Ch. 
 131, 1.38 ; 30 Am. Dec. 380 ; Taylor v. Executor, 4 Desaus. Eq. 'l-', 231. 
 Se3 Anson, Contracts, p. 63; Parsons, Contracts, 429; Lawrence 
 V. McCalmont, 2 How. 426 ; Follett v. Rose, 3 McLean, 32 ; Stewart v. 
 State, 2 Bar. & G. 114 ; Hubbard v. Coolidge, 1 Met. 84 ; Knobb v.
 
 161 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. ? 107 
 
 lilndsey, 5 Ohio, 471 ; Goree v. Wiison, 1 Bail. 597 ; Brachan v. Griffin, 
 3 Call, 4."i3 ; Kiflfler v. Chamborlai;i, -11 Vt. 62. But see Schnell v. Nell, 
 17 Incl. 21) ; Bailey v. Bay, 26 Me. bS. 
 
 2 GofiFr. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459, 461 ; post, i 112. 
 
 3 Hollowell V. Sinionson, 21 Ind. 398, 400 ; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 
 Pick. bXi, 5:!8 ; 19 Am. Dec. 2;i2. 
 
 4 Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172, 198 ; Den v. York, 13 Ired. 206, 
 211. 
 
 5 Peigiie v. Snovvden, 1 Desaus. Eq. 531, 592. 
 
 6 Herschfeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 456, 4GS. Five thousand dollars 
 for twenty thou.sand dollars : Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172, 198. 
 
 7 .See Farmers v. Long, 7 Bush, 3"7, 340 ; Bowie v. Stonestreet, C 
 Mrl. 418, 433 ; Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md 172, 198 ; Ilenkle v. Wilson, 
 5.i Md. 2S7, 294 ; Bullard v. Brig^'s, 7 Pick. 533, 5:;8 ; 19 Am. Dec. 242 ; 
 Hcrschfi-lilt V. George, 6 Mich. 4.')6, 4ftS ; Hill v. Biigg, .52 Miss. 397, 402 ; 
 Kelley v. Case, IS Hun, 472, 474 ; Den v. York, 13 Ired. 2fifi, 210 ; Peigne 
 V. Snowdcn, 1 Desaus. Eq. 591, 592 ; Johnston v. Gill, 27 Gratt. 587, 591 ; 
 Davis, 25 Gratt. 587,596 ; William v. Powell, 12Gr;'tt. :~2, 3h4 ; Warren 
 V. Eanney, 50 Vt. 655, 656. 
 
 8 Johnston v. Gill, 27 Gratt. 587, .591. 
 
 9 Davis, 25 Gratt. 587, 59!) ; William v. Powell, 12 (iratt. S72, :185 ; 
 infra, n. 10. 
 
 10 Hinkle v. Wilson, 53 Md. 287, 294 ; Herschfeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 
 456, 468 ; supra, n. 9. 
 
 11 Warren v. Ranney, .50 Vt. 6.55, 656; post, ? 107. 
 
 ? 107. Effect of considoration in postnuptial settlements. 
 — A consideration cliange.s the cliaracter of a transac- 
 tion and malves it a bargain instead of a gift.i But 
 when a settlement is actually intended to hinder, de- 
 lay, or defraud creditors,^ the setllce sharing in this 
 intent,^ it is, under the statutes,* void as to them, 
 though made upon valuable consideration.' On the 
 other hand, though a settlement is originally fraudu- 
 lent in fact or in law,^ a bona fide assignee of tlie settlee 
 without notice' gets a good title if the assignment i.s on 
 valuable consideration.^ So it is .said a valuable con- 
 sideration may be subsequently given and yet sustain 
 the settlement.9 The most important effect of an ade- 
 quate valuable consideration is that it excludes the 
 presumption of fraud in law.^" 
 
 1 Teasdale v. Braithwalte, Law R. 4 Ch. D. 85, 90 ; 46 Law J. Ch. 
 396. 
 
 2 PoA/,?? 109, 111, 11.3-117.
 
 I 108 POSTNUPTIAL, SETTLEMENTS. 162 
 
 3 Prewlt V. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22, 23, 24 ; post, ? 111. 
 
 4 Post, I 114. 
 
 5 Pomproy v. Bailev, 43 N. H. 118, 120 ; Jletropolitau r. Durant, 22 
 N. J. Eq. 35, 42 ; ante, J 105. 
 
 6 Post, ? 109. 
 
 7 Green v. Early, 39 Md. 223, 229, 2:50. 
 
 8 Eldred v. Drake, 43 Iowa, oG7, 570 ; ante, ? 100. 
 
 9 Bank v. Brown, 2 Hill Ch. 558, 563 ; 30 Am. Dec. 380. 
 10 Post, U 109, 114. 
 
 I 108. Miscellaiioous points as to consideration in post- 
 nuptial settlements. — A (luit-claiiu deed is pi-esuuitHl to 
 be without consideration. ^ The consideration stated ia 
 a deed is prima facie the actvial consideration as between 
 the parties and their privies,^ but not as against cred- 
 itors.3 If a consideration is expres.sed in a written 
 contract no different one may be proved.^ Love and 
 affection being alleged, a valuable consideration cannot 
 be proved,^ though the contrary is held in one case ; * 
 nor can the settlee's broken promises to treat the settlor 
 kindly, in an application to set the settlement aside.^ 
 But under "divers good causes and considerations" 
 love and affection may be proved,^ or some valuable 
 consideration.^ The jihrase "good consideration" in 
 tlie Alabama statute is construed to include " A^aluable 
 consideration." i" 
 
 1 Loo mis V. Brush, ."ifi Mich. 40, A'. 
 
 2 Mayfield v. Kilffour, 31 Md. 240, 245. 
 
 3 Williams v. Powell, 12 ttratt. 3?2, .384 ; Miilfonl r. Peterson, 35 
 >'. J. L. 127, 1:54, 135. 
 
 4 See 1 Parsons Cont. 42t),430; Veacock v. McCall, Gilp. 320; Emery 
 V. Chase, 5 Me. 232 ; .Schermerhorn v. Vanderheyden, 1 Johns. 139 ; 3 
 Am. Dec. .304. 
 
 5 Ma>'field v. Kilgour, 3 Md. 240, 246. 
 
 6 Bank v. Brown, 2 Hill Ch. 558, 563. 
 
 7 Orr, 8 Bush, 1^56, 159. 
 
 8 Pomeroy v. Bailey, 43 N. H. 118, 121. 
 
 n See Cutter v. Reynolds, 8 Mon. B. 596 ; Maigley <; Hauer, 7 
 Johns. :H1. 
 
 10 Killough V. Steele, 1 Stewt. & P. 262.
 
 163 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. g 109 
 
 Article IV. — Fraud ix Postnuptial Settlements. 
 
 i 109. Fraud in law and in fact. 
 
 i 110. Fraud between the parties, 
 
 f 111. Fraud against creditors. 
 
 i 112. Evidence of fraud. 
 
 ? 109. Fraud in law and in fact. — A postnuptial set- 
 tlement may be fraudulent in law or fraudulent in fact.' 
 Though a husband when he deals with his Avife stands 
 in much the same position as a trustee when he deals 
 with his cestui que trust, "^ and the law raises certain pre- 
 sumptions of fraud against hini,^ the distinction be- 
 tween fraudulent in law and fraudulent in fact is 
 generally applied only to conveyances which aflfect the 
 rights of the grantor's creditors.'' A settlement made 
 with the actual intention of hindering, delaying, or 
 defrauding creditors is fraudulent in fact ; one which 
 naturally does, so is fraudulent in law, for the law 
 conclusively presumes that one intends the natural 
 consequences of his acts.^ Any convej-auce may be 
 fraudulent in fact, but only a voluntary ^ conveyance 
 can be fraudulent in law.^ For, howsoever much a 
 man is indebted he may in good faith sell or exchange 
 his property, or with it jiay one or more of his debts ;■* 
 but he must be just before he is generous,!" and he can- 
 not give his propertj'^ away if this makes his debts more 
 difficult to collect ;'i this necessarily prejudices his 
 creditor's rights, and the law presumes fraud.'^ If a 
 settlement be voluntary the grantee's honesty will not 
 give her any rights ;i^ but if it be on valuable consider- 
 ation she will be protected to the extent thereof unless 
 she be a party to an actual fraud." 
 
 1 Bump Fraud. Convey. 22. 
 
 2 Darlington, 86 Pa. St. 512, 519 ; 27 Am. Rep. r26. 
 
 3 Post, i no.
 
 g no POSTNUPTIAL, SETTLEMEXTS. 164 
 
 5 Bump Fnuul Convey. 22, 23, 
 
 6 Ante, U 105, ICd. 
 
 7 KUiott ('. nnrn, 10 Ala. 3-IS, 352 ; Wood v. Savage, Walk. Ch. 471, 
 475 ; Wilt'.v V. Gray, :« Miss. 510, olo. 
 
 8 Wriijht V. Stanard, 2 Brock. 311, 315 ; ante, I 105, notes 10-23, 
 5106. 
 
 9 Casson i'. Murray, 15 Mo. 378, 381 ; post, | 116, n. 6. 
 
 10 Clayton v. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 220 ; Black v. Sanders, 1 Jones, 67. 
 
 11 Sexton V. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17; post, 
 §116. 
 
 12 See Beers v. Botsford, 13 Conn. 146, 154 ; Gardiner v. Wheaton, 8 
 Me. 373, 381 ; Jones v. Spear, 21 Vt. 426, 431 ; post, I 116. 
 
 13 Matson r. Melchor, 42 Mich. 477, 480. 
 
 14 Prewit i'. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22, 23, 24 ; jMst, § 111 
 
 § 110. Fraud between the parties in postnuptial settle- 
 ments. — Formerly, a married woman was deemed en- 
 tirely under her husband's control, and incapable of 
 voluntaiy acts in his presence,' and even now her 
 torts ^ and crimes^ committed in his presence are pre- 
 sumed committed under his coercion. So in the case 
 of contracts. These at common law were void,* and 
 good in equity only if proved to have been fairly and 
 freely made.* But now, although the greatest good 
 ■faith is required in dealings between husband and 
 ■wafe,® "v\^hich are treated much as dealings between 
 trustee and cestui que trust are,^ and in case of a gift by 
 her to him,^ or an inadequate consideration,^ or an ad- 
 vantage secured by him,'" the burden of proof is on 
 him to show that the transaction was freely and delib- 
 erately concluded," the mere fact that he is her hus- 
 band does not render it a fraud for him to take property 
 from her;i* but she must prove fraud or undue influ- 
 ence,'^ and allowance will be made for their intimate 
 relation.!* The husband's fraud or duress will not 
 affect the validity of a wife's transfer in the hands of a 
 hona fide purchaser for value ; '* she cannot have her 
 deed to a third party set aside on account of her hus-
 
 165 FOSTXUPTIAIi SETTLEJIE>-TS. g 110 
 
 band's conduct, i* unless they were confederates," or 
 the husband acted as such third partj-'s agent in ob- 
 taining tlie deed.'s in spite of fraud, equitj^ -will sus- 
 tain a settlement between husband and wife if for the 
 benefit of them both.^' Generally, courts of equity 
 alone will attord them relief.^" 
 
 1 Ante, i 38 ; post, ? 121. 
 
 2 Ante, ? 66 ; post, ch. xxiv. 
 
 3 Ante, § 68 ; post, ch. xxv. 
 
 4 Ante, i 41; post, 1359. 
 
 5 Ante, I 4-. 
 
 6 Willetts, 104 111. 122 ; Campbell, 80 Pa, St. 298, 309. 
 
 7 Darlington, 8G Pa. St. 512, 519 ; 27 Am. Rep. 726. 
 
 8 Bovd )'. De la Montagnip, 73 X. Y. 498, 502; 29 Am. Rep. 197; 
 McRae v. Battle, 69 IN'. C. 98, 107 ; Darlington, 86 Pa. St. 512, 520 ; 27 
 Am. Rep. 726. 
 
 9 Birclsong, 2 Head, 289, 296 ; ante, ? 106. 
 
 10 Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 322. 
 
 11 See cases in notes 8-10 ; Smyley v. Reese, 53 Ala. 89, 101 ; Camp- 
 bell, 80 Pa. St. 298, 309. 
 
 12 Scarboronsrh v. Watkins, 9 Mon. B. 540, 547, 548 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 Meriam v. Harlem, 4 Edw. Ch. 70, 82. 
 
 13 Witbeck, 25 Mich. 439, 442; Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329, 
 333. 
 
 14 Consult Smyley v. Reese, 53 Ala. 89, 101 ; Stone v. Wood, 85 111. 
 603, cm ; Linn v. Blizzard, 70 Ind. 23 ; Seuscr r. Rawson, 50 Iowa, 634 ; 
 Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 Mon. B. 540, 547 ; 50 .\m. Dec. 528 : Battle 
 V. Ka.sa, 30 La. An. WO ; Whitridge v. Barrv, 42 Md. 140, 153 ; Eccleston 
 ?•. First, 48 Md. 145, 160 ; Smith v. Osborn, 33 Mich. 41P ; Whitbeck, 2.d 
 Mich. 439, 442 ; Jenne v. Marble, 39 Mich. 319, 322 ; Freeman v. Wilson, 
 -il Miss. 329, 333 ; Ferdon v. Miller, 'M N. J. Eq. 10, 13 n ; Remington v. 
 Wright, 43 X. J. T . 4.M, 4.t: ; Boyd v. De la Montai,'nie, 73 X. Y. 4S9, •502 ; 
 29 Am. Rep. 197 ; Rexford, 7 I>ans. 6, 7 ; Meriam c. Harlem, 4 Edw. 
 Ch. 70, 82 ; McRae v. Battle, 69 X. C. 98, 107 ; Levi v. Earl, 3 Ohio St. 
 147; Campbell, 80 Pa. St. 298, 1509; Darlington, 86 Pa. St. 512, 519; 27 
 Am. Rep. 726 ; Hammit v. Bull, 8 Phila. 29, 30 ; Birdsong, 2 Head, 289, 
 296. 
 
 15 Connecticut v. McCormick, 45 Cal. ."iSO ; Spurgin v. Traub. 65 111. 
 170, 175 ; Finnegan, 3 Tenn. Ch. 510 ; cases infra, n. 16 ; mite, i 100. 
 
 16 Rogers v. Adams, 66 Ala. 600, 602 ; Collins v. Wassell, 34 Ark. 17, 
 33; Connecticut v. McCormick, 45 Cal. 580; Spurgin v. Traub, 65 lU. 
 170, 175 ; Green r. Scranage, 19 Iowa, 461, 465 ; Baldwin v. Snowden, 11 
 Ohio St. 203, 211 ; Hammit v. Bull, 8 PhUa, 29, 30. 
 
 17 Fargo v. Goodspeed, 87 111. 290, 296. 
 
 18 Haskitt ?•. Elliott, 58 Ind. 493, 499 ; Central v. Copeland, 18 Md. 
 305, 320 ; Comeggs c. Clarke, 44 Md. 108, 110. 
 
 19 Birdsong, 2 Head, 289, 296. 
 
 ,20 Stone v. Wood, 85 HI. 603, 609 ; ante, ? 53 ; post, ?? 122-124.
 
 g? 111-112 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. 166 
 
 ^ 111 Fraud against creditors in postnuptial settlements 
 — A settlement fraiulul nit in f(ic*J is A-oid as to all cred- 
 itors it was intended to hindei, delay, or defraud,'^ 
 whether the settlement is Aoluntary or not,^ and 
 whether the creditors are existing* or subsequent;^ 
 except that if it be made on valuable consideration ^ it is 
 valid unless the grantee has notice of the fraud.' A 
 6ona/frfe voluntary ^ conveyance is fraudulent in law,^ 
 as against existing creditorSj^" but valid as against sub- 
 sequent creditors." 
 
 1 Ante, 5 100. 
 
 2 Ante. ? 100 ; 2^ost, U 116, 117, 123. 
 
 3 Clayton v. Brown, 17 Gu. 217,221; Pomeroy v. Bailey, -13 N. H. 
 118, 120 ; Metropolitan )'. Durant, 22 N. J.Eq. 3.i.-12 ; Aslimeacl v. Kean, 
 13 Pa. St. t8J. .W7; .Sniitli v. Culbertson, 'J Kich. lOG, 110; Walcott v. 
 Brancier, 10 Tex. 419, 42-1 ; ante, U 101-107. 
 
 4 Post, I 116. 
 
 5 Post, ? 117. 
 
 6 Ante, U lW-103. 
 
 7 Prewit v. Wilson, 103 V. S.'ZZ, 23,24; M.is'i'-c v. Thompson,? 
 Peters, 34S, 3!i3 ; Sisson?'. Booth, :M<'onn. 15, 17; /.iinin'Tnuin v. Ilein- 
 richs, 43 Iowa, 2G0, 264 ; Matson v. Melchor, 42 Mifh. 477, 4s0. 
 
 8 Ante, U 104-103. 
 
 9 Elliott V. Horn, 10 Ala. 348, 352 ; Bank v. Enais, Wright, 604, 6a5 ; 
 ante, I lOJ; ix>st, 'i 116. 
 
 10 Kohr V. Smith, 20 Wall. 31, 35 ; ]Mst, | 116. 
 
 11 Clayton v. Brown, 30 Ga. 400, 495 ; post, ? 117. 
 
 § 112. Evidence of fraud. — Fraud is a question of law 
 or of fact.' Whether a bona fide voluntary conveyance 
 does prejudice the rights of existing creditors, .seems to 
 be a question of law ;2 the legal presumption is that it 
 does,'' and the burden of proof is on the grantee to 
 show that under all the circumstances of the case the 
 provision was reasonable;* that, for example, the 
 grantor Avas not insolvent,^ and had after the .settle- 
 ment sufficient*' funds accessible' to his creditors to 
 pay all his debts ; if the grantee does not .satisfy the 
 court to this effect, the conveyance will be held fraud- 
 ulent.8 In such cases all the creditor has to prove Ls
 
 1G7 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS ;J lH 
 
 the grantor's indebtedness to him.' But when fraud 
 in fact is alleged by him, the creditor must prove it.'' 
 Fraud is usually proved by circumstantial evidence — 
 direct proof cannot be expected '^ — and even the grant 
 ee's knowledge of the fraud may be inferred from cir 
 cumstances.'^ Some of the circumstances which tend 
 to prove fraud and which are called badges of fraud,'' 
 are/* secrecy, ^^ tlie grantor's embarrassed condition,''- 
 the conveyance of all his property,'" inadequacy oi' 
 consideration, '8 and retention of possession. i'^ In such 
 cases fraud is simply a fact to be ascertained like any 
 other fact. 2" 
 
 1 Ante, i 109. 
 
 2 See Beers v. Bottsford, 13 Conn. 1-lfi, 154 ; Sherwood v. Marwick, 
 .5 Me. 295, 302 ; Meyers r. Kins, 42 Md. 65, 71 ; Farmers r. Brooke, -10 
 Md. 24!), 25U ; Jones r. Spear, 21 Vt. 42(!, 431 ; cases cited infra. 
 
 3 Leavitt, 47 X. H. 329, .333 ; Wcolston, 57 Pa. St. 452, 456. 
 
 4 Hapgood )'. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 409 ; .56 Am. Dec. 663 ; Warner v. 
 Dove, 33 Md. 579, 583, 587 ; Leavitt, 47 N. H. 329, 33 ! ; Woolstoii, 51 Pa. 
 St. 452, 4.56. 
 
 5 Bank v. Patten, 1 Rob. (Va.) 500, 527; Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 
 Gratt. 3;34, 340. 
 
 6 Hapgood V. Fisher, .34 Me. 407, 409 ; 53 Am. Dec. 663 ; Smith ?'. 
 Reavis, 7 Ired. .341, :M3 , Izard, 1 Bail. Ch. 228, 237. 
 
 7 Bnllett V. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 90, lO; ; .Vnnin, 24 N. J. Kq. 
 185, 191, 194. 
 
 8 Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579, 5S6, .587 ; casos supra. 
 
 9 Clarke v. McGeihan, 25 N. J. Eq. 423, 424 : Reynolds v. Lansford, 
 16 Tex. 286, 291; Bank v. Patton, 1 Roh. (Va.) 500,527; Wilson v. 
 Buchanan, 7 Gratt, 334, 340 ; post, i 11.5. 
 
 10 Larkin v. McMullin, 49 Pa. St. 29, .34, 3.5. 
 
 11 Bump Fraud. Convey, chaps. 4, 23, pp. •<4, 600, 601, 
 
 12 Zimmerman v. Heinrichs, 43 Iowa, 260, 264. 
 
 13 See Kadogan ?i. Kennett, 2 Cowp. 432 ; Terrell v. Green, 11 Ala. 
 207. 
 
 14 Bump, Fraud. Convey, ch. 4. 
 
 15 Lvman v. Cessford, 15 Iowa, 229, 234 ; Hatch r. Gray, 21 Iowa, 
 29, 32, 
 
 16 Bump Fraud. Convey, p, 34 ; Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. 334, 
 340. 
 
 17 See Ware v. Gardner, Law R. 7 Eq. 317, 321 ; Al-^xander, 1 Low. 
 470, 474 ; Horn v. Ross, 20 Ga. 210, 223 ; Clavton r. r.iown, :» Ga. 4'I0, 
 4'i5 ; Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43, 46; Peisne r. Snowden, 1 Desaus. 
 .591, .592 ; Cram v. Stickles, 15 Vt, 2.52, 2.57. Compare Wilder v. Brooks, 
 10 Minn 50, 66 ; Casson v. Murray, 15 Mo. 378, 38L
 
 g? 113-114 RIGHTS OF CREDITORS. 168 
 
 IS Wright V. Stanard, 2 Brock. 311, 314 ; Bozman v. Draughan, 3 
 Stewt. 2-13, 2-16 ; Goffr. Rogers, 71 Ind. 451), 481 ; Casson v. Murray, 15 
 
 ]\io. 378, -.m. 
 
 19 See fully post, i 121. 
 
 20 Goff n. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459, 461 ; Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 
 409 ; .56 Am. Dec. 663 ; Cas.son v. Murray, 15 Mo. 378, 383 ; Pomeroy v. 
 Bailey, 43 N. H. 118, 122 ; Larkin v. McMuUin, 44 Pa. St. 29, 35. 
 
 Article V. — Rights of Creditors. 
 
 i 113. Fraudulent conveyances defined. 
 
 1 114. Statutes protecting creditors. 
 
 § 115. Wlio are protected as creditors. 
 i 116. Rights of existing creditors. 
 
 2 117. Riglits of subsequent creditors. 
 
 § H8. Property exempt from creditor's rights. 
 
 ? 113. Fraudulent conveyances defined. — A transfer by 
 which the grantor hinders, dehiys or defrauds his cred- 
 itoi-s is called a " fraudulent conveyance." Such con- 
 veyances are of two Icinds,^ those which are made with 
 the intent to evade creditors, where there is fraud in 
 fact,'^ and those where there is no such intent, but which 
 being voluntary, prejudice creditor's riglits, where there 
 is fraud in law.^ The usual rules as to fraudulent con- 
 veyances apply generally to conveyances between hus- 
 band and wife.* But the subject is too vast to be 
 minutely treated herein. 
 
 1 See Elliott v. Horn, 10 Ala. .348, 352. 
 
 2 Williams v. Avery, 38 Ala. 115, IIG ; nnte, ? lOX 
 
 3 Bank v. Fatten, 1 Rob. (Va.) .500, 527 ; ante, I 109. 
 
 4 Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17 ; Shepar J, 
 7 Johns. C h. .57 ; Ewell's Lead. Cas. 280. 
 
 I 114. Statutes protecting creditors against postnuptial 
 S3ttlemonts. — The statutes relating to this subject whicli 
 are constantly referred to,^ which are inereh' declara- 
 tory of the common law,^ which, as a part of the com- 
 mon law, are in force in many States,^ and which form 
 the basis of most mod rn statutes against fraudulent
 
 1G9 RIGHTS OF CREDITORS. § 114 
 
 conveyances,* are : 13 Eliz. ch. 5, and 27 Eliz. ch. 4. 
 Statute 13 Eliz. ch. 5, provides that all transfers made 
 to the end, purpose, and intent to delay, hinder, or 
 defraud creditors and others of tlieir lawful rights are 
 "utterly void" as against such creditors and others; 
 but does not affect ho7ia fide transfers for value.^ Stat - 
 ute 27 Eliz. cli. 4, provides that all transfers made for 
 the intent and purpose of defrauding subsequent pur- 
 chasers are " utterly void" as against such subsequent 
 purchasers ; but does not affect bona fide transfers for 
 value.^ These statutes are construed liberally.'' and 
 alike at law and in equity ;8 but while at common law 
 fraudulent intent was a mere question of fact,^ under 
 these statutes it became in part a question of law.^" The 
 general statutes on the subject in the several States are 
 given tlie same effect as these statutes in spite of some- 
 what different wording ; 'i but the modern system of 
 public records has greatly diminished the importance 
 of statute 27 Eliz. ch. 4.'^ There are, moreover, such 
 statutes as that in Maryland, which provides that no 
 acquisition of property of wife from husband shall be 
 valid if made in prejudice of the rights of his creditors,!^ 
 and these seem to add nothing to the common law.'* 
 Bankruptcy acts may also affect such conveyances,!^ for 
 a convej^ance by a husband to his wife of all his prop- 
 erty is an act of bankruptcy;'^ and other collateral 
 statutes may jirotect creditors." 
 
 1 See citations under "Fraudulent Conveyances" ii T'nited 
 States Digest ; Bump on Fraud. Convev. ; Wi».xton ?'. Wheaton, 8 
 Wheat. 229 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17. 
 
 3 Cadogan v. Kennet, Cowp. 434 ; Hamilton ?•. Russell, 1 Crunch, 
 30^, 316; Adams v. Brougiiton, 13 Ala. 731, 730; Wliittlesv v. Mc- 
 Mahon.lO Conn. 13S, 141; 26 Am. Dec. 382 ; Fleming c. Townseiid. 6 
 Ga. 103, lOS ; .50 Am. Dec. 31g : Sparrow v. Chesley, 19 Me. 7'i Hud- 
 nal V. Wilder, 4 McCord, 2as, 297; 17 Am. Dec. 744; Wilt ?'. Franl^lin, 
 1 Binn. 502, .514, 323 ; 2 Am. Dec. 474 ; Footman v. Pendergrass, ■* Rich. 
 Eq. .33 ; Howard v. Williams, 1 Bail. 575, .580 ; 21 Am. Dec. 483. 
 
 3 Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205 ; Bohn v. Headley, 7 Har. & J. 2.57, 
 271 ; ante, f 6. 
 
 H. & W. — 15.
 
 g 115 EIGHTS OF CREDITORS. 170 
 
 4 See Anderson v. Hooks, 9 Ala. 704; Blackman v. Wheatou, 13 
 Minn. ;e6. 
 
 5 Alex. Brit. Stat. 378-405. 
 
 6 Alex. Brit. Stat. 41.^-420. 
 
 7 1 Bish. il. W. § 739. 
 
 8 Ilopkirk r. Randolph, 2 Brock. 133, 139 ; ante, 1 16. 
 
 9 Avery v. Street, 6 Watts, 247, 24S ; ante, H 109, H'i 
 
 10 See Beers v. Botsford, I'i Conn. 140, 1.>1 ; Oardiner v. Wheaton, 8 
 Me. 37:i, :i.Sl ; Meyers v. King, 42 Mil. 6), 71 ; Jones v. Spear, 21 Vt. 426. 
 4;u ; ante, I 101. The accepted rule now is that the presumptions or 
 law are rebuttable . Cuthi-art v. Robinson, 5 Peters, 2fi4, 280 ; ICehr v. 
 Smith, 20 Wall. 31, 35 ; post, i UG ; ante, '<t 112. 
 
 11 Butterfield )i. 8 anton, 44 Miss. 15, 30 ; Johnston v. Gill, 27 Gratt. 
 587, 592. 
 
 12 Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17, 4S. 
 
 13 Md. R. C. art. 51, I 19, p. 481. 
 
 14 See ScheiTer v. Seltz, Md. L. Rec. March 22, 1<*84 ; Erdman v. 
 Rosenthal, 60 Md. 312, 3i(i ; Crane v. Barkdoll, 59 Md. 534, 535 ; llinkle 
 V. Wilson, 53 Md. 287, 292; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14 ; Keller, 45 
 Md. 270, 275 ; Plumnxer )'. jarinan, 44 Md. 6:44. 637; M.vers )». King, 42 
 Md. 65 ; Drurv r. Briscoe, 42 Md. 154 ; Sanborn v. Long, 41 Md. 107 ; 
 Farmers v. Brooke, 40 Md. 347,257: Green v. Earlv, :i:t Md. 223, 229 ; 
 Green c. Townseml, :i!i Md. 223; Warner v. DoVi-, :i3 .Md. 579, 586; 
 Mavfield v. Kilginu-, 31 Md. 240,244; Kulin r. Staiistield, 2,s Md. 210 ; 
 Insurance i\ Deale, 18 Md. 26 ; Jones, 18 Md. 464 ; Stockett v. Hollidav, 
 9 Md. 480*; Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 192, 198. 
 
 15 Peachy Mar. Settlem. 210, ti seq. 
 
 16 Alexander, 1 Low. 470, 474. 
 
 17 Reich, 26 Minn. 97, 98. 
 
 g 115. Wio are protected as creditors. — To be fraudu- 
 lent and invalid, a .settlement must defeat or prejudice 
 a just and lawful riglit of action in contract or tort 
 enforcible at law or in equity ; i one who has such a 
 right is protected^ as a creditor ;* but every settlement 
 is valid, unless tliere is fraud between the parties,* 
 against the grantor,^ his heirs, ^ personal representa- 
 tives,' and beneficiaries.* A child, however, is pi-o- 
 tected as a creditor if wholly unprovided for,^ just as 
 tlie wife would be herself if the conveyance wore to a 
 stranger.!" The time at wliicli the right of ac:ion arose, 
 whetlier before or after the execution of the transfer, is, 
 however, important, for tlie rights of tliose whose claims 
 arose before (existing creditors) '^ difler from the rights
 
 171 EIGHTS OF CREDITORS. § 116 
 
 of those whose claims arose afterwards (subsequent 
 creditors).i2 
 
 1 Sep. the woriiing of the British statutes, cited ante, ? 114 ; 
 Bump Fraud. Convey. 5'>1, ■jii'.i. 
 
 2 Ante, § 119 ; post, Remedie-;, ?? 122-12-1. 
 
 3 Sexton 7'. Wh"aton, S Wh^at. 22T ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17, 42 ; Kins 
 V. Thorp, 26 Iowa, 28:J ; Bump Fraud. Convey, pp. 502, et s&i. 
 
 4 Ante, \ 110. 
 
 5 Gardner v. Orad.y, .51 Inl. ISS, 112; Schuman v. Peddicord, .50 
 Md. ■560, .51)2 ; Pluramer v. .larman, 41 Md. fti2, 039 ; ante, \ 100; Bump 
 Fraud. Convey. 444. 
 
 6 Peck V. Brummagim, SI Cil. 440, 44-5 ; Leonard v. Wills, 24 Kan. 
 231 ; Jones v. Obenchain, 10 Gi-att. 2.5J, 267 ; Bump Fraud. Convey. 445. 
 
 7 Cushwa, .5 Md. 44, .53 ; Bump Fraud. Convey. 445. 
 
 8 Rogers v. Fales, 5 Pa. St. 154, 158 ; ante, ? 100. 
 
 9 Crook s, .S4 Ohio St. 610, 61.5. See Majors r. Everton, 89 III. 56 ; .■?! 
 Am. Rep. 65 ; Honler, 23 Kan. 391. As to father's duty to support 
 child, see Stewart M. & D. JJ 404-107. 
 
 10 Stewart M. & L. § 381. 
 
 11 Post, \ 116. 
 
 12 Post, 2 116. 
 
 \ 116. Rights of existing creditors. — If a debtor trans- 
 fers his property for adequate,' valuable consideration, ^ 
 his creditors cannot complain unless his actual inten- 
 tion in making the transfer was to defeat or prejudice 
 their rights,^ and was shared in by his grantee.* Still, 
 in the absence of statute,^ a mere preference of a bona 
 fide creditor is lawful, irrespective of intent,^ and even 
 though the debtor divests himself of all his property.^ 
 But where the transfer is voluntary,^ the law raises in 
 favor of existing creditors a presumption of fraudulent 
 intent,^ which, in some old cases and oven now in some 
 States, is irrespective of the amounts of indebtedness, 
 of the debtor's means, and of the property transferred, 
 conclusive ;^* but which, by the great weight of author- 
 ity, may be rebutted by showing the purity of the 
 grantor's intent and the reasonableness of the pro- 
 vision." The rule as stated by the Suiireme Court of 
 the United States reads : " The ancient rule that a vol-
 
 g 116 RIGHTS OF CREDITORS. 172 
 
 untary postnuptial settlement can be avoided if there 
 was some indebtedness existing has been relaxed, and 
 the rule generally adopted in this country at the pres- 
 ent tune (1873) will uphold it if it be reasonable, not 
 disproportionate to the husband's means, and clear of 
 any intent actual or constructive to defraud credit- 
 ors ; " ^2 and this rule is generally adopted,'* even where 
 a statute expresi^ly provides that a transfer from hus- 
 band to wife "in prejudice of the rights of subsisting 
 creditors" shall be invalid." A husband's love and 
 affection for his wife, and a desire to secure her sup- 
 port, is ample reason for a gift to her ;^^ still his actual 
 intention is a mere question of fact ;i6 but whether the 
 gift is a reasonable one considering his circumstances 
 seems to be a question of law.'" It is reasonable if his 
 debts are trifling,!^ or if he retains enough to readily 
 pay them all ; '* but unreasonable if his debts are so 
 great as to embarrass him,™ or if he is insolvent,^! or 
 if tlie gift leaves him insolvent,^^ or if he denudes him- 
 self of all his property,^* or if the property he conveys 
 is easily accessible to creditors, while that Avhich he re- 
 tains, though ample in amount, is inaccessible to them.'^' 
 
 1 Ante, I 106. 
 
 2 Ante, ?? 1(M-10S. 
 
 3 AshmeaU v. Kean, 13 Pa. St. TAi, K7, 5SS ; ante, H 107, HI. 
 
 4 Prewit v. Wilson, 105 U. S. 2J, 23, 21 ; ante, § 111. 
 
 5 .Statutes often provide against preferences : See, for example 
 Md. Acts 1882, p. 268, i 23. 
 
 6 Sanford v. Wheeler, 13 Conn. 165, 168 ; 33 Am. Dec. 389 ; Si.sson 
 ?'. Roath, 30 Conn. 15, 17 ; Sedgwick r. Tucker, !K) Ind. 271, 277 ; R;uidaU 
 r. Lunt, 51 Me. 246, 252 ; Crane v. Barkdoll, 5!) Md. 5:{4, 535 ; Jlavfield )•. 
 Kiludur, 31 M(i. 2111, 211 ; Jordan v. White, :« Mich. 253 : Kaii'fnuui v. 
 \\'hitiii'v, .VI Jliss. lii:i, 108 ; Casson )•. Murray, 15 Mo. 37s, 3sl ; ( 'ovan- 
 liovun ('. Hurt, 21 I'a. .St. J95, 500 ; Ashniead (;. Kean, 13 Pa. !>t. o^l, .585, 
 687 ; ante, I 45. 
 
 7 Casson v. Murray, 15 Mo. 378, 381. 
 
 8 Ante, ?? 104-108. 
 
 9 See Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 409 ; .56 Am. Dec. 663'; Clarke 
 V. McGeihan, 25 N. J. Eq. 423, 424 ; Leavitt, 47 N. H. 329, .3:« ; Wool- 
 ston, 51 Pa. St. 452, 4.56 ; Reynolds »>. Sansford, 16 Te.x. 286, 291 ; Bank 
 V. Patton, 1 Rob. (Va.) .500, .527 ; Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 G-.itt. 334, ?A0 ; 
 cases infra: ante, H lO'J, 112.
 
 173 EIGHTS OF CREDITORS. 2 116 
 
 10 Rearte V. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. 481, 492, 500 ; Annin, 24 N. J. 
 Eq. 181, 191, 194. See notes to Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; 1 Am. 
 Lead. Ca.s. 17 ; Castillo v. Thompson, 9 Ala. 9:i7, 94.5 ; Bogarcl v. Gani- 
 lev, 4 Smedes & M. 302, 310 ; Davidson v. Graves, Riley Ch. 219, 234 ; 
 Cordery v. Zealy, 2 BaU. 206, 208. 
 
 11 Hapgood V. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 409 ; 56 Am. Dec. 663 ; cases infra, 
 notes 12, 13. 
 
 12 Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall. 31, 35. 
 
 13 Sexton v. Whoaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17, cases 
 collected ; Jenkvn r. Vaughan, 3 Drew. 419, 424 ; Turnlev )). Hooper. 
 2 Jur. N. S. 1081, 1083 ; Wakeiield v. Gibbon, 26 L. J. Eq. 505, 508 ; Kid- 
 ney V. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. 136,148; French, 6 DeGex M. & G. 100; 
 Clark V. Killian, 103 U. S. 766, 769 ; Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 22.S ; 
 Kesner v. Trigg, 98 U. S. .50 ; Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 582 ; Jack- 
 ■son, 91 U. S. 142, 145 ; Llovd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 486 ; Picquet v. 
 Swan, 4 Mason, 444, 451; Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308, .314; 
 Dodd V. McGraw, 3 Eng. 84, 105 ; Smith v. Yell, 3 Eiig. 470, 475 ; Salmon 
 r. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 31 ; 7 Am. Dec. 237 ; Abbe v. 
 Newton, 19 Conn. 20, 27 ; Clayton v. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 220 ; Patrick, 77 
 111. 555, 561 ; Moritz v. Hoffman, .35 111. 5-53 ; Lvne v. Bank, 5 Marsh. 
 J. J. 545, 554; Haskell v. Bakewell, 10 Mon. B. 206, 209; Trimble v. 
 Ratcliflf, 9 Mon. B. 511, .514; Duhme v. Young, 3 Bush, .343, 349, 351; 
 Enders v. Williams, 1 Met. (Kv.) 346, 351 ; Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 
 407, 40:) ; 56 Am. Dec. 663 ; Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579, 586, .587 ; Miller 
 V. Johnson, 27 Md. 6 ; Kipp v. Hanna, 2 Blaii<l, 26, 33 ; Gassett v. Grout, 
 4 Met. 486, 488 ; Herclifeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 456, 466 ; Woodson v. 
 Pool, 19 Mo. 340, .344 ; Pomeroy v. Bailev, 43 N. H. 118, 120-1-22 ; Smith 
 V. Lowell, 6 N. H. 67, 69 ; Babcock v. Ec'kler, 24 N. Y. 623, 628 ; Wicher 
 r. Clarke, 8 Paige, 161, 165 ; Warlick v. White, 86 N. C. 139 ; 41 Am. 
 Rep. 453 ; Smith v. Reavis, 7 Irod. :i4l,.343 ; Brice v. Mver.s,5 Ohio, 121, 
 125; Miller v. Wilson, 18 Ohio, lOs, 114; Nippes, 75 Pa. St. 4?2, 475; 
 Woolston, 51 Pa. Sti 451, 456; Tripner v. Abrahams, 47 Pa. St. 220; 
 Posten, 4 Whart. 27, 42 ; Miller v. Pearce, 6 W^atts, & S. 97, 401 ; Banks 
 V. Brown, 2 Hill Ch. 5.5S, .566 ; 30 Am. Dec. .380 ; Izard, 1 Bail. Ch. 228, 
 2.37 ; Burkev ?'. Self, 4 Sneed, 121, 124 ; Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. 
 .334, .310 ; Huston v. Cantrill, U Leigh, 137, 1.59 ; Com. v. Stickles, 15 Vt. 
 252, 257 ; Rose 11. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 13.5. 
 
 14 Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. .579, 586,587 ; cases ante, ? 114, n. 1.3. 
 
 15 Enders v. Williams, 1 Met. (Ky.) 346, .351 ; ante, ? 10.5. Compare 
 ante, i 87. 
 
 16 Hapgooi V. Fisher, 31 Me. 407, 409 ; 56 Am. Dec. 663 ; Casson r. 
 Murray, 15 Mo. 278, 383 ; Pomeroy v. Bailey, 43 N. H. 118, 122 ; ante, 
 ?109- 
 
 17 Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579, .586, 587 ; ante, U 109. 114. 
 
 18 Smith V. Reavis, 7 Ired. .311, 343. 
 
 19 H.ipgood V. Fisher, .34 Me. 407, 40T ; .56 Am. Dec. 663 ; Smith v. 
 Reavis, 7 Ired. 341, 'MS ; Secor v. Souder, 95 Ind. 95, 100. 
 
 20 Wilson V. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. 334, .340. 
 
 21 Bank v. Patton, 1 Rob. rVa.) .500, .527. 
 
 22 Izard, 1 Bail. Ch. 228, 237. 
 
 23 Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43,41 ; see Alexander, 1 Low. 470, 
 474 ; Ware v. Gardner, Law R. 7 Eq. 317, 321 ; Horn v. Ross, 20 (ia. 210, 
 223 ; Clayton v. Brown, 30 Ga. 490, 495 ; Wilder v. Brooks, 10 Minn. 50, 
 .56 ; Peigne v. Snovvden, 1 Desaus. Eq. 592 ; Com. r. Stickles, 15 Vt. 2.52, 
 257. 
 
 24 BuUett V. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 09 ; Annin, 24 X. J. Eq. 185, 194.
 
 §117 
 
 RiaHTS or CREDITORS. 174 
 
 I 117. Eights of subsequent creditors. — A settlement 
 is valid as against those who become creditors after it 
 is made/ unless there is an actual intent to defraud 
 them ; '^ and if the settlement is on valuable considera- 
 tion,^' unless the intent is shared in by the grantee.* 
 Transferring i^roiierty with the intention of thus with- 
 drawing it from the operation of debts about to be 
 assumed is fraua in fact,^ and the transfer of all one's 
 property is strong evidence of such fraud.^ A subse- 
 quent creditor cannot attack a settlement on the ground 
 that it defrauds existing creditors ; ^ but if a settlement 
 is set aside by existing creditors, subsequent creditors 
 may come in pari passu with them.^ 
 
 1 Sexton II. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 223 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 17, 2.'), 40 ; 
 cases infra, n. 2. 
 
 2 Sexton r. Wheaton, supra; Holmes v. Penney, 3 Kay & J. 102 ; 
 Mattingly v. Nye, 8 Wall. 370; Williams v. Avery, 38 Ala. 115. 118; 
 Pinkston »•. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308, 311 ; Thomas v. Degratlenreid, 17 
 Ala. vm, 01 1 ; KUiott r. Home, 10 Ala. 3-18, 3.51 ; Clayton r. Brown, 'M 
 Ga. 4'M, 4[)d ; Place v. Rhein, 7 Bush. 585 ; Lyne v. Bunk, 5 Marsh. J.J. 
 545, 5.54 ; Miller, 23 Me. 22, 24 ; 3!) Am. Dec. 51)7 ; Clark !'. French, 23 
 Me. 221 ; 39 Am. Dec. 618 ; Niller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 6, 11 ; Kipp v. 
 Hanna, 2 Bland. 26, 34 ; Bennett v. Bedford, 11 Mass. 421, 423 ; Beach 
 V. White, Walk. Ch. 495; Teller ?•. Bishop, 8 Minn. 226; Bogard v. 
 Gawlev, 4 Smedes & M. 302, 310 ; Vertner v. Humphrevs, 14 bmedes 
 Jt M. l':0 ; I'awlev, 42 Mo. 21)1,. 303 ; Carson v. Murray, 15 Mo. 378, 381 ; 
 CarlisU' r. Ricli, 8 N. II. 44, 50 ; Robinson r. Holt, 3>j N. H. 3.57 ; Leav- 
 itt, 47 N. H. 3:;i» ; Caswell r. Hill, 47 N. H. 407 ; t arpenter, 27 X. J. Eq. 
 502, 503 ; Phillips v Wooster 36 N. Y. 412, 414 ; Cas.' r. I'helps, 39 N. Y. 
 164; Smith v. Reavis, 7 Ired. -M, 343; Webb v. Ruir. !) Ohio St. 430 ; 
 Woolston, 57 Pa. St. 4.52, 45(i ; Greenfield, 14 Pa. St. 4^:i, 502 ; Blake v. 
 Jones, 1 Bail. Eq. 142, 143; 21 Am. Doc. 530; Jenkins v. Clement, 1 
 Harp. Ch. 72 ; Allen v. Walt, 9 Heisk. 242 ; Johnston c. Zane, 11 Gratt. 
 552; Hutchinson r. Kelley, 1 Rob. (Va.) 12.5, 134 ; Rose v. Brown, 11 
 W. Va. 122, 134 ; Pike v. MUes, 23 Wis. 1G4, 169. 
 
 3 Ante, H 105, 107. 
 
 4 Mogniac v. Thompson, 7 Peters, 348, 393 ; ante, ? 111. 
 
 5 Pawley, 42 Mo. 291, .303 ; ante, I 109. 
 
 6 Martin v. Oliver, 9 Humph. 501, 565, 56G ; 49 Am. Dec. 717 ; ante, 
 ? 112. 
 
 7 Lynch v. Raleigh, 3 Ind. 273, 275 ; post, ? 124. 
 
 8 See Elliott ?'. Home, 10 .\la. 348, 3.52 ; Lewis v. Love, 2 Mon. B. 
 345, 317 ; 38 Am. Dec. lOl ; Edwards r. < oleman, 2 Bibb. 204, 205 ; l>ark- 
 nian v. Welsh, 19 I'ick. 221. 2:!7 ; .MrConihe v. Sawver, 12 X. H. 397, 
 403 ; Hoke v. Hender.son, 3 Dev. 12, 14 ; 4 Dev. 12, 14 ; 25 Am. Dec. 677 ; 
 Hester v. Wilkinson, 6 Humph. 215, 218 ; post, i 124.
 
 175 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. g§' 1 18-118 & 
 
 I 118- Property exempt from creditor's rights. — Any 
 property of a husband personal/ or real,'^ which his 
 creditors could not proceed against,^ he may as against 
 them settle upon his wife ^ Thus, there is no fraud in 
 law or in fact,^ in a conveyance by him to her of the 
 homestead;^ or of her earnings,' or cattle^ if they are 
 exempt ; or of her choses in action,^ whicli are not his 
 till reduced to possession, •'^ and which his creditors 
 cannot compel him to so reduce. ^^ 
 
 1 Robb V. Brewer, 70 Iowa, 539, 542. 
 
 2 Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 382, 366. 
 
 3 Bout, Yi 122-124. 
 
 4 Jones I'. Branclt, 6!^ Iowa, 332, 344 ; Delashmut v. Trau, 44 Iowa, 
 613, 616 ; Robb (■ Brewer, 70 Iowa, o3i), .>42 : 15 The Reporter, 648, 649 ; 
 IB Cent. L. J. 356 ; Peterson v. Mulford, 36 N. J. L. 481. 4.'S!) ; Woodworth 
 I-. Sweet, 51 N. V. 8, 10; .Smethurst v. Thurston, Brightly, 127, 129; 
 Bobenets, 36 Pa. St. 174, 17«, 187 ; Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362, 367 ; 
 Leavitt !'. Jones, 54 Vt. 42:{, 427 ; 41 Am. Rep. 849 ; Druitzer v. Bell, 11 
 Wis. 114, 118 ; Pilie v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164, 168. 
 
 5 Ante, ? 103. 
 
 6 Jones v. Brant, 69 Iowa .332, 34-1 ; Delashmut ?•. Trau, 44 Iowa, 
 613, CKi; Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 36-', 366 ; Piice v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164, 
 16> ; 2Mst., i 314. 
 
 7 Robb V. Brewer, 60 Iowa, .531, S42 ; Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362, 
 366. See Peterson v. Mulford, 36 N. J. L. 481. 489. 
 
 8 Leavitt v. Jones, 54 Vt. 423, 427 ; 41 Am. Rep. 849. 
 
 9 Peterson v. Mulford, .36 N. J. L. 481, 489 ; Woodworth v. Sweet, 
 51 N. Y. 8, 10 ; Robinett, 36 Pa. St. 174, ITS, 187 ; Smethurst v. Thurs- 
 ton, Brightly, 127, 129. 
 
 10 I>ost, I 176. 
 
 11 Post, I 177. 
 
 Article VI. — Possession of Husband and Wife. 
 
 I 118 a. Possession of liu.sband and wife generally. 
 I 119. Presumptions from. 
 I 120. Change of, as delivery. 
 I 121. Retention of, as fraud. 
 
 g 118 a. Possession of husband and wife generally. — 
 Three general rules of tlie law relating to j)os.session, 
 namely (1) pos.session of chattels is prima facie proof of 
 ownership ; (2) delivery involves a change of posses-
 
 § 118 a -POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 176 
 
 sion ; ^ and (3) retention of jjossession by a grantor is a 
 badge of fraud, are peculiarly difficult to apply to hus- 
 band and wife. For, while on the one hand, husband 
 and wife have nominally the same home,^and each has 
 the right to live with the other,^ now as at common 
 law ; * and both of them therefore not only actually use, 
 enjoy, and possess the property in and about their 
 home,' but also incidentally have the right to do so;^ 
 on tlie other hand, now tliat married women's separate 
 property is nearly everywhere recognized, the wife 
 may, as well as the liusband, be the actual of the pro}}- 
 erty so used, enjoyed, and possessed, as her equitable ^ 
 or as her statutory'" separate estate. Whether any 
 presumption arises as to ownership of property so pos- 
 sessed;" whether there canine delivery between hus- 
 band and wife of such property,'^ and whether the 
 continued use and enjoyment of such property by the 
 grantor after such transfer is evidence of fraud,'^ are 
 cxuestions which must be discussed. 
 
 1 1 Greenl. Evld. ? »J. 
 
 2 Benj. Sales, ? 675. 
 
 S Bump. Fraud. Convey, ch. 5. 
 
 4 Ante, U -^h 59, 60. 
 
 5 Anon. Deane <fe S. 295, 298, .300; Price, 2 Fost. & F. 263, 264; 
 Barnes v. AUen, 30 Barb. 66:!, 66S : Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621, 628 ; 32 
 Am. Rep. 397 ; Ximines v. Smitti, 39 Tex. 49, 52 ; .Stewart M. & D. 
 I 175 ; ante, U 59, 60. 
 
 6 Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. .53, 63 ; .Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. lOfi, 
 lOS, 110 ; 12 Am. Rep. ;502 ; Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 414. 
 
 7 Larkin v. McMullin, 49 Pa. St. 29, 34, .%5. 
 
 8 Holcorab r. People's Bank, 92 Pa. St. .3.38, .343 ; Walker r. 
 Reamy, 36 Pti. St. 410, 414. See Lee r\ Mathews, 10 Ala. R'?2, 687 ; Bell, 
 .37 Ala. f>m, .542 ; Cole ?'. Van Riper, 44 111. 5S, 63 ; .Schindel, 12 Md. lOS, 
 121, 291, 313 ; Com. v. Hartwelt, 3 Gray, 450, 452 ; Snyder v. People, 26 
 Mich. 106, 109. 
 
 9 Discussed, post, U 197-216. 
 
 10 Discussed post, §? 217-243. 
 
 11 Hill )'. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, 428 ; post, ? 119. 
 
 12 Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503, 509 ; post, ? 120. 
 
 13 Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush, 474, 477 ; post, I 121.
 
 177 POSSESSION OF HUSBAXD AND WIFE: ? 119 
 
 \ 119. Presumption as to ownersMp of property in the 
 possession of husband and wife. — At common law hus- 
 band and wife were one ; ' the wife's existence was 
 merged in that of her husband ; ^ it is even said that 
 she was civilly dead ; ^ all her present property rights 
 passed to her husband, her personality absolutely,* her 
 realty during coverture at least;" she had herself no 
 property in possession,* and .so her possession was her 
 husband's possession,' and even money in her pocket 
 was deemed in his actual possession.^ As a result, the 
 possession of husband and wife at common law was the 
 possession of the husband,^ and as far as it was evi- 
 dence of title at all, it was evidence of his title.^o Courts 
 of equity, however, recognized the separate existence 
 of the wife,!' and at an early date enforced settlements 
 to the sole and separate use of a married woman ; ^'^ thus 
 arose wives' equitable separate estates;" and statutes 
 have now nearly everywhere created statutory .separate 
 estates." But although wives may now own and pos- 
 sess property themselves, and the main ground for 
 the common law rule, that possession of tlie wife is 
 possession of the husband, is thus removed, the form 
 or shadow of the rule still remains, and the presump- 
 tion still exists, that all property in or about the family 
 matrimonial home,'" is in the possession of the husband 
 and is his ; '^ and that any business carried on jointly 
 by the husband and wife is the husband's.'" But this 
 presumption is rebuttable;'* the equivocal possession 
 of husband and wife is the possession of that one of 
 them in whom the title is ;'» and just as the possession 
 of the wife is the possession of the husband when the 
 title is his,™ so his possession is her possession when 
 the title is hers.^i So neither of them can rely on the 
 mere fact of possession to prove acquisition of title 
 from the other ;^ the wfe not being precluded from
 
 j! 119 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, 178 
 
 asserting title even to property which her husband has 
 had taxed in his own name with her knowledge.^ For, 
 the intimacy of the marriage relation renders exclusive 
 possession well nigh impossible, 2* and it is not the pol- 
 icy of the law to interfere wth the mutual trust and 
 confidence between husband and wifc.^ Still, the pre- 
 sumption of the husband's OA\Tiership does exist ; ^^ it 
 even continues afier his death, so that property held by 
 his widow, who was also his administratrix, was pre- 
 sumed to be held by her in her latter capacity.^^ And 
 it goes so far that even when a wife has bought prop- 
 erty herself and in her own name, the purchase money 
 paid is presumed to have been her husband's."'^ This 
 indeed makes but little difference as far as her husband 
 is concerned,'^ or a stranger,3o for as against them a gift 
 from him to her is good and may be inferred from cir- 
 cumstances ; ^i but as against her husband's creditors 
 (as when she sues for taking her goods for liis debts)^^ 
 she must prove not only that the purchase was made 
 for hersel!",^^ but also that it was made out of lier sepa- 
 rate funds ^t or upon her separate credit.''* And this 
 presuiuption has been recognized in a suit where the 
 Avife was rlofendant, and where the burden of proof Avas 
 held to bo on lier creditor, who seized goods alleged to 
 be hers, to show tliat they were hers, and not her hus- 
 band's.38 It has, however, been held that the wife's 
 possession under a mortgage is prima facte evidence 
 of her title.^^ As to real estate, it has been lield that 
 when the husband and wife Uxe together on tlie wife's 
 farm tiie husband is pi-esumed the tenant, and owns 
 the crop unless the wife proves tliat he farmed it as her 
 agent ;38 but this rule is in conflict with the rules, that 
 the increase of separate property is separate property ,*3 
 and that the wife's separate property in the possession 
 of the husband and A\ife is in her possession,^" and will
 
 179 • POSSESSION OP HUSBAND AND WIPE. § 119 
 
 therefore probably not prevail.^^ In fact it is well set- 
 tled, that a husband may manage his wife's property 
 without acquiring any rights therein, or in any way 
 rendering it liable for his debts.''^ It seems that there 
 can be no such thing as "adverse possession " between 
 husband and wife while they cohabit.*^ Nor is posses- 
 sion of a husband so far possession of his wife that he 
 can set up her title as against his bailor to property 
 held by him as bailee.^* 
 
 1 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. 328, 329 ; ante, I 38. 
 
 2 Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 N. H. ns, 124 ; 53 Am. Dec. 23G , ante. ? 38. 
 
 3 O'Farrell v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381, 383 : ante, ? 38. 
 
 4 Cox r>. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305, 310 ; iwst, ?? 1G:}-183. 
 
 5 Mutual V. Deale, 18 Md. 28, 47 ; post, ?J 141-162. 
 
 6 Com. V. Williams, 7 Gray, 337, 3:i8 ; post, ? 167. 
 
 7 Bell, 37 Ala. 536, 542 ; po.?<, ? 167. 
 
 8 See Carletnn v. Lovejoy, 54 Me. 445,446; Cox »•. Scott, 9 Baxt. 
 305, 30!» ; pout, i 167. 
 
 9 Topley, 3] Pa. St. 328, 32!). 
 
 10 Robinson v. Brems, 90 111. 351, 354. 
 
 11 Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 62, 68 ; ante, §? 38, 42. 
 
 12 2 Story Eq. Jur. §§ 1368, l.'i7S ; post, U 197, 198. 
 
 13 nulme V. Tenant, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 481, notes ; post, 
 §t 197-216. 
 
 14 Discussed post, ?? 217-24.3. 
 
 15 Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 287, 290 ; Walker v. Reamv, 36 Pa. St. 
 410, 416. 
 
 16 Bell, 37 Ala. .536, 541 ; Allen v. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 287, 290 ; Huff v. 
 Wright, 39 Ga. 41, 43 ; Robinson v. Brems, 90 111. 3.=>I, :i54 ; Kahn v. 
 Wood, 82 111. 219 ; Reeves v. Webster, 71 111. 307 ; Farrell v. Patterson, 
 43 111. 52, 57; Davison v. Smith, 20 Iowa, 466; Com. v. Williams, 7 
 Grav. .3.37,338 ; Hill v. f hambers, 30 Mich. 422, 428 ; Walker v. Reamy, 
 36 Pa. St. 410, 416 ; Winter v. Walter, 37 Pa. St. 15.5, 162 ; Rhoads v. 
 Gordon, .38 Pa. St. 277, 279; Topley, 31 Pa. St. 328, 329; Nelson v. Hol- 
 lins, !) Baxt. 5.53, .i.55 ; Stanton v. Kirsoh, 6 Wis. .334, 341; Duress v. 
 Horm-ffer, 15 Wis. 195, 1!»7 ; Wi'vmouth v. Chicago, 17 Wis. 5-50, .551. 
 But see Whiton v. Snyder, 8S X. Y. 2i»9. 
 
 17 Brownell v. Nixon, 37 111. 197, 205 ; Mason v. Bowles, 117 Mass. 
 86, 89 ; ante, 1 93. 
 
 18 Hill V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, 428 ; Mason v. Bowles, 117 Mass. 
 86, 89. 
 
 19 See McNeill v. Arnold, 17 Ark. 154, 175 ; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 
 154, 156 ; Scott V. Simes, 10 Bosw. 314, 320. 
 
 20 Bell, .37 Ala. .5-36, 511 ; Pope v. Tucker, 23 Ga. 4,^, 487 ; Davidson 
 V. Smith, 20 Iowa, 466 ; Jordan, .52 Me. 320, :521 ; Carleton v. Lovejoy, 
 54 Me. 445, 416; Com. v. Williams, 7 Grav, .337, 3.38 ; Walker v. Reamy, 
 36 Pa. St. 410, 415 ; Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195, 197.
 
 ^119 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 130 
 
 21 Lee v Mathews, 10 Ala. 682, 687; Robinson, 44 Ala. 227, 2.T7 ; 
 Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308, .^13, 314 ; McNeill v. Arnold, 17 
 Ark. 1.54, 175 ; Pierce v. Hasbroiick, 49 111. 24, 27 ; Hlleman, 85 Ind. 1 ; 
 Hanson v. Millctt, 55 Me. 184. 181 ; Hill v. Chambers, o'O Mich. 422, 428 ; 
 McNally v Welti. 30 Minn. 203 ; Scott v. Bimes, 10 Bosw. 314, 320 ; 
 Lydia v. Cowan 2:* N. Y. .505 : Gicker v. Martin, 50 Pa. St. 138, 140 , 
 Nelson v. Hollins, 9 Baxt. 553, 555. 
 
 22 Root )• Schaffner, .30 Iowa, 375, 377 ; White v. Zane, 10 Mich. 333, 
 335 , Lvle, 11 Phila. 64, 65; B'lchman v. Kllllnger, 55 Pa. St. 414, 417, 
 418 , Piirvin v. Capewell, 45 Pa. St. 89, 93. 
 
 23 Deck V. Smith 12 Neb. 389, 395. 
 
 24 Holcomb V. People's Bank, 92 Pa. St. 3.38, .343 ; ante, ? 118 a. 
 
 25 See Cole v. Van Riper, 44 III. .58, 63; Snvder v. People, 26 Mich. 
 106, 109 ; 12 Am. Dec. 302 ; Walker v. Reamy, .36 Pa. St. 410, 414. 
 
 26 See also Alverson v. Jones, 10 Cal. 9 ; Smith r. Hewett, 13 Iowa. 
 94, Eldridge v Preble, 34 Me. 14S; Smith r. Henrv, .35 Miss. .3(i i ; 
 Gault V Siffin, 44 Pa. St. .307 ; Bear, 33 Pa. St. 525 ; Gamber, 18 Pa. St. 
 363 , Goodyear v. Rumbaugh, 13 Pa. St. 4S0. But see Johnson v. 
 Runyon, 21 Ind. 11.5. 
 
 27 Bradshaw v. Mayfleld.' 18 Tex. 21, 27. 
 
 28 Seitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. .580, 582 ; Price r. Sanchez, 8 Fla. 136, 
 142, Huff r. Wright, 3!) Ga. 41, 43 ; F.irrell r. Patterson, 43 111. 52, 59 
 Glann v Younglove, 27 Barb. 4*^0, 481 ; Winter v. Walter, 37 Pa. St. 
 155, 161 ; .\urand v. Schaffer, 43 Pa. St. si'il, 3')4 ; Rhoads v. Gordon, .38 
 Pa. St. 277. 279 ; Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 136. Contra, Saunders 
 
 V Garrett .33 Ala. 4-54, 456 ; Kluender r. Lvnch,4 Keves, 301, 363 ; StoU 
 
 V Fulton, '.38 N. J. L. 430, 437, 438. See post, U I-O, 132. 
 
 29 See Jackson, 91 XT. S. 122, 125; Andrews v. Oxley, 38 Iowa, 578, 
 580 ; Bent, 44 Vt. 555, 559. 
 
 30 Weymouth v. Chicago, 17 Wis. 5.50, .551. See Faddis v. Wool- 
 lomes, lOKan. .56 ; Miller v. Bannister, 103 Mass. 283 ; Peters v. Fow- 
 ler, 41 Barb. 467, 468. 
 
 31 Jennings v. Da\is, 31 Conn. 134, ,142 ;. Manny i>. Rixford, 44 III. 
 121, 133 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Etj. 403, 407 ; Bradshaw v. Mavfleld, 18 
 Tex 21,25; post, I 127. 
 
 32 Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195, 1C7. 
 
 33 See Marshall r. Curtwell, Law R. 20 Eq. .328, 331 ; Grain v. Ship- 
 man. 45 Conn. 572, 583; Wornjlev, 98 111. -.544 ; Dunn v. Hornbeck, 7 
 Hun, 623 630 ; Bent, 44 Vt. 5.55, 559. 
 
 34 Erdman v. Rosenthal, 60 Md. 312, 316 , Glann j>. Younglove, 27 
 Barb. 4'<0, 4Si ; Curry r. Bott, .53 Pa. St. 400, 403. See also Blumer !'. 
 PoUok. 1-* Fla. 7i)7 ; Farrell v. Patterson, 43 111. .52, .53 ; Keener r. 
 Good, 21 Pa. St. 313; Rhoads ?t. Gordon, .38 P.a. St. 277, 279; Stanton 
 V. Kirsoh, 6 Wis. 3:», 341 ; Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195, 197. 
 
 35 Erdman v. Rosenthal, 60 Md. 312, 316; Glann v. Younglove, 27 
 Barb. 480, 4S3. 
 
 36 Crane v. Seymour, 3 Md. Ch. 483, 486. 
 
 37 Morrison v. Koch, 32 Wis. 2-54, 2.59. 
 
 .38 Langford v. Grierson, 5 111. App. .362, 366. But see Stout v. Perrv, 
 70 Ind. .50!, 504 ; Bowen v. Arnstlen, 47 Vt. .563, 573. 
 
 39 Bongard v. Core, 82 III. 19, 21 ; post, ?? 203, 227. 
 
 40 Nelson v. Hollins, 9 Baxt. 553, 555 ; supra, n. 21.
 
 181 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. § 120 
 
 41 Stout V. Perrv, 70 Inrt. 501, 504 ; Russell v. liOng, 52 Iowa, 250, 
 252 ; DeBlane v. Lynch, 2;! Tex. 25, ?7. 
 
 42 Millor v. VecV, 13 W. Va. 75, 7!)-!)7; Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. 393, 
 400-116 ; ante, I 87. 
 
 43 Bell, 37 Ala. 536, 542 ; Veal v. Robinson, 70 Go.. 809, 817. 
 
 44 Pulliam v. Burlingame, 18 Cent. L. J. 314, 315. 
 
 I 120. Change of possession necessary to constitute de- 
 livery between husband and wife. — In the case of a sale at 
 chattels the property may pass without a change of 
 possession, delivery being part of the obligation of the 
 vendor;^ but a gift is of no effect without deli very,''' ' 
 because until delivery it is an unexecuted contract, and ■ 
 being without consideration is not enforcible even ih' 
 equity.^ By delivery is meant a change of possession 
 intended to accompany a change of property.* Gifts 
 ■ between husband and Avife are by no means uncom- 
 mon, and are valid in equity if not at law.^ But the 
 donor's intention to divest himself or herself of the 
 property, and the carrying out of that intention by 
 delivery, must be clearly proved hj the donee, wife,* 
 ' or hui^band,^ as the case inay be. And since husband 
 and wife are about equally in possession of property in 
 • and about their common home,^ and neither can rely 
 on such equivocal possession to prove title as against 
 the other,9 actual delivery between husband and wife 
 is most difficult to provCj^o and the only safe way of 
 perfecting a gift between them is by constructive de- 
 livery through a formal instrument, such as a bill of 
 sale." To illustrate : If a husband says to his wife, 
 " this wagon is yours," referring to a wagon he is using, 
 and goes on using it as before, the wife cannot claim it 
 even as against hitn ; '^ but if he says to his wife in buy- 
 ing a horse, "I am buying this horse for you — it is 
 yours," and it is then delivered by the vendor to him 
 and put in his stable, he receives and keeps it merely 
 as her agent — it is hers." The above reasoning does 
 
 H. & W, -16.
 
 I 121 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 182 
 
 not, however, apply to mere personal effects or orna- 
 ments used by the husband or \Mfe,'* or to such otlier 
 property as the one or the other uses or enjoys alone.'^ 
 
 1 Benj. Sales, ?§ 67-4, et seq. 
 
 2 Dilts r. Stevenson, 17 N. J. Kq. 407, 4n, 414 ; Woodruff v. Chirk, 
 42 N. J. L. 198, 202 ; Bradshaw v. MayfieM, 18 Tex. 21, 25. 
 
 3 Breton v. Woollven, Law K. 17 Oil. Div. 412, -121; C'olteeii r. 
 Missing, 1 Madd. 176, 183 ; Fowler r. Trebein, Itt Ohio St. 493, 497. 
 
 4 See 1 Pars Cont. 234; 2 Schjul. Pers. Prop. 71 ; Arniitage v. 
 Mace, 48 N. Y. Sup.r. 107 ; Caldwell v. Wilson, 2 Spear, T-i. 
 
 5 Eddins v. Buck, 23 Ark, Tfin, 509 ; Peck v. Bruinmuglm, 31 Cal. 
 440, 446; UnderhiU v. Morgan, 33 Conn. 105, 107; Manny v. Rl.\ford, 44 
 111. 129, 133 ; Clawson, 25 Ind. 229, 2:i0 ; Chew, 38 Iowa, 405, 406 ; 
 Thomas v. Harkness, 13 Bush, 23, 27 ; Latimer )•. Glenn, 2 Bush, 5.3.5, 
 543; Paschall v. Hall, 5 Jones Eq. 108, 110 ; Seymour )'. Fellows, 77 
 N. Y. 178, 179; Coates v. Gerlaeh, 44 Pa. St. 43, 45; Bradshaw v May- 
 field, 18 Tex. 21, 26 ; Fox v. Jones, 1 W. Va. 205, 217 ; imst, i 127. 
 
 6 Breton v. Woolven, Law R. 17 Ch. DIv. 41G, 421 ; Colteen r. 
 Missing, 1 Madd. 176, 183 : Pierce, 7 Hiss. 420, 427 ; Machen, 38 Ala. .364, 
 36S; Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503, 509; Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340, 345; 
 Slvillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403, 407 ; Dilts v. Stevenson, 17 X. J. Eq. 407, 
 41.3, 414 ; WoodrulT v. Clark, 42 X. J. L. 19S, 202 ; Neufville v. Thom- 
 son, 3 Edw. Ch. 92, 94; Pascliall v. Hali, 5 Jones Eq. 108, 109, 112; 
 Campbell, 80 Pa. St. 298, 306 ; Wade v. Cantrell, 1 Head, :U6, 347. 
 
 7 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 4'27 ; Patton, 75 111. 446, 451. 
 
 8 Larkin v. McMullln, 49 Pa. St. 34, 35; Holconib v. Peoples, 92 
 Pa. St. 338, 343 ; aJite, U 118 a, 119. 
 
 9 White V. Zane, 10 Mich. .3.33, 3.35 ; Allen v. Miles, 36 Mis.s. 640, 644; 
 Bachman v. Killinger, 55 Pa. St. 414, 417, 418. 
 
 10 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 428. 
 
 11 Cox, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 302, 30fi ; Enders v. Williams, I Met. 
 (Ky.) :«6, 3.50 ; Hutehins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29, 40. 
 
 12 Dilts t'. Stevenson, 17 X. J. Eq. 407, 413. 
 
 13 Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503, 509. 
 
 14 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 427 ; Gentry v. McReynolds, 12 Mo. 535 ; Rog- 
 ers V. Fales, 5 Pa. St. 154, 158. 
 
 15 See Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308, 313, 314. 
 
 § 121. Retention of possession as fraud. — As already 
 shown, a wife must clearly prove her title to any prop- 
 erty in or about the family home, or apparently in the 
 husband's possession ; i and as again.st her husband's 
 creditors or bona fide purchasers for value, she must 
 sliow that she did not acquire sucli property directly or 
 indirectly from him;^ or, if she did acquire it from 
 him, tliat he received a valuable,^ and indeed adequate
 
 183 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. g 121 
 
 consideration therefor ; * or that it was a reasonable gift, 
 considering his means ;^ i. e., she must show the 
 absence of constructive fraud or fraud in law.^ But in 
 the case of conveyances by a debtor, the general rule is 
 that if after the conveyance is made, he retains posses- 
 sion of the property conveyed, such conduct is evidence 
 of an actual intent to defraud his creditors [fraud in fo,ct) 
 and must be explained ;' and the question is, does this 
 rule apply to husband and wife ? It is said that a hus- 
 band's possession of his wife's property is not in itself 
 evidence of fraud,^ because he has the right growing 
 out of the right of cohabitation to use and possess her 
 property in their homo •,^ but this is not true if his pos- 
 session is not consistent with the purpose for wliich the 
 property was given to, or purchased by, her.'" And 
 although she may, by allowing him to deal with her 
 property as owner, make him her agent with respect 
 thereto, and be bound by his acts," it is not a fraud, 
 and she is not estopped by her silence in its presence 
 when he asserts his title to her cliattels,'- at least where 
 the doctrine of coercion of wife by husband is not ex- 
 ploded." But some authorities hold, that, if a husband, 
 with his wife's consent, retains possession of property 
 which he liad settled on her, and is thus enabled to get 
 credit, she cannot assert her title;" certainly slie can- 
 not if she allows liim to retain possession for the pur- 
 pose of deceiving his creditors.'^ And so, if he should 
 give her cliattels for which slie would have no use, but 
 which he would have to continue to use in his business, 
 as if a laborer should give his wife his cart, horse, and 
 tools, '^ certainly some special circumstances would have 
 to be proved to rebut the presumption that he meant to 
 secure himself against his creditors.'^ In some States 
 statutes expressly provide that a schedule of the separate 
 property of married women shall be filed ; '* and that
 
 I 121 POSSESSION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 184 
 
 transfers between husband and wife shall bo recorded ; '^ 
 and it seems that general statutes which provide that 
 "no property whereof the grantor shall remain in pos- 
 session, shall pass as against his creditors, unless by bill 
 of sale duly recorded,20 apply to all transfers between 
 husband and wife, where the grantor apparently re- 
 mains in possession. So that not only to meet the 
 difficulty of proving delivery,^! but also to rebut the 
 presumption of fraud,'^ transfers between husband and 
 wife sliould be by formal instrument duly recorded. 
 
 1 Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 4IG ; ante, § 119. 
 
 2 Erclman v. Rosenthal, 60 Mrt. 312, 316 ; ante, H 113-118. 
 
 3 Duffy ?'. Insurance, 8 "Watts <fe S. 413, 434 ; Salman v. Bennett, 1 
 Conn. 525 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 31 ; 7 Am. Dec. 237 ; cmte, ?2 104, 105. 
 
 4 Ooff V. Rog-ers, 71 Ind. 459, 461 ; Herschfeldt v. George, 6 Mich. 
 456, 468 ; Davis, 25 Gratt. 587, 596 ; ante, i 106. 
 
 5 Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall. .31, .3.5 ; Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 
 40n ; Warner r. Dove, .33 Md. .579, 586, .587 ; Woolston, 51 Pa. ."^t. 412, 456 ; 
 Warlick v. White, 86 N. C. 139 ; 41 Am. Hep. 4.53 ; ante, I 104. 
 
 6 Hapgood V. Fisher, .34 Me. 4!»7, 409 ; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 
 265, 270 ; Wheaton v. Sexton, 4 Wheat. 504 ; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 1 ; ante, 
 I 109. 
 
 7 Stadtlen v. Wood, 24 Tex. 622 ; BuUis v. Borden, 21 Wis. 136 : ante, 
 
 8 Barneord v. Kuhn, ,36 Pa. St. 383, 391. See Cox, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 
 302, 306 ; Ware v. Gardner, Law R. 7 Ex. 317, 321 ; Wheaton ?•. Sexton, 
 4 Wheat. 503; Jones v. Clifton, 107 IT. S. 225, 229, 230; Clavton i\ 
 Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 219 ; Lyman i<. Cessford, 15 Iowa, 229, 2;U ; Enders 
 V. Williams, 1 Met. (Ky.) 346, 350 ; Erdman v. Rosenthal, 60 Md. 312, 
 316. 
 
 9 Lee v. Matthews, 10 Ala. 682, 687 ; Larkin v. McMuIlin, 49 Pa. St. 
 2J, 34, 35 ; ante, U 118 a, 119. 
 
 10 Clayton v. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 219 ; Enders v. Williams, 1 Met. 
 Ky.) :H6, 350. 
 
 11 Spanlding v. Drew, .55 Vt. 255, 2.57. See Walker v. Carrington, 74 
 111. 445, 465 I Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. 58, 60 ; ante, i 84. 
 
 12 Bank v. Lee, 13 Peters, 107, 118 ; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 390 ; 
 Murray v. Fox, 1 1 Mo. 555, 565 ; Palmer v. Cross, 1 Smedes & M. 48, SK ; 
 Carpenter, 27 N. J. Eq. 502, ,504 ; Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. 5.*t, 61 ; I^dd 
 V. Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135, 143 ; 9 Am. Rep. 445 ; post, i 417. 
 
 13 Bank v. Lee, 13 Peters, 107, 118 ; supra, n. 12 ; ante, ?? 62, 66, 68. 
 
 14 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 429 ; Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush, 474, 477 ; 
 Bowen v. Amsden, 47 Vt. 569, 573. 
 
 15 Lyman v. Cessford, 15 Iowa, 229, 234. 
 
 16 See Dilts v. Stevenson, 17 N. J. Eq. 407, 414. 
 
 17 See Clayton v. Brown, 17 Ga. 217, 219. . . , ^
 
 185 POSTNUPTIAL, SETTLEMENTS. ^,? 122-123 
 
 18 See Humphries v. Harrison, 30 Ark. 7n ; Selover v. Commercial, 
 7 Cal. 266 ; Price v. Sanchez. 8 Fla. 136 ; Smith v. Hewett, 13 Iowa, 94, 
 <J6 ; Odell V. Lee, 14 Iowa, 411, 413 ; post, I 232. 
 
 19 Jones. 19 Iowa, 236, 240; Teague v. Downs, 63 N. C. 280, 287; 
 Lewis V. Caperton, 8 Gratt. 148, 165 ; 2^ost, ? 125. 
 
 20 Md. K. C. 1878, ? 45, p. 300. 
 
 21 Enders v. Williams, 1 Met. (Ky.) 'M6, 350 ; ante, ? 120. 
 
 22 Cox, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 302, 30G ; Ware v. Gardner, Law R. 7 Eq. 
 317, 321. 
 
 Akticle VII. — Remedies Respecting Postnuptial. 
 Settlements. 
 
 5 122. In general. 
 § 12.3. Of parties, etc. 
 i 124. Of creditors. 
 
 ? 122. Bemedies in general. — The remedies depend 
 almost entirely on tlie special modes of procedure in 
 the different States.^ Tlie remedies available at the 
 time of tlie conveyance or any new one may be re.sorted 
 to.2 A brief summary of tlie ordinary remedies of the 
 parties and of creditors is hereinafter given.* 
 
 1 See fully Bump Fraud. Conv. ch. 22. 
 
 2 Blenkinsoflf, 1 DeGex, M. & G. 495, 12 Beav. 568 ; ante, I 2L 
 
 3 Post, ?? 123, 124. 
 
 I 123. Remedios of parties, otc. — Any settlement be- 
 tween the parties is usually enforced in equity. ^ There 
 the wife may have it specifically performed,^ or recti- 
 fied ;* and where she and her hu.sband have conveyed 
 her i^roperty in trust for her sole separate use, she may 
 after his death have it conveyed back to her ; * so Avhen 
 he has bought proj^erty in his name with her money, 
 she may compel him to convey to her.^ But the 
 grantor cannot revoke a settlement^ or have it set 
 aside,^ except for fraud.^ No one not a party or cred- 
 itor has any remedies at all.' 
 
 1 Jones, 18 Md. 464, 408 ; ante, ?? 42, 53. 
 
 2 Grain r. Shipman, 45 Conn. 572, 581.
 
 g 124 POSTNUPTIAL SETTLEMENTS. 186 
 
 3 Hanley v. Pearson, Law K. 13 Ch. D. 545, 549. 
 
 4 Tucker, 75 Pa. St. 354, 356. 
 
 5 Keller, 45 Md. 270, 272 ; post, Eesulting Trusts, } 132. 
 
 6 (iainer v. Graves, 54 Ind. 188, 192 ; post, ? 127. 
 
 7 Hildreth v. Eliot, 8 Pick. 203, 296 ; Cushwa, 5 Md. 44, .tO ; Bo^rser, 
 82 Pa. St. 57, 5a ; ante, 'i 100. 
 
 8 Stone v. Wood, 85 111. 603, 609 ; ante, I 110. 
 
 9 See ante, 110 ; Currier %'. Ford, 26 III. 458 ; Thompson v. Moore, 
 .36 Me. 17; Oushwa, 5 Md. 44, 50; Lemay r. Bibeau, 2 Minn. 291; 
 Graser t>. Stellwage-i, 25 N. Y. 365; Byrod, 31 Pa. St. :ui ; Norton v. 
 Kearney, 10 Wis. 443. 
 
 I 124. Bemedies of creditors. — Courts of law and 
 equity have concurrent jurisdiction over fraudulent 
 conveyances ; ^ a creditor may treat the settlement as 
 voidable, and api^ly to equiiA^ to have it set aside, ^ or as 
 void and attach peraonalty,^ or having bought the 
 realty sue in ejectment.* But if the grantor has never 
 held the legal title,^ as where a hu.sband has made a 
 purcha.se and taken the deed in his wife's name,® the 
 creditor must proceed in equity ; ' so in the case of bona 
 fide valuable but inadequate consideration.* A subse- 
 quent creditor has no remedj^ in the absence of fraud 
 hi fact,* but when an existing creditor has had a settle- 
 ment set aside subsequent creditors may participate in 
 the fund.'" 
 
 1 Mulford V. Peterson, 35 N. J. Eq. 127, 133 ; Bump Fraud. Con- 
 vey. 530, 531. 
 
 2 Bump. Fraud. Convey. .'>34. 
 
 3 Cooke, 43 Md. 522, 523 ; Green v. Early, 39 Md. 223, 229, 230. 
 
 4 O'Hara v. Dilworth, 72 Pa. St. 397, 403, 404. 
 
 5 Low V. Marco, 52 Me. 45, 49. 
 
 6 Post, I 132. 
 
 7 Bump Fraud. Convey. 532 ; post, ? 1.32. 
 
 8 Wright V. .Stanard, 2 Brock. 3n, 311 ; ante, I 106. 
 
 9 Lynch ?'. Raleigh, 3 Ind. 273, 275 ; ante, ? 117. But see .Tenkyn v. 
 Vaughan, 3 Drew. 419, 424 ; Herschfeldt v. George, Mich, im, 466. 
 
 10 Kipp V. Hanna, 2 Bland. 26, 35 ; Thompson v. Boughertv, 12 
 Serg. <fe R. 448. 4.55, 456 ; Iley v. Niswanger, 1 McCord Ch. 518," 522 ; 
 ante, 1 117 ; Bump Fraud. Convey. 324.
 
 187 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. § 125 
 
 Article III. — Particular Kinds of Si 
 
 1 125. 
 
 Deeds. 
 
 i 126. 
 
 Equitable jointure. 
 
 U27. 
 
 Parol gifts of persoaalty. 
 
 i 128. 
 
 Bank deposits. 
 
 i 129. 
 
 Mingling of property. 
 
 i 130. 
 
 Services and labor. 
 
 i 131. 
 
 Improvements on real estate. 
 
 § 132. 
 
 Resulting trusts. 
 
 i 133. 
 
 Life Insurance policies. 
 
 8 134. 
 
 Suretyships. 
 
 g 126. Deeds of settlement. — Deeds of settlement be- 
 tween husband and wife, especially in the case of 
 separation,! ai"e common, and though it is usual to 
 make them through the intervention of trustees,- tliis 
 is not necessary ,3 but where a trustee is needed the 
 husband is treated as such.* Such deeds are always 
 good in equity if equitable.^ To exclude the husband's 
 marital rights in real estate the deed should contain 
 express words,^ but every gift of personalty from hus- 
 band to wife is presumed to be for her sole and sepa- 
 rate use.^ In other respects such deeds are like deeds 
 between strangers ; for example, they may be delivered 
 in escrow; 8 they are binding on the parties by estop- 
 pel.3 All the proijerty rights of the parties are often 
 settled by deed.i" 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. ?? 182-191. 
 
 2 Barron. 24 Vt. 375. 398. 
 
 3 Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 229. See Stewart M. <fc D. ? 186 ; 
 ante, H 41-13. 
 
 4 Crooks. 34 Ohio St. 610, 616 ; Duffy v. Insurance, 8 Watts <fe S. 
 413, 433. 
 
 5 Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. 57 ; 11 Am. Dec. 396 ; Ewells Lead. Cas. 
 Cov. 280 : Sims v. Rickets, 35 Ind. 131, 192 ; 9 Am. Dec. 679. 
 
 6 Plumb V. Ives. :» Conn. 120, 123 ; Hovt i'. Parks, 39 Conn. 357, 360. 
 .361 ; Bowen v. Lebree, 2 Bush, 112, 115 ; Hutchinson v. Mitchell, 39 
 Tex. 487, 492 ; post, i 201. 
 
 7 Helmetag v. Frank, 61 Ala. 67, 68 ; Deming t'. Williams, 26 Conn. 
 226, 231 ; Story v. Marshall, 24 111. o0>, 308.
 
 g^ 126-127 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 188 
 
 8 Crooks, U Ohio St. 610, 616. 
 
 9 Mulford V. Peterson, 36 N. J. L. 127, 136 ; post, ? 412. 
 10 Stewart M. & D. 5? 183-191. 
 
 g 126. Equitable jointure. — When in a settlement 
 there is a provision for the Avife expressly in lieu of 
 her dower, she will, after her husband's death, be com- 
 pelled to elect to take either such provision or her 
 dower ; she cannot take both.^ 
 
 1 See ante, 1 105, n. 10 ; Stewart M. & D. 3? 43 a, 182 ; post, U 266, 
 267, 273. 
 
 g 127. Parol gifts of personalty. — Gifts of personalty 
 between husband and wife are usually good in equity 
 if not at law ; i but as they are transfers of property 
 "without consideration, 2 they are invalid as against cred- 
 itors, whose rights they prejudice.' Gifts causa mortis 
 difier from gifts inter vivos only in that the former are 
 revoked if the donor does not die as expected,* and are 
 therefore not separately discussed.^ The two essentials 
 of a gift are, (1) the donor's intent to vest the title in 
 the donee ;^ (2) tlie execution of such intent by actual 
 or constructive delivery.^ If a gift is good only in 
 equity, in must be fair,^ reasonable,' not extravagant, i" 
 in fine, equitable.^i But once executed a gift is irrevo- 
 cable,'^ except under the civil or Spanish law.i' 
 
 1. The donor^s intention to vest the title in tlie donee 
 must be clearly proved," and is a mere question of 
 fact, as in the case of gifts between strangers.^' But 
 special presiimptions arise from the relation of the 
 parties.^^ Thus, if a husband buys property in his 
 wife's name, a gift thereof to her is prima fa^ie pre- 
 sumed;^' so if he takes a jiromissory note for a debt 
 due him payable to her,^^ or puts stock in her name,^® 
 or deposits money to her credit ;20 so if a note is taken 
 paj-able to him and her, though he may dispose of it 
 during his life,'' and perhaps by will,* she takes it as
 
 1S9 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. g 127' 
 
 sui-vivor.-^ still, these presumptions may always be 
 rebutted and tlie real intent sliown.'^* On the otlier 
 hand, when a wife consents to her husband's expend- 
 ing her money, a gift of it to him is presumed,^ unless 
 she shows tliat their intent was different ; for example, 
 that he received it as her agent,^^ or as a loan.'-' So a 
 gift is presumed if by her consent he changes her 
 realty into personaltj^'* where personalty is by law 
 his ; ^ but the mere possession and user of her chattels 
 by him is of itself no evidence of a gift from her to 
 him.30 
 
 2. Delivery must be clearly proved.^i A mere decla- 
 ration, as " I give you this property,'' without delivery 
 is merely an inchoate gift,^'^ and is treated as a promise 
 to make a gift^^ — a promise which not even courts of 
 equity enforce.^* The same is true thougli tlie declara- 
 tion be in writing,^^ but not if the writing be under 
 seal,^^ by virtue of the principle of estoppel.^' Decla- 
 rations are usually evidence only of intent ; ^^ delivery 
 must be proved by facts showing actual, constructive, 
 or symbolic change of possession. ^^ When, however, 
 a husband purcliases property for his wife as a gift, de- 
 livery to liim is delivery to her,*** and subsequent pos- 
 session by him is her possession.^' So tliat, Avhen a 
 husband bought a horse for his wife, the gift was up- 
 held, though he kept tlie horse in his stable.*^ But it 
 might have been otlierwise had he first bought it for 
 himself and then given it to her;^^ as when he gave 
 her a wagon but retained possession thereof and used 
 it as before." Excejit in the case of personal orna- 
 ments and apparel,^^ it is verj^ difficult to prove actual 
 delivery between husband and wife who are living 
 together ;^^ as, for example, delivery of houseliold fur- 
 niture," and especially so when tlie question of fraud 
 against creditors arises.*^ And it may be said that the
 
 g 127 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 190 
 
 only safe delivery is by instrument under seal as be- 
 tween the parties,^ and by recorded instrument as 
 against creditors.^" Delivery by order is not perfected 
 untU the order is accepted or executed ;^i until such 
 time it may be revoked -^ and is revolved by the donor's 
 death.^ Delivery is not perfect unless accepted by the 
 donee.^* 
 
 1 See Mews, 15 t-^av. 529 ; Kitchen v. Bedford, 13 WalL 413, 418 ; 
 Eddins v. Buck, 23 Ark. 507, 509 ; Peck v. Brummagin, 31 Cal. 440, 446 ; 
 Detning v. Williams, 26 Conn. 226, 230 ; Mannv v. Rixford, 44 111. 129, 
 i:J3 ; Clawson, 25 Ind. 229, 239 ; Thomas v. Harkness, 13 Bush, 23, 27, 
 28 ; Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md, 29, 40 ; Dilts v. Stevenson, 17 N. J. Eq. 
 407, 413; Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 178, 179; Paschall v. Hall, 5 
 Jones Eq. 108, 110 ; Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43, 45 ; Fox v. Jones, 1 
 W. Va. 205, 217 ; ante, § 43. Her equitable title becomes legal after 
 her husband's death : Underhill v. Morgan, 33 Conn. 105, 108 ; Thomas 
 V. Harkness. 13 Bush, 23, 28. 
 
 2 Ante, U 104-108. 
 
 3 1 Parsons Cont. 236 ; ante, U 109, 111, 113-117. 
 
 4 Couser v. Snowden, 54 Md. 175, 183 ; 1 Parsons Cont. 236, 237. 
 
 5 Thev are valid: Marshall ti.Jaquith, 134 Mass. i:}8. See Lawson, 
 1 P. Wms. 441, 442; Miller, 3 P. Wms. :i56, 358; Walter v. Hodge, 2 
 Swanst. 92 ; AVhitney v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 490, 492 ; Whitaker, 62 
 N. Y. 368, 371. 
 
 6 Mannv v. Rixford, 44 111. 129, 133 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403, 407 ; 
 Paschall v. Hall, 5 Jones Eq. 108, 110. 
 
 7 See generallj', Connor r\ Trawick, 37 Ala. 28:> ; 1 Ala. Sel. Cas. 
 258; Camp, ;« Conn. 8S ; 4 Am. Rep. 39; Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 
 512 ; 16 Am. Rep. 63 ; Kerrigan v. Routigan, 43 Conn. 17, 23 ; Wheeler, 
 43 Conn. 503 ; Evans ?•. Lipscomb, 31 Ga. 71 ; Cranz j'. Krager, 22 111. 
 74 : Tavlor v. Henry, 48 Md. 5.V) : 30 Am. Rep. 4S6 ; Davis v. Ney, 125 
 Mass. 590 ; 28 Am. Rep. 272 ; Kimball v. Leland. 110 Mass. 325 ; Crit- 
 tenden V. Phoenix, 41 Mich. 442 ; Currv v. Powers, 70 M. Y. 212 ; 26 
 Am. Rep. 577 ; Tillinghast v. Campbell, 80 Pa. St. 298, .306 ; Wheaton, 
 8 R. I. 636 ; 5 Am. Rep. 621 ; Infra, notes 31-61 ; ante, i 120. 
 
 8 Clawson, 25 Ind. 229, 239 ; Hatch v. Gray, 21 Iowa. 29, 32. 
 
 9 Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43, 45, 
 
 10 Paschall v. Hall, 5 Jones Eq. lOS, 110. 
 
 11 Ante, ? 43. 
 
 12 Garner I'. Graves, 54 Ind. 188, 192. See Rivers v. Carleton,50 Ala. 
 40 ; Chew, 38 Iowa, 405, 406. 
 
 13 Fuller V. Ferguson, 26 Cal. 546, .574 ; Eradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 
 Tex. 21, 25 ; Ferris v. Parker, 13 Tex. 385. 
 
 14 Jennings v. Davis, 31 Conn. 134, 142 ; Mannv v. Rixford, 44 111. 
 129, 133 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403, 407 ; Neufville i'. Thompson, 3 
 Edw. Ch. 92, 94; Paschall v. Hall. 5 Jones Eq. 108, 109, 112; Earl v. 
 Champion, Go Pa. St. 191, 194 ; Bradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 21, 25. 
 
 15 2 Schoul. Pers. Prop. 88 ; 1 Parsons Cont. 2.34. 
 
 16 Irvine ?-. Greever, 32 Gratt. 411, 417. See Welch, 63 Mo. 57, 61 ; 
 ante, U 118-121.
 
 191 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. g 127 
 
 17 Jackson, 91 U. 8. 122, 125 ; post, I 132. 
 
 18 Phelps, 20 Pick. 556, 559 ; Rynders v. Crane, 3 Daly, 339, 347 ; 
 Scott V. Innes, 10 Bosw. 314, 320. 
 
 19 Mason v. Fuller, 36 Conn. 160, 163; Jennings v. Davis, 31 Conn. 
 134, 142, 143 ; NeufvUle v. Thompson, 3 Edw. Ch. 92, 94. 
 
 20 Howard v. Windham, 40 Vt. 5J7, 699 ; jiogt, i 128. 
 
 21 Towle, 114 Mass. 167, 168. 
 
 22 Pile, 6 Lea, 508, 511 ; 40 Am. Rep. 50. 
 
 23 Sandford, 58 N. Y. 63, 72 ; 45 N. Y. 723 ; post, ?? 12S, 132. 
 
 24 Snider v. Eidgeway, 49 111. 522, 524 ; cases cited pos^, ? 128. 
 
 25 Tyson, M Md. 35, 38 ; Mellinger y. Bansman, 45 Pa. St. 522, 529 ; 
 ante, I 42. 
 
 20 Ante, I 80. 
 
 27 Ante, I 42. 
 
 28 See Chaxgk of Realty in-to Persoxaltv,po«^ 5 1S6. 
 
 29 Latimer v. Glenn, 2 Bush, 535, 543. 
 
 ."0 White V. Zone, 10 Mich. 3.33, a35 ; Allen v. Miles, 36 Miss. 640, 644 ; 
 ante, 1 119. 
 
 31 Dilts V. Stevenson, 17 X. J. Eq. 407, 413, 414. See Cotteen v. Mis- 
 sing, 1 Madd. 176, 183 ; Woodruff v. Clark, 42 N. J. L. 198, 202 ; aupra, 
 n. 7 ; infra, notes 32-37 ; ante, I 120. 
 
 32 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 427; Machen, 38 Ala. 364, 368; Woodson v. 
 Pool, 19 Mo. 340, 315 ; Dilts r. Stevenson, 17 X. J. Eq. 407, 414 ; Wade v. 
 Cantrell, 1 Head, 346, 347. Sec Prater v. Frazier, 11 Ark. 249 ; Hender- 
 son, 21 Mo. 379. Husband's naked declarations are no evidence as 
 against third parties of wife's title : Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 184, 190 ; 
 Parvin v. Capewell, 45 Pa. St. 89, 93. 
 
 33 2 Schoul. Pers. Prop. 71. 
 
 34 Cotteen v. Missing, 1 Madd. 176, 183 ; Breton v. Woollven, Law 
 R. 17 Ch. Div. 416, 421 ; Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610, 615. 
 
 35 Breton v. Woollven, Law R. 17 Ch. Div. 416, 421. 
 
 36 Fox, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 302, 306 ; Enders v. Williams. 1 Met. 
 fKv.) 346, 3.j(i; Mulford r. Peterson, 35 N. J. L. 1-27, 136. See Mc- 
 Cutchen,9Port. 650. 
 
 37 2 Schoul. Per. Prop. 84 ; post, i 400. 
 
 38 See Olds r. Powell, 7 Ala. 653 ; Burney v. Ball, 24 Ga. 505 ; 
 Morlsey v. Bunting, 1 Dev. 3 ; Sims v. Saunders, Harp. 374 ; 2 Schoul. 
 Per. Prop. 85. 
 
 39 See 1 Parson's Cent. 234 ; 2 Schoul. Per. Prop. 69 et seq.; ante, 
 {120. 
 
 40 Scott t'. Simes, 10 Bosw. 314, 320. 
 
 41 See Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503, 509 ; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 1.^, 156 ; 
 ante, i 
 
 42 Wheeler, iS Conn. 503, 509. 
 
 43 Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503, 509. 
 
 44 Dilts V. Stevenson, 17 >'. J. Eq. 407, 414. 
 
 45 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 427 ; Rogers v. Fales, 5 Pa. St. 154, 158. 
 
 46 Ante, § 121. 
 
 47 Pierce, 7 Biss. 426, 428, Compare Allen v. Cowan, 23 N. Y. 502,
 
 g 128 kutds op settlements. 192 
 
 48 Bump Fraud. Convey, ch. 5 ; ante, U 111> 121. 
 
 49 See Millers v. Andrus, 1 La, An. 237 ; Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 
 20,41; Woodson v. MeClellanrt, 4 Nev. 4!)5 ; Brummet v. Barber, 2 
 Hill (S. C.) 107 ; cases supra, n. a6. Consult ante, U 102, 129, 12o. 
 
 50 See Hatch v. Orav, 21 Iowa, 29, 32 ; Lyman v. Cessford, 15 Iowa, 
 229, 334 ; aiUe, J 121. 
 
 31 See Chalmers Bills <fe Xotes, 2G1, 262 ; Bromley v. Brunton, 37 
 Law J. Ch. 5)02 ; Law R. 6 Eq. 275 ; Hughes v. Stubbs, 11 Jur. N. S. U13 ; 
 Howard i'. Pace, 15 Ga. 436. It is a revocable agency. 
 
 52 Taylor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550, 557, 558 ; 30 Am. Rep. 486. 
 
 53 See .Tones v. Lock, Law R. 1 Ch. 25; Beak, Lf>.w R. 13 Eq. 489 ; 
 ■ Smith, 3 Stew. 5B4 ; Tivlor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550, 558 ; :iO Am. Rep. 486 ; 
 
 Wellborn v Odd PelluWs, .56 Tex. 501, 505 ; post, ? 12S. 
 
 51 2 Schoul. Per. Prop. 85. 
 
 \ 128. Bank deposits of husband and wife. — A depo.sit 
 by a husband of his own money in the names of him- 
 self and wife is not in itself a gift to her,i and if it is 
 simph' payable to her she is a mere agent to draw it,- 
 and her agency ceases on his death.^ If the deposit is 
 made in her name alone, its effect depends on the cir- 
 cumstances of the case ; prima facie, except where the 
 community system prevails," it is a gift to her,^ good 
 against his heirs,' though not against liis creditors ;8 
 but it may bo shown that it was not a gift to her,' as 
 where it was intrusted to her for the support of the 
 family.i" Of course as between her and the bank she 
 may draw it, if the deposit is in her sole name.'i So if 
 she deposits his money with his consent in her name, 
 the deposit is deemed a gift to her.^' But a gift by a 
 husband to liis wife of a deposit in his name, mu.st be 
 perfected by delivery.!* A check alone is not delivery," 
 and if he dies before his wife draws the money or has 
 the check accepted, the gift does not take effect.^* 
 
 1 Brown, 23 Barb. 565. 56S, 569. See Green, 11 Week. Dig. .374 ; post, 
 i 311. 
 
 2 See «n(c, ?} 89-98. 
 
 3 Wellborn v. Odd Fellows, .56 Tex. .501, 505 ; Second v. Wrightson, 
 1.J Md. Law Rec. 184, Feb. 7, 188.5. 
 
 4 Way 11. Peck, 47 Conn. 23, 25; McClusky v. Provident Inst. IM 
 Mass. ;«X). 306. 
 
 . 5 Wellborn v. Odd Fellows, 66 Tex. .501, .504 ; post, J§ 312-319.
 
 193 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS, § 129 
 
 6 Howard v. Windham, 40 Vt. 597, 599. 
 
 7 Fisk V. Cushman, 6 Cush. 20, 25; Howard v. Windham, 40 Vt. 
 597, 599. 
 
 8 Ames v. Chew, 5 Met. 320, 323; Spelman t'. Aldrich, 126 Mass. 
 113, 117. 
 
 9 Way v. Peclt, -47 Conn. 23, 25 ; MeCubbIn v. Patterson. 16 Md. 179, 
 184 ; McClusky v. Provident Inst. 103 Mass. 300, 306. 
 
 10 MnCubbin v. Patterson, 16 Md. 179, 184 ; Bates r. Brockport, 89 
 N. Y. 286. 
 
 11 Sweeny v. Boston, 116 Mass. 384, 386. 
 
 12 Jennmgs v. Davis, 31 Conn. 134, 142, 143. 
 
 13 Ante. U 120, 127. 
 
 14 Chalmers Dig. Bills, etc. art. 262. 
 
 15 Couser v. Snowden, 54 Md. 175, 183 ; ante, ? 127. 
 
 ^ 129. Minglin^ of wife's with husband's property. — 
 When property of a wife has become mixed with that 
 of her husband que.stions arise as to the rights therein 
 of the respective parties and their creditors.^ If an 
 ascertainable sum of a wife's money is mingled by her 
 husband with his own without her consent,^ or upon an 
 understanding that it shall be returned,^ she is to the 
 extent of such sum her husband's ceattii que trust or 
 creditor;* but her consent alone to such a course is 
 merely evidence of a waiver of her rights and a gift to 
 him.^ Thus, if a fund of their mingled moans is in- 
 vested with the consent of both in the name of one, a 
 gift to that one in jjrima facie intended,^ but the other 
 may show that he or she did not relinquish his or her 
 rights, and establish a resulting trust,' or come in as a 
 creditor.^ So, if he invests a joint fund in her name 
 his creditors can attack the investment only to the 
 extent of his interest.^ If, however, the amount of 
 money mingled is not ascertainable she cannot recover 
 from him or his estate,'" If by statute her separate 
 earnings are hers, she has thereby no interest in money 
 earned jointly with her husband ;" she must keep her 
 .separate property separate ;'^ nor can she claim a gift 
 to her of her earnings if these are mingled with her 
 H. & W.-17.
 
 § 129 KINDS OP SETTLEMENTS. 194 
 
 husband's;" in siieh case there is no delivery;" so 
 that usually a joint business of husband and wife is the 
 husband's business,^* and she has only the rights of a 
 creditor,!^ and these only to the extent of money actu- 
 allj^ loaned." But she does not waive her title to chat- 
 tels by allowinc: hor husband to use them, and mingle 
 them with his own,^^ as in tlie case of furniture ; '^ 
 though of course she may give them to her hvisl^imd.-" 
 The mingling by making improvements on land-^ is 
 separately considered. When husband and A\ife died 
 about the same time, each leaving a separate estate, 
 tliey were held equally entitled to a fund found in her 
 trunk.22 
 
 1 See Hardin v. Darwin, 66 Ala. .'^5, 63 ; Chambers v. Richardson, 
 r>7 Ala. S5, 90; Dent v. Slough, -10 Ala. SIS, 52:!; Bridges r. Philips, 25 
 Ala. 13fi, 1.38; Laiiffford v. Thurlbv, 70 Iowa, 105, 107, Hawl<iiis v. 
 Piovidenoe, 119 Mass. 50R. .598 : 20 Am. Rep. ;{53; McClnskv v. Provi- 
 'l^nt, im Mass. :!00. .'iOS ; Glover r. Alcott, 11 Mich. -170, -179 : Pawlev r. 
 VoSfl,^2 Mo. 291, 302; Quidort v. Pergcaux, IS N. J. Kq. 472, 480; 
 Frfpnian ?'. Orrer, 5 Dner, 476, 479 ; Filch ?•. Rathhiin.GI N. Y. 579, 
 .581; RirKback r. .\clcrovd 11 Hun, 365, 366 ; Olidden v. Taylor, 16 
 Ohio 8". 509, 521 ; ;>r«f, 5 311 
 
 2 Gover v. Owings, 16 Md. 91, 99 ; ante, | 43. 
 
 3 Hill, 38 Md. 183, 185 ; ante, ? 43. 
 
 4 Dent V. Slough, 40 Ala. 518, 523 ; Chambers v. Richardson, 57 
 Ala. 85,90; ante, i4:i. 
 
 r, Hawlvins v. Providence, 119 Mass. 596, 598; 20 Am. Rep. 353; 
 ante, I'i 43, 127. 
 
 6 Hardin )■. Darwin. 66 Ala. 55, 63; Adlard, 65 III. 212, 216, 217; 
 J.acobs V. Miller, 60 Mich. 119, 124. Consult po««, { 132 ; ante, ? 127. 
 
 7 Hardin v. Darwin, 66 Ala. 55, 63 ; post, ? 132, 
 
 8 Chambers v. Richardson, 57 Ala. 8.% 90. 
 
 9 Bridges v. Phillips, 25 Ala. 136, 138 ; ante, I lor, ; post, ? 432. t'nless 
 slie is estopped : Post, ? 417. 
 
 10 MnCInskv f. Provident, 103 Mass. 300, 306; Olovor v. Alcott, 11 
 Mich. 470, 479. 
 n ^;ite, § 65 ; pos/, ? 228. 
 
 12 Blrkback v. Ackroyd, 11 Hun, 365, 366. 
 
 13 Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472,480; Pawley v. Vogel, 42 
 Mo. 291, :i02, 303 ; ante, i 65. 
 
 14 Delivery essential, ante, ?? 120, 127. 
 
 15 Dent V. Slough, 40 .A.ia. 518, 523 ; Langford v. Thurlby, 70 Iowa, 
 105, 107 ; Freeman v. Orrer. a Duer. 476, 479 , ante, H 65. 87. 93, 
 
 16 Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509, 521.
 
 195 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. ?? 130-131 
 
 17 Dent v. Slough, 40 Ala. 51S, 523 ; Chambers v. Richardson, 57 
 Ala. 85, 90 : Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 470, 479. 
 
 18 Filch 11. Rathbun, 61 X. Y. 579, 581. 
 
 19 Filch V. Rathbun, 61 N. Y. 579, 5S1. 
 
 20 Shirley, 9 Paige, 36:!, 365. 
 
 21 Post, ? 131. 
 
 22 Bergen v. Van IJew, 36 N. J. Eq. 637, reversing 3h N. .T. Eq. 251. 
 
 2 130. Settlements of personal labor, etc. — A husband 
 may labor gratuitously lor his wife,^ as in the manage- 
 ment of her property,^ and his creditors do not thereby 
 acquire any rights against her or her property.' When 
 a\vife'.s .services are in law her husband s,* he cannot as 
 against his creditors give her money already earned,^ 
 such earnings are no consideration for a settlement ; * 
 but even as against his creditors he may, it seems, 
 abandon all riglits in her future earnings.^ When a 
 wife is entitled to her separate earnings,sif .slie labors 
 jointly with her husband witliout any special under- 
 standing, it is presumed that she intended to give her 
 services to him.^ 
 
 1 See Husband as "Wifk's Agent, ante, ?? 84-88. 
 
 2 Aldridge v. Muirheacl, 101 U. S. 397, 399. 
 
 3 Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. 393, 416 ; Miller v. Peck, 13 W. Va. 75, 99 ; 
 ante, § 87. 
 
 4 Ante, ? 6."). 
 
 5 Cramer v. Reford, 17 N. J. Eq. 367, 380. 
 
 6 Ante, ? 105, n. 28. 
 
 7 Peterson v. Mulfnrd, 36 N. J. L. 481,487,489 ; Quldort c. Fergeanx, 
 18 N. J. Eq. 472,479. Not if actual fraud: Hazeibaker v. Goodfellow, 
 64 111.338,241. The decisions are inharmonious. A gift void against 
 creditors : Bashim v. Chamberlain, 7 Mon. B. 443, 444, 44.'>. Void 
 against existing creditors: Glaze v. Blake, 56 Ala. 379, 385 ; Pinkston 
 1'. McLemore, 31 Ala. .308, ill. Void against subsequent: Ki-ith r. 
 Woombell, 3 Pick. 211, 213. Not void against subsequent unless i.ctual 
 fraud : Glaze v. Blake, .56 Ala. .379, .38.5. Good against devisees • Jones 
 V. Reid, 12 W. V.a. 350, .364 ; 29 Am. Rep. 455. Her earnings not liable 
 to be attached for his debts if his earnings are exempt: Hoyt j. 
 White, 46 N. H. 45, 47. 
 
 8 Ante, i 65 ; post, ? 228. 
 
 3 McCluskv V. Provident, 103 Mass. .300, 304 ; HoUowell v. Horter, 
 35 Pa. St. 375, .380 ; ante, \\ 65, 86. Consult post, ? 177. 
 
 \ 131. Improvements by one spouse of real estate of other.
 
 2 131 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 196 
 
 — The land of one spouse is not liable for improvements 
 placed upon it by the other either to such other' or to 
 such other's creditors,^ except (1) in the case of a con- 
 tract by the owner of the land which renders it liable,^ 
 or (2) as against creditors, in the case of actual fraud.* 
 As a general rule improvements placed upon real 
 estate witliout any agreement of tlie owner to the con- 
 trary, become a part of the realty and are lost to the 
 party who places them there and to his creditors.^ 
 Besides a married woman's lands can be charged only 
 by her o^\m contract under some statute^ or in equity/ 
 and her husband cannot, except as her agent in fact,^ 
 charge them for her^ — he cannot, for example, author- 
 ize a mechanic's lien on tliem.'" As between the par- 
 ties in the absence of contract there seems to be no 
 ground even for equitable interference," although 
 when a husband improperly uses his wife's money to 
 improve his lands equity will cause her to be reim- 
 bursed when the lands are sold.'^ Nor ougiit a wife's 
 lands to be liable at all for improvements placed on 
 them against her wishes or ^\ithout her consent. '^ But 
 Avlien a husband, who, within the knowledge of his 
 wife, is indebted, witli her consent improves her prop- 
 erty, and becomes unable to pay his debts, there is 
 good ground for equitable interference.'* 
 
 I Consult Dick v. Hamilton, 1 DeTiv, 32-; Coleman v. Smitli, 52 
 Ala. 259, 2f>l ; Hoot ti. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 3SS, 40'i : Swain v. Duane, -is Cal. 
 :'.iS. 360 ; Beam r. Scrossin, 12 III. App. 321, 3.30 ; Mathes v. DobsehuPtz, 
 7! 111. 438 ; Capp v. Stewart, 38 Ind. 47!), 4S2 ; Crickmore v. Breoken- 
 ri Ige, 51 Inrl. 2!)4, 297, 298 ; Corning v. Fowler, 24 Iowa, 584, o8(! ; Priee 
 V. Levdel, 4fi Iowa. 6% ; Robinson r. Huffman, 15 Mon. B. SO, 83 ; Wil- 
 son V. Jones, 46 Md. 349, a57 ; Wilson v. Sands, 3(i Md. 38 : I.vnde ?•. 
 JtcGregor, 13 Allen, 182, 1S5 ; Halle.v r. Huntington, 21 Minn. 32.S, 327; 
 Kirbv V. Bruns, 45 Mo. 234, 2.^5 ; Bank v. Bartlett, 8 Neb. 319 ; Cas- 
 well v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407, 415 ; Oinslev v. Mead, 3 Lans. 116, 124 ; Barto, 
 55 Pa. St. 386, 392 ; Cater v. Eveleiffh, 4 Des. 19, 20 ; 6 Am. Deo. 596 ; 
 Wilkinson, I Head, 305, 310: Knott %'. Carpenter, 3 Head, 542, .544; 
 Hughes V. Peters, 1 Cold. 67,70; Holder ?•. Crumn, 10 Lea, 320; Premo 
 V. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362, 367 ; White v. Hildreth, 32 Vt. 265, 267; Webster 
 r. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 4.57, 4.V? ; Rose v. Brown, U \V. Va. 122, 127 ; Bump 
 Fraud. Con v. 242 ; anU, ii 87.
 
 197 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS, g 132 
 
 2 Capp V. Stewart, 38 Ind. 470, 482 ; Corning v. Fowler, 24 Town, 
 5S4, 5S6; Robinson r. Huffman, 15 Mon. B. 80, 83; Premo r. Hewitt, 
 55 Vt. 362, 367 ; cases supra, n. 1. 
 
 3 Criokmora v. BreckenridRe. 51 Ind. 2!>4, 2!t8 ; Wilson v. Jones, 
 4fi Md. 340, 'i57. But see under Community System, Roth, 33 La. An. 
 540 ; post, ? 314. 
 
 4 Corning v. Fowler, 24 Iowa, 584, 580. See Hott v. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 
 388, 40f! ; Kirhy v. Bruns, 45 Mo. 234, 235 ; Caswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407, 
 415 ; Barto, 55 Pa. St. 38fi, 302 ; Cater v. Eveleigh, 4 Desaus. Eq. 19, 20; 
 6 Am. Dec. 596 ; cases supra, n. 1. 
 
 5 See Mather v. Fraser,.2 Kay <fe J. 536 ; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 
 Me. IM ; 19 Am. Dec. 201 ; Green v. Phillips, 2b Gratt. 572 ; 21 Am. Rep. 
 323 ; Boone Real Prop, i 9. 
 
 6 Hall V. Eccleston. 37 Md. 510, 519, 520 ; post, § 238. 
 
 7 Perkins v. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 528, 533 ; post, ?? 206, 207. 
 
 8 Halley v. Huntington, 21 Minn. 325, 327 ; ante, J? 84, 88. 
 
 9 Capp V. Stewart, 38 Ind. 470, 482 ; Ainsley v. Mead, 3 Lans. llfi, 
 124; Knott?'. Carpenter, 3 Head, 512, 544; Hughes r. Peters, 1 Cold. 
 67, 70 ; ante, ?§ 84-88. 
 
 10 Knott V. Carpenter, 3 Head, 542, 544. 
 
 11 As gifts are not discountenanced, ante, ?5 100, 105, 127. 
 
 12 Coleman v. Smith, 52 Ala. 259, 261. Doctrine of resulting trust, 
 2X>st, ? 132. 
 
 13 Barto, 55 Pa. St. 386, 392. 
 
 14 Rose V. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 137 ; svpra, notes 1, 4. 
 
 I 132. Besulting trusts between husband and wife. — 
 1. When a hu.sband buy.s with his ui/e\s monei/ in his 
 own name, there arises a resulting trust in her fa-vor,! 
 unless a diflferent intention on her part is shown ;'' and 
 the burden of proof is on the husband to show she in- 
 tended a gift to him,^ which is, however, prima facie 
 established by proof of her knowledge and consent.* 
 The wife, on her part, must clearly show that her 
 money was paid.' When such a resulting trust has 
 arisen, the husband's creditors cannot complain if he 
 conveys the legal title to her,^ though he does so to 
 defeat their remedies against the property.' While 
 this property is not liable for the hu.sband's debts,^ his 
 bona fide assignee for value without notice takes it clear 
 of the trust.9 
 
 2. When a husband buys with his own money in his 
 wif€\s name, the transaction is deemed an advancement
 
 ^132 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 19S 
 
 and gift to her,'" unless a different intention on his 
 part is sliown,^^ as where she had agreed to hold it for 
 him,''^ or was invested with the title for liis conven- 
 ience, he being 111,^^ or a foreigner." In such cases no 
 resulting trust arises in favor of hiniself,!^ or his heirs,'^ 
 but one does arise in favor of such creditors of his as 
 could have set aside a direct conveyance of equal value 
 from him to her,i' tliat is to say, existing creditors,i8 
 unless the settlement was fair and reasonable,'* but not 
 subsequent creditors,^'' unless there was fraud in fact,^ 
 For a married woman may be trustee, even by impli- 
 cation and against her will.^^ Still in these cases she is 
 trustee only to the extent of the money paid by her 
 husband. ^2 
 
 3. Every purchase by a married woman in her own 
 name is deemed to have been made with her husbancfs 
 money, ''■^ but she maj^ show lier funds were used.^ So 
 if she has paid only a part she is directly interested in 
 the purchase to that extent,^ and holds the title as 
 security^ when it is assailed by her husband's cred- 
 itors.28 
 
 4. A purchase by a married woman ivith her hus- 
 hancVs funds in her own name is deemed a settlement 
 by him on lier,'^ unless it appears tliat slie did so 
 wrongfully ,3" or with a different purpose.^' 
 
 5. A purchase with the money of both in the name of 
 one is deemed a gift to that one,^'^ unless the other 
 shows a different intent,^ or a breach of trust.'* If the 
 purchase is in the name of both, a tenancy by entireties 
 is created.^5 
 
 6. A resulting trust can be enforced only in equity."^ 
 
 1 Harris v. Brown, 30 Ala. -101, 402; Plummer r. Jarman. -44 5td. 
 632, 6:«; Keller, 45 Md. 270, 275; Wales v. Newbould, Mich. '5, (H ; 
 Barnoordt). Kuhn,36Pa, St. 383, 390; Keady v. Bragg, 1 Head, 511, 
 515, 516. 
 
 2 Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45, 64 ; infra, n. 11. 
 
 3 Wales V. ^"ewbould, 9 Mich. 45, 64 ; ante, I 86.
 
 199 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS, § 133 
 
 4 Consult Tyson, 54 Md. SS, 38 ; ante, ?§ 42, 127. 
 
 5 Plummer v. Jarman, 44 Md. 6.32, 638. 
 
 6 Harris v. Brown, 30 Ala. 401, 402 ; ant^. § 105, n. 22. 
 
 7 Wilson V. Sheppard, 28 Ala. 623, 629. 
 
 8 Ready v. Bragg, 1 Head, 511, 515. 
 
 9 Gormant>. Wood, l&SGa. 524; Darnaby, 14 Bush, 485, 488. Consult 
 ante, J 100. 
 
 10 Evkyn, LawR. 6 Ch. Div. 115, 118; Jackson, 91 U. S. 122, 1Z5 ; 
 Ward, 36 Ark. .586, .5S8 ; Andrews v. Oxley, 38 Iowa, 578, 580 ; Edgerly, 
 112 Mass. 175, 179 ; Darner, 58 Mo. 222. 227 ; Linker, .32 N. J. Eq. 174, 177; 
 Scott V. Simes, 10 Bosw. 314, 319 ; Irvine v. Greever, 32 Gratt. 411, 417; 
 Bent, 44 Vt. 555, 559. 
 
 11 See Marshall v. Curtwell, Law R. 20 Eq. 328, 331 ; Higgins, 46 
 Cal.257, 263 ; Wormlev, 98 111. 544; Darner, 58 Mo. 222, 227 ; Linker, n 
 N. J. Eq. 174, 177 ; Dunn v. Hornbeck, 7 Hun, 629, 630 ; Irvine v. 
 Greever, 32 Gratt. 411, 418 ; Bent, 44 Vt. 555, 559. 
 
 12 Bent, 44 Vt. 555, 559. 
 
 13 Marshall v. Curtwell, Law R. 20 Eq. 328, 331. 
 
 14 Dunn v. Hornbeck, 7 Hun, 629, 630. 
 
 15 Jackson, 91 U. S. 122, 125 ; Ward, 36 Ark. 586, 588 ; Peck v. Brum- 
 magim, 31 Cal. 440, 447; Ramsrteli r. Fuller, 28 Cal. 37, 43; Wing -. 
 Goodman, 75 111. 159, 16 ! ; Indianapolis x\ McLaughlin, 77 III. 275. 278 ; 
 Garner v. Graves, 54 Ind. IS**, 192 ; Snow v. Paine, 114 Mass. 520, 526 ; 
 McCowan v. Donaldson. 12S Miiss. 169. 170. 
 
 16 Adams v. Brackett, 5 Met. 280, 286. 
 
 17 See Wnig r. Goodman, 75 111. 159, 163 ; Shepard v. Pratt, 32 lowe, 
 29(1,298,301; Baker v. Dobyns, 4 Dana, 220 225; Duhme v. Young. 3 
 Bush, 343, 349, 351 ; Hearn v. Lander, 11 Bush, 669, 676 ; Low v. Marco 
 53 Me. 45, 49; Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579, 586 ; Matthews v. Torinus, 
 22 Minn. 132, 135 ; Rogers v. McCaule»', 23 Minn. 384, .386 ; Hill v. Bugg, 
 52 Miss. 397, 401 ; Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 136; ante, U 113-117. 
 
 18 Ante, ? 116. 
 
 19 Shepard v. Pratt, 32 Iowa, 296, 301 ; Duhme v. Young, 3 Bush, 
 343, 349 ; Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579, 584 ; ante, i 116. 
 
 20 Ante, 1 117. 
 
 21 Duhme v. Young, 3 Bush, »43, 349; Matthews v. Torinus, 22 
 Minn. 132, 135 ; ante, ? 117. 
 
 22 Hardin v. Darwin, G6 Ala. 55, 61, 62 ; post, ? 450. 
 
 2.1 Shepard v. Pratt, 32 Iowa. 290, 298, 300 ; Hearn ^•. Lander, 11 Bush, 
 669, G7G ; Hill j. Bugg, 52 Miss. 397, 401. Consult ante, \ 106. 
 
 24 Seitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 582 ; Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122, 
 13G. 
 
 25 Higgins, 46 Cal. 2.57, 26T ; Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. .37, 42; Mc- 
 Donald V. Badger, 23 Cal. 393, 398 ; Houston v. Curl, 8 Te.\. 242 ; 58 Am. 
 Dec. 110. Consult supra, notes 1-9. 
 
 23 Hopkin-i r. Carey, 23 Miss. .54, .58. 
 
 27 Grain v. Shipman, 45 Conn. 572, 583. Consult «n?e, ? 106. 
 
 28 Hill V. Bugs, 52 Miss. 397, 401 ; ante, ? 124. 
 
 20 Adlard, 65 111. 212, 216, 217 ; Darner, 58 Mo. 222, 227. 
 30 Darner, 58 Mo. 222, 227.
 
 § 133 KINDS OF sp:ttl,ements. 200 
 
 31 Consult supra, notes 11-H. 
 
 32 Hardin ti. Darwin, 6fi Ala. 55, 65 ; Adlard, 65 111. 212, 216. Does 
 husband have to prove gift : Hiqyra. notes 3, 4. 
 
 33 Marshall v. Curtwell, Law R. 20 Eq. 328, 331 ; Hopkins v. Carey, 
 23 Miss. 54, 58. 
 
 34 Adlard, 65 111. 212, 217, 218. 
 
 35 Jacobs V. Miller, 50 Mich. 119, 124, realty ; Eykyn, Law R. 6 Ch. 
 Div. 115, 118, personalty. 
 
 36 Low V. Marco, 53 Me. 45. 49. 
 
 \ 133. Insurance of husband's Ufa for bonofit of wife. — 
 A wife has a direct interest in the life of her husband,' 
 which may be insured by him (and by her under 
 special statutes 2) for her benefit.^ When such insur- 
 ance has been made the policy is her separate prop- 
 erty,* the proceeds belong not to the community but to 
 her and her representatives;^ she may assign it,* even 
 for her husband's debt,^ but such assignment must be 
 free from fraud* and duress ;' but he cannot assign it '^ 
 or defeat her rights, as by a fraudulent surrender;" 
 nor can either of them so defeat the rights of children 
 who are also Ijeneficiaries ; '^ still, if he survives her he 
 may surrender a policy taken out for her benefit,'" or 
 dispose of it by AviU,i* or have another person, as a 
 second wife, made beneficiary.'^ Her separate estate is 
 not however liable for the premiums.'^ If a husband 
 assigns a policy for his benefit to his wife for hers, I'z 
 may, just as any other assignment," be a fraud on his 
 creditors ; •* so if he surrenders a policy in his name 
 and takes out one in hers," for thjs is really an assign- 
 ment ; '^ so if he makes a large and unreasonable insur- 
 ance in her favor when he is indebted;''" but even 
 against creditors he may insure hLs life for her benefit 
 for a reasonable amount.^ Statutes often exempt insur- 
 ance policies from the claims of creditors."^ 
 
 1 Gambs v. Covenant, 50 Mo. 44, 47. 
 
 2 Thompson v. American, 46 N. Y. 674, 675 ; post, I 393. 
 
 3 Gambs v. Covenant, 50 Mo. 44, 47. \
 
 201 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. ? 134 
 
 4 PomeroY v. Manhattan, 40 III. 399, 402 ; Southern v. Booker, 
 9 Hoisk. 600, CIS. 
 
 5 Bofenschen, 29 La. An. 711, 714. 
 
 6 (Jodfrevi'. Wilson, 70 Ind. 50, 56; WTiitrldge v. Barry, 42 Md. 
 140, 152 ; Aiusworth v. Backus, 5 Hun, 414, 417 ; po.it, ? 236. 
 
 7 Emerick v. C'oakley, 35 Md. 188, 190 ; ]Mst, I 134. 
 
 8 Ante, ? 110. 
 
 9 Emoriclc t-. Coaklcv, 35 Md. 188, 190 ; Whitrlda;e v. Barry, 42 Md. 
 140, \yi ; Fowler v. Butterly. 78 N. Y. 63 ; 34 Am. Rep. 507 ; ante, § 110. 
 
 10 See Knickerbocker v. Weitz, 99 Mass. 157, 159; Barry r\ Mutual, 
 4*) How. Pr. 504, 508 ; Southern v. BooI:er, 9 Heisk. 606, 618, 619 
 
 11 Barry v. Mutual, 40 How. Pr. 504, 50S. 
 
 12 Meller, Law R. 6 Ch. Div. 127, 128. Consult sujyra, n. 10. 
 
 13 Oambs v. Covenant, 50 Mo. 44, 47 ; Kermau v. Howard, 23 MHs. 
 108. 112. 
 
 14 Kcrman v. Howard, 23 Wis. 103, 112. 
 
 15 Gambs v. Covenant, 50 Mn. 44, 47. 
 10 Ogden V. Guill, 5r, Miss. 330, 332. 
 
 17 Ante, 5? 113-117. 
 
 18 ElUott, 50 Pa. St. 75, 83. See English M. Woman's Act 1882, ? 11. 
 
 19 Stokes V. Coffey, 8 Bush. 53,-!, 538. 
 
 20 That is to say, it is an indirect transfer: See rt)i?e, ? 99. 
 
 21 Stokes V. Coffey, 8 Bush, 533, .'i38. 
 
 22 Smedlev v. Felt, 43 Iowa, 607, flOS ; Stokes v. Coffey, S Bush, 5.30, 
 5'«; Elliott, 50 Pa. St. 78, 83; Southern v. Booker, 9 Heisk. 006, 618. 
 
 23 Md. E. C. 1878, p. 4S.3, J 26. 
 
 ? 134. Wife as surety for her husband. — Contracts and 
 conveyances by a wife for the benefit of her husband's 
 creditors are in reality indirectly contracts and convey- 
 ances with him.i But special considerations have 
 arisen with reference to the wife's capacity to be surety 
 for her husband, and to the incidents of her surety- 
 ship,* 
 
 1. Capacity under general powers. In the absence or 
 exjjress prohibition in the settlement or statute whence 
 she derives her capacity to contract,^ a wife can to the 
 full extent of tliat capacity, equitable* or statutory,^ 
 contract as surety for her husband.^ Thus mortgages 
 by wife for husband's debts are common,' so are 
 assignments of personalty;^ and a married woman 
 who can make a promissory note^ can indorse one for
 
 ^ 134 KIXDS OF SKTTLEMEXTS. 202 
 
 her husband. i» For, as to her equitable separate estate 
 she may do as she pleases " It is, however, necessary 
 to note that the different rules which prevail as to 
 when a contract of hers binds this estate i- apply also to 
 her contracts of suretyships, and while in 8ome States 
 any such contract binds it,'^ in others the contract 
 must be for its benefit,^* or expressly charge it.^ As to 
 her statutory, separate estate, since the statute does not 
 prohibit her dealing with it for the benefit of others, 
 and since no special incapacity to do so exists by the 
 unwritten law, she may pledge or convey it for her 
 husband's debt.i^ For the same reasons there is no 
 ground for engrafting on general enabling acts an 
 exception as to suretyship.^' 
 
 2. Capacity limited by statute. In some States stat- 
 utes expressly ,^8 or by necessary implication,^'' prohibit 
 a wife's contracts as surety for her husband. ^o But 
 such is not the effect of statutes forbidding contracts 
 between husband and A\ife,^ or pro^ading that a wife's 
 jjroperty shall not be liable for her husband's debts.^^ 
 Xor does a statute which prohibits such contracts as to 
 her statutory separate property affect her capacity as 
 to her equitable separate property.^^ 
 
 3. Contract otherwise binding. The contract must, 
 however, not only be one which, though a married 
 woman, she has capacity to make, 2' but also one which 
 would bind her as surety if unmarried.^ Thus, there 
 must be a consideration,"^ though it need not move to 
 her ; ^ if she becomes security for a debt before it is 
 contracted, or afterwards in accordance with a prior 
 understanding, the debt itself is a binding considera- 
 tion ; ^ but if the debt has already been contracted, she 
 cannot render herself liable therefor AA-ithout some new 
 consideration,^ such as an extension of time,'" or a for- 
 bearance to sue,'^ and the statute of frauds requiring a
 
 203 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. ^ 1G4 
 
 memorandum of a promise to answer for the debt, etc., 
 of another, applies equally to such promises by mar- 
 ried Avomen.3^' If her contract has been secured by the 
 creditor's illegal threats^ or duress 3* she is not bound ; 
 but fraud on the part of her husband alone will not 
 affect her liability ; ^ still she is more readily relieved 
 for fraud than a stranger to her husband would be.^^ 
 
 4. Implied suretyship. Whenever a wife conveys or 
 mortgages her property, or binds herself for her hus- 
 band's debt she does so prima facie simply as his sure- 
 ty ;3^ but Avhether she is so or not depends upon her 
 intent,^8and the debt may be shown to have really been 
 hers.^' Nor is she a surety as far as concerns creditors 
 if she is one of the original contractors and nothing- 
 else appears.^" 
 
 5. Incidents of her suretyship. Whenever a wife is 
 expressly or impliedly, as above, surety for her hus- 
 band, she has the same rights as other sureties.*- 
 Thus, she has her equity of exoneration.*^ She may 
 not onlj', if she has paid his debt, go against him for 
 reimbursement pari passu with his other creditors,*^ 
 being subrogated to the rights of the creditor she has 
 paid," but she may compel him or his representatives 
 to redeem her goods which have been pledged for his 
 debt ; *^ and after his death she *^ or her representative *' 
 or her cj editor*® may have her pioperty exonerated of 
 its liability out of his real and personal estate.*^ As in 
 the case of other sureties she may compel the creditor 
 to first exhaust the isrincipal's means ;=" if any of his 
 securities are I'eleased,^! or his time is extended,^- or if 
 he buys the debt,=^ she is discharged. If her mortgaged 
 estate is sold for her husband's debt under decree, she 
 may have a decree over against him.^* 
 
 6. Authorities^. The authorities on this subject in 
 the several States are very numerous and are collected 
 in a note.^
 
 g 134 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 204 
 
 1 But see Major v. Holmes, 124 Mass. lOS, 109. Indirect contracts 
 between husband and wife were always valid : Ante, J 42. 
 
 2 See cases collected infra, n. 65. 
 
 3 A married woman having no capacity to contract at common 
 law can do so only in equity or by statute : I'ost, Contracts of 
 Makkied Women, 5? 355-393. 
 
 i Compare Perkins v. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 528, 533 ; and Muller 
 r. Bayley 21 Gratt. 521, 529. 
 
 5 Compare Wolff d. Van Meter, 19 Iowa, 134, 136 ; and Woolsey v. 
 Brown, 74 N. Y. 82, 84 
 
 6 Grelner, 58 Cal. 115, 122 ; Collins t». Dawley, 4 Colo. 138 ; Ayres v. 
 Husted, 15 Conn. 504,517 ; Edwards i'. Schoeneman, 104 III. 278,285; 
 Hubble V. Wright, 23 Ind. 322, 324; Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa, 476, 
 478 ; Latimer v. Glenn, 2 Bush, 535, 543 ; Mayo v. Hutchinson, 57 Me. 
 546, 577 ; Emericli v. Coakley, 35 Md. 188, 190 ; Hall v. Tay, 131 Mass. 
 102, 193 ; Watson v. Thurber, 11 Mich. 457; Stone v. Montgomery, 35 
 Miss. 83, 104 ; Wilcox v. Todd, 64 Mo. 388, .^89 ; Harrall, 31 N. J. Eq. 101, 
 102 ; Woolsev v. Brown, 74 N. Y. 82,84 ; Purvis v. Carstaphan, 73 N. C. 
 .'i75, 581 ; BalVlwi!! v. Siiowden, 11 Ohio St. 203, 211 ; Moore v. Fuller, 
 6 Ores 272 ; 25 Am. Hop. 524 ; Haffey ti. Carey, 73 Pa. St. 431, 432 ; Mc- 
 Ferrin v. White, 6 Cold. 499; Rhodes v. Gibbs, 39 Tex. 432 ; Muller v. 
 Bayley, 21 Gratt. 521, 529 ; cases collected infra, n. 55. 
 
 7 Short V. Battle, 52 Ala. 4.56, 460 ; Spear v. Ward, 20 Cal. 660, 674 : 
 Young!'. Graff. 28 111. 20: Brockschnii It v. Hogebrush, 72 111. r,i\2 ; 
 Washburn r. Roesch, 13 III. App. 2t», 272 ; Hubble v. Wright, 23 Ind. 
 322, 324 ; Menu r. Roche, 77 Ind. 4S, 51 ; Wolff v. Van ]Met(.T, 23 Iowa, 
 297 , Green v. Scraniige, 19 Iowa, 461, 465 ; Comegy v. Clark, 44 Mil. lOS. 
 Ill , Heburn v. Warner, 112 M iss. 271, 275 ; Smith v. Osborn, 33 Mi ■li. 
 410 ; Arastrong v. Stovall, 26 Miss. 275, 2s0 ; Schneider v. Stair, 20 Mo. 
 269 ; Wilcox V. Todd, 64 Mo. ass, 3s:i ; Rubbins v. Abrahams, 5 N. J. 
 Eq. 465 ; Bank v. Burns, 46 N. Y. 170, 175 ; McVey v. Cantrell. 70 N. Y. 
 295, 297; 26 Am. Rop. 605; Purvis v. Carstaphan, 73 N. C. 575, 5^1; 
 Moore v. Fuller, 6 Oreg. 272 ; 25 Am. Rep. .524 ; Bayler v. Com. 40 Pa. 
 St. 37 43 ; Jamison, 3 Whart. 457 ; Lvtle, .36 Pa. St. 131, 133 ; McForrin 
 V. White, 6 Cold. 499 ; Rhodes v. Gibbs, 39 Tex. 432 ; Muller v. Boyly , 
 21 Gratt. 521, 529. See also infra, n. 55. 
 
 8 Collins 1'. Dawley, 4 Colo. 138 ; .34 Am. Rep. 72 ; Pomerov i'. Man- 
 hattan, 40 111. 398 ; Emerick v. Coakley. 35 Md. 188, 190. 
 
 9 Post, ch. xxi., i 385. 
 
 10 Major v. Holmes, 124 Mass. 108, 109 ; Konworthy v. Sawver, 125 
 Mass. 2-i, 2,1 ; Goodnow v. Hill, 125 Mass. 5,^7, 5S.). Compare De Vries v. 
 Co:ikli:i, 22 Mich. 255, 2.58, 260 ; Sawyer v. Fernald, 59 Mo. 5U0, ,502. 
 
 U Muller v. Rayley,2l Gratt. 521, 529 ; post, H 206, 207. 
 
 12 As to these rules see post, H 205-207. 
 
 13 See Nunn v. Giohaa, 45 Ala. 370, 375 ; Short v. Battle, .52 Ala. 456, 
 4G0 ; Deerijig v. Boyle, 8 Kan. .525 ; 12 Am. Rep. 480 ; ix>st, I 207. 
 
 14 See Willard v. Eastham 15 Gray, 328, 335 ; Athol v. Fuller, 107 
 Mass. 437, 439 ; Perkins v. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 528, 533 ; Gosman, 
 6,1 N. Y. 87 ; 25 Am. Rep. 141 ; Hansee v. Dewitt, 63 Barb. 53 ; Bogert 
 r. Gulick, 65 Barb. 322 ; Hartman v. Ogborn, 54 Pa. St. 120, 122 ; post, 
 8 207. 
 
 15 See McVev v. Cantrell, 70 N. Y. 295, 297 ; Perkins v. Elliott, 23 N. 
 J. Eq. 526, 528, 5-33 ; post, H 206, 207. 
 
 16 See Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa, 476, 46S ; post, I'i 206, 207.
 
 205 KIXDS OF SETTLEMENTS. § 184 
 
 17 See Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa. 476, 478 ; Mayo r. Hutchinson, 57 
 Me. M6, 547 ; Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28, 29 ; Woolsey v. 
 Brown, 74 N. Y. 82, 84 ; Com. v. Babcook, 42 N. Y. 61.3. The cases In 
 the last five notes are merely Illustrative of the te.xt. 
 
 18 Ga. E. C. 178.3 ; Ind. R. S. 1S81, ? 5119 ; N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 6.37. 
 
 19 Bibb V. Pope, 43 Ala. 190, 200 ; Bowman v. Kaufman, 30 La. An. 
 1021, 1025. 
 
 20 See also Northlngton v. Farber, .52 Ala. 45, 47 ; Dunbar v. Mize, 
 63 Ga. 4.35, 437 ; Poxworth v. Magee, 44 Wis. 430; Erwin v. Hill, 47 
 Miss. 675 ; infra, n. 55, Ala. Ga. and Miss, cases. 
 
 21 Major v. Holmes, 124 Mass. 108, 109 ; IMass. R. S. 1882, p. 819, ? 2. 
 
 22 Hubble V. AVright, 23 Ind. 322, 324. 
 
 23 Compare Short v. Battle, 52 Ala. 458, 460 ; with Northlngton v. 
 farber, .52 Ala. 45, 47. 
 
 24 Schmidt V. Postel, 63 111. 59, 60; Dovle v. Kelly, 75 111. 574; 
 O'Dailv ('. Morris, 31 Ind, 111, 115 ; Wolff v. Van Metre, 19 Iowa, 134, 
 130 ; West V. LaraWay, 28 Mich. 464, 46.5. 
 
 25 Hetherlngton v. Hixon,46 Ala. 297, 298 ; Sawyer v. Fernald, .59 
 Me. 500, .•.02; De Vries v. Conklln, 22 Mich. 255, 2.58, 260; Bayler v. 
 Com. 40 Pa. St. 37, 44 : Hatz, 40 Pa. St. 209, 212 ; White, 36 Pa. St. 1.34, 
 140. See Baylie's on Sureties, ch. 4. 
 
 26 Sawyer v. Fernald, .59 Me. .500, 502 ; supra, n. 25. 
 
 27 Hall V. Tay, 131 Mass. 192, 193. 
 
 28 See Baylies on .Sureties, ch. 4. 
 
 29 De Vries v. Conklln, 22 Mich. 2.55, 2.58, 260 ; supra, n. 25. 
 
 30 Green v. .Scranage, 19 Iowa, 461, 465 ; Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa, 
 476, 478. 
 
 31 Emerick i\ Coakley, .3.5 Md. 188, 190. 
 
 32 29 Car. 2, ch. 3, J 4 I Alex. Brit. Stat. p. 527. 
 
 33 Green v. Scranage, 19 Iowa, 4P1, 463 ; McGrary v. Reilley, 14 
 Phila. Ill, 112. ■ 
 
 34 Eadie v. Simmons, 26 N. Y. 9, 12. 
 
 35 Rogers v. Adams, 6r. Ala. 60i\ 60^ ; Collin'^ v. Wassell, 34 Ark. 17, 
 35; Green v. Scranage, 19 Iowa, 461, 463; Baldwin v. Snowden, 11 
 Ohio St. 203, 211 ; ante, i 110. 
 
 36 Hammit v. Bull, 8 Phila. 29, 30 ; ante, ? 110. 
 
 37 Huntington, 2 Bro. P. C. 1 ; 2 White ife T. Lead. Cas. 1010 ; Has- 
 Bjy V. Wilkp, 38 Hun, .i25, .528 ; Spear r. Ward, 20 Cal. 660, 674 ; Ayres 
 V. Husted, 15 Conn. .504, 517 ; Lnrinipr v. Glenn, 2 Bush, 535, .543 ; Johns 
 V. Reardon, 11 Md. 465, 46j; Knight v. Whitehead, 26 Miss. 24.S 246 • 
 Wilcox V. Todd, 61 Mo. .3SS, 389 ; Loomer v. Wheel\vrii?Iit. 3 Smd. Ch. 
 l;.5, 1.54; Bank 1'. Burns, 46 X. Y. 170. 175; Purvis >: Carstaphaii, 
 7! N. C. .57.5, .581 ; Miner i\ Graham, 24 Pa. St. 491, 495 ; Hammit v. Bull, 
 8 Phila. 29. ?n ; infm, notes 41-54, This do-s not appiv to her release 
 of dower : Havvley v. Bradford, 9 Paige, 200, 201. 
 
 38 Dufly V. Insurance, 8 Watts & S. 413, 433. 
 
 39 Clinton V. Hooper, 3 Bro. C. C. 212,i2l3, 1 Ves. Jr. 173 ; Kinnoul v. 
 Money, 3 Svvanst. 208 n.; Spear v. Ward, 20 Cal. 600, 674. 
 
 40 Alexander v. Bouton, .53 Cal. 15, 19 ; Ward v. Spear, 20 Cal. 660, 
 677. 
 
 H. & W. — 18.
 
 ^134 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. 206 
 
 41 Wilcox V. Todd, fi{ Mo. 38S, SS^ ; VanHorne v. Everson, 13 Barb. 
 5i(i, ojO; Bank c. Burns, -1(1 N.Y. 170. IT.j; Hawley t'. Bratiford, 9 Paige, 
 ajo, JOl ; Siieidle v. Weishlee, 16 Pu. St. 13^, 137. 
 
 42 Huntington, 2 Brown Pari. C. 1 ; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. 1010 ; 
 Johns ('. Reanleii, 11 Md. 4fi.j, 4Hi) ; Butterfield r. Stanton, 44 Miss. Ij. 
 35 ; Wilcox ('. Todd, G4 Mo. 3SS, 3S'J ; Shinn v. Smith, 7s) N. C. 310. 
 
 41 Olcaves v. Paine, 1 DeGex J. & S. 87, 95, «6 ; infra, n. 42. 
 ;4 Greiner, 58 Cal. 115, 122 ; 12 The Reporter, (M" ; sujira, n. 42. 
 ■I.-> Ilarrall, 31 N. J. Eq. 101, 102. 
 4S Aguilar, 5 Madd 414 ; .Stewart M. & D. § 460. 
 
 47 Huntingdon, 2 Brown Pari. C. 1 ; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. 10:0, 
 1015. 
 
 48 Lancaster v. Evans, 10 Beav. 154, 266 ; supra, n. 47. 
 
 49 Ayres v. Husted, 15 Coim. 504, 517 ; Johns v. Rearden, 11 Md. 465, 
 470 ; Knight r. Whitehead, 26 Miss. 245. 246 ; Fitch v. Cotheal, 2 Sand. 
 Cli. 2:i, 30 ; Miner i'. Graham, 24 Pa. St. 491, 495; Weeks v. Haas, 3 
 Watts & S. 520, 523 ; 39 Am. Dec. 30 ; supra, n. 42. 
 
 50 Mofflt xy. Roche, 77 Ind. 48, 51 ; Wilcox v. Todd, 64 Mo. 388 369 ; 
 Sheidle v. Weishlee, 16 Pa. Si. i:i4, 137. 
 
 51 Purvis V. Carstaphan, 73 N. C. 575, 582, 
 
 .".2 Spear v. Ward, 20 Cal. 660, 674 ; Frickee v. Donncr, ."5 Mich. 151 ; 
 Smith V. Townsend, 25 N. Y. 479, 483 ; Bank v. Burns, 46 N. Y. 170, 175 ; 
 but see Lytle, 36 Pa. St. 131, 133 ; supra, n. 40. 
 
 53 Fitch V. Cotheal, 2 Sand. Ch. 20, 30. 
 
 54 Nelmcelnez v. Oahn, 3 Paige, 614. 
 
 .55 Huntingdon, 2 Brown Pari. C. 1 ; 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. 1010 ; 
 Rogers v. Adams, 66 Ala. GOO, 602 ; Coloman v. Sniitli, 65 Ala. 368 ; 
 Cowler V. Marks, 53 Ala. 400; 47 Ala. 612; Matthew.s v. Sheldon, 53 
 Ala. 136; Short v. Battle, 52 Ala. 456, 460 ; Noithington v. Farber, 53 
 Ala. 45, 47 ; Davidson v. Lanier, 57 Ala. 318 ; Riley v. Pierce, 50 Ala, 
 93; Hetherington v. Hixon, 46 Ala. - 17, 2)3 ; Minn v Giolian, 45 Ala. 
 370, 375 ; Wilkinson v. Cheatham, 45 Ala. 3:,7 ;' Bibb r. Pope, 43 Ala. 190; 
 200 ; Collins v. Wassoll. 34 Ark, 17, 3! ; Greiner, 58 Car. 115, 122 ; Alex- 
 ander V. Bouton, 55 Cal. 15, 19 ; Ha.ssey v. Willie, 55 ( .il. 525, 628 ; Mar- 
 low V. Barlew, 63 Cal. 450 ; Ward v Spear, 20 Cal. 660, 674, 677 ; Collins 
 t>. Dawley, 4 Colo. 138 ; .34 Am. Rep. 72 ; Ayres v. Husted, 15 Conn. 504, 
 517; Ga. Code 1873, ? 1783; Dunbar v. Mize, 5;$ Ga. 435, 437; Clark v. 
 Valentine, 41 Ga. 143; Edwards i'. Schoe:ieman, 104111. 278,285 ; Doyle 
 V. Kelly,63 111. 594 ; Brockschmidt v. Hagebrush, 72 111. 562 ; Young v, 
 Gratf, 28 111. 20 ; P<imeroy v. Manhattan, 40 111. 3 )8 ; Schmidt i'. Postel, 
 G! 111. 69, 60 ; W.ashlnira v. Ro-s"h, 13 111. App. 268, 272 ; Ind. R. S. 18S1, 
 ? 5119; Moffit V. Itiieh", 77 Ind. 48; Buel v. Shum.an, 28 Ind. 461; 
 Herron, 91 Ind. 27i ; U'Dailvt'. Morris, 31 Ind. Ill, 115; Coates p. Mc- 
 Kee, 26 Ind. 22i ; Ellis v. Kenyon, 25 Ind. 134 ; Hubbell v. Wright, 23 
 Ind. 322, 324 ; Kirk v. Tort, 13 Ind. 56 ; Iowa R. C. 1880, ? 2.506 ; Low v. 
 Anderson, 41 Iowa, 476, 478 ; Wolff v. Van Meter, 23 Iowa, 297 ; 19 
 Iowa, 134, 136 ; Reii v. King, 23 Iowa, 500 ; Green v. Scranage, 19 Iowa, 
 461, 465; Hobson, 8 Bush, 605; Latimer v. Glenn, 2 Bush, 5:», 613; 
 Bowman v. Kaufman, 30 La. An. 1021, 1025 ; Keller v. Ruiz, 21 La. An, 
 283; Sawyer v. Fernald, 59 Me. 500, .502 ; Ma vo t). Hutchinson, 57 Me. 
 546, .547; Eaton v. Mason, 47 Me. 132; Comcgvs v. Clark, 44 Md. 108, 
 111 ; Hall ti. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, 520; Emei'ick v. Coaklev, .^ Md. 
 188, 100; Hall v. Tay, 131 Mass. 192, 193 ; Goodnow r. Hill, 125 Mass. 
 587, 580 ; Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28, 20 ; Major v. Holmes, 123 
 Mass. 108, 109 ; Thacker v. Churchill, 118 Mass. 108, 109 ; Heburn v.
 
 207 KINDS OF SETTLEMENTS. § 134 
 
 Warner, 112 Mass. 271, 270 ; Athol v. Fuller, 107 Mass. 437, 439 ; WlUard 
 V. Eastham, 15 Gray, 3J.S, 3;Jo; Bartlett, 4 Allen, 440, 443 ; Frickee v. 
 Donner, 35 Mich. 151 ; Smith v. Osborn, 33 Mich. 410 ; Uenison v. Gib- 
 son, 24 Mich. 187 ; West v. Laravvay, 28 Mich. 4G4, 465 ; De Vries v. 
 Conklin, 22 Mich. 2.55, 25j, 260 ; Watson v. Thurber, U Mich. 257 ; Wolf 
 V. Binning, 3 Minn. 2ii2; Klein v. McNamara, 54 Miss. iO ; Vi.ser v. 
 Scruggs, 4a Miss. 705 ; Krwin v. Hill, 47 Miss. 665 ; Foxworth v. Magee, 
 44 Miss. 420; lUitttrficM v. Stanton, 44 Miss. 15, :ii ; McGavock v. 
 Whitfield, 45 Miss. 452 ; stone v. Montgomery, 35 Miss, s ;, KM ; Knight 
 V. Whithead, 2tl Miss. 245, 240 ; Armstrong v. Stovall, 26 ISIiss. 275, 2«0 ; 
 Wilcox V. Todd, 64 Mo. 3S8, 3S:) ; Brown, 47 Mo. i:;0 ; 4 Am. Rep. 320 ; 
 Thompson v. Ella, 58 N. II. 4'.;0 ; N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 6:;7 ; P'erdon v. 
 Miller, 34 N. J. Eq.-lO, note, eases collected ; Merchant v. Thompson, 
 34 N J. Eq. 7!; Campbell v. Tompkins, 32 Is. J. Eq. 170; Conover v. 
 Grover, 31 N. J. Eq. 53'J; Harrall, 31 N. J. Eq. 101, 102; Perkins v. 
 Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 528; Hanford v. Bociee, 20 N. J. Eq. 101 ; 
 Woolsey v. Brown, 74 N. Y. 82, 94 ; BIcVey v. C,i;Ur"ll, 70 N. Y. 2li5, 297 ; 
 Com. V. Babcock, 42 N. Y. 613 ; Gosman,69 N. Y. S7 ; 25 Am. Rep. 141 ; 
 Bank v. Burns, 46 N. Y. 170, 175 ; Smith v. Towiiscnd, 25 N. Y. 47!», 483 ; 
 Miller v. Loekwood, 32 N. Y. 2!13 ; Eadie v. Simmons, 26 j\\ Y. 9, 12 ; 
 Bogert V. Gulick, 65 Barb. 322 ; Hausse v. Dcwitt, Ot Barb. 53 ; Todd v. 
 Amos, 60 Barb. 454 ; Van Home v. Evorson, 13 Barb. Kf,, hZO ; Hawley 
 V. Bradford, 9 Paige, 200, 201; Neimcewiez v. Gahn, 3 Paige, 614; 
 Loomer v. WTieelright, 3 Sand. Ch. 135, 155 ; Fitch v. Cotteal, 2 Sand. 
 Ch. 2:1, 30 ; Purvis v. Carstaphan, 73 N. C. 575, 581 ; Baldwin v. Snow- 
 den, 11 Ohio St. 203, 211 ; Moore v. Fuller, 6 Oreg. 272 ; 25 Am. Rep. 524 ; 
 Haffev V. Carer, 73 Pa. St. 432, 432; Selden r. Jlerchants, 6!) Pa. St. 
 424 ; Har'maii i'. Ogborn, 54 Pa. St. 120, 122 ; Bavlcr r. Com. 40 Pa. St. 
 37, 40; Hotz, 40 Pa. St. 2i)lt, 212 ; White, 36 i'a. St. 134, 140 ; l.vtle, 36 Pa. 
 St. 131, 133; Block V. Gal\vav,24 Pa. St. 18 ; Sheidle v. Weisklee, 16 Pa. 
 St 134, 137 ; Jamison, 3 Whart. 457 ; Weeks v. Haas, 3 Watts & S. 520, 
 523; 39 Am. Dec. 39 ; Duffy?'. Insurance, 8 Watts & S. 413, 433 ; 31 Am. 
 Dec. 536 ; McFerrin v. White, 6 Cold. 4!):» ; McCline v. Harris, 7 Heisk. 
 379 ; Rhodes v. Gibbs, 39 Tex. 4:?2 ; Covington v. Burleson, 28 Tex. 3ft8 ; 
 Hutchinson r. Underwood, 27 Tex. 255 ; Shelby v, Burtis, 18 Tex. 644 ; 
 MuUer v. Bayly, 21 Gratt. 521, 529.
 
 PART in. 
 
 ESTATES OF HlXSBAJfD AXD WIFE. 
 
 Chap. TII. Estates in General, g§ 135-139, 
 
 VIII. Husband's Estate ix His Own Prop- 
 erty, \ 140. 
 IX. Husband's Estates in Wife's Realty, 
 ^§ 141-1(32. 
 X. Husband's Estates in His Wife's PEr,- 
 SONALTY, \l 163-183. 
 XI. Wife's Estates in Her Oavn Prop- 
 erty, g? 184-196. 
 XII. Wife's Equitable Separate Estate, 
 ■^ 197-2113. 
 XIII. Wife's Statutory Separate Estate, 
 
 ?t 217-243. 
 XZY. Wife's Estate in Husband's Realty 
 Dower, \\ 244-300. 
 XV. Wife's Estate in Husband's Person- 
 alty, \ 301. 
 XVI. Husband and Wife's Estates in Prop- 
 erty OF Both, ^? 302-311. 
 XVII. Community Property of Husband and 
 Wife, ^? 312-319. 
 XYIII. Homestead Property of Husband and 
 Wife, jg 320-330.
 
 gg 135-136 ESTATES OF HUSBAjSD AlfD WIFE. 210 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ESTATES OP HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN GENERAL. 
 
 { 135. Term " estate," how used. 
 
 5 136. Estates in realty and personalty. 
 
 i 137. General effect of marriage on propertj- rights. 
 
 i 13S. General eflect of death or divorce. 
 
 5 139. Estates divided and enumerated. 
 
 g 135. Torm "estate," how used. — The word -'estate" 
 is for property what status is for persons. It means the 
 relations of property towards the person or persons wlio 
 have riglits in it, the conditions under wliich tliey hold 
 it. And the scope of this part of this work is a discus- 
 sion of tlie sjjecial conditions arising from marriage 
 under which husband and wife hold, or the special 
 relations in which they stand to, their own and each 
 others property. 
 
 g 136. Estates in realty and personalty. — The term "es- 
 tate " is strictly applicable only to realty,^ for under 
 the early common law the character of personalty was 
 such that personalty could not be held for a term or for 
 life, but only absolutely.^ Such a narrow meaning of 
 the word has, however, now been generally adandoned, 
 and in this work " estate " in property means simply 
 the conditions under which the property is held.^ For 
 various reasons the estates of husband and wife in 
 realty have difltbred widely from those in personalty, 
 and in particular the husband's estate in his wife's 
 personalty has been far greater than his estate in her 
 realty ; * so that it is important to consider whether 
 realty is even treated as personalty, and what hap- 
 pens if realty is changed into personalty, and vice versa. 
 
 1. Generally, partnership lands bought for partner-
 
 211 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. § 136 
 
 ship purposes is in equity treated as personalty, and a 
 partner's husband or wife has only personalty rights 
 therein.5 
 
 2. Money devised, etc., to be " laid out in land " is in 
 equity treated as land;^ and land devised, etc., "to be 
 sold " is in equity treated as personal property.' 
 
 3. Tlie rights of a widow ^ or a widower-* in the de- 
 ceased's realty are not clianged after they have once 
 vested by the conversion of tlie realty into personalty. 
 
 4. When a wife's lands are converted into personalty 
 tvith her consent., and the purchase money is paid to her 
 or her husband, he has the same rights in it as he has 
 in her otiier money ; i" but any prior agreement between 
 them as to the disposition of such money may be en- 
 forced in equity ; ^^ and if in accordance with such an 
 agreement such money has been invested in other 
 land, such ot lier land Avill be hei's, subject to his mari- 
 tal rights,^^ unless he has waived them,i^ or the original 
 land was separate property." If the purchase money 
 is not paid but is secured, as by notes, and the notes 
 are payable to him, they ai"e prima facie his choses in 
 action, ^^ if payable to her, or to her and him, they are 
 pri7na facie her choses in action. i" If the purcliase 
 money is neither paid nor secured, an implied promise 
 is raised to pay him and her in her right — it is her 
 chose i7i action.'^'' 
 
 5 When a wife's lands are converted into personalty 
 without her consent in legal proceedings (as in a parti- 
 tion suit 1"), the proceeds are in equity treated as realty," 
 and her share will not bo paid over without her formal 
 consent,^" but will be set off or invested in land, subject 
 to the same legal rights as existed in tlie original lands.^' 
 
 1 "Williams Heal Pr.jp. 16 ; Boone Keal Prop. ? 13. 
 
 2 Williams Personal Prop. 7, 199. 
 
 3 Ante, I l.iS Compare Boone Real Prop. § IX
 
 g 136 STATKS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 212 
 
 4 Compare ;>o«<, ?? 141-162, with post, U lfi3-183. 
 
 5 1 CoUyer Part. ? 114, cases cited. 
 
 R Rweftapple r. Bindoii, i Vern. 53fi, 537; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Brown 
 C'h. -:0J. 40); Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown Ch. 497, 49!) ; Davis v. 
 Mason, 1 Peters, 503, 507. 
 
 7 Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown Ch. 497, 499 ; Siter v. McClana- 
 han, 2 Gratt. -80, 295. 
 
 8 Mann, 50 Pa. St.;375, 380. 
 
 9 ToJlett V. Tyrer, 14 Sim. 125, 128 ; Binscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. 508, 511 ; 
 Clipper ('. Livegood, 5 Watts, 113, 114 ; Eberts, 55 Pa. St. 110, 118. 
 
 10 Kesner v. Trigp', 98 V. S. 50, 54 ; Humphries v. Harrison, ."(O Ark. 
 7), 83, 84 ; Fourtli r. Muthew, 15 Conn. 588; Thomas v. Chicago, 55 
 111. 103; Lichtcnherger v. Graham, 50 Ind. 288; Mahonev v. Bland, 14 
 Ind. 176 ; Pursley v. Hays, 22 Iowa, 11 ; Crosby v. Otis, 32 Me. 256, 2.59 ; 
 Savage v. King, 17 Me. ;J01 ; Chase v. Palmer, 25 Me. Ml ; Plummer v. 
 Jarman,44 Md. 632,637; Sabel r. Slinglutf, .52 Md. 1X1, 1.35; Emerson 
 V. Cutler, 14 Pick. 119 ; Tillman, 50 Mo. 40, 41 ; Hutcliins ?■. Oilman, 9 
 N. H. .359; Johnson v. Bennett, 39 Barb. 237; Martin, 1 Comst. 473; 
 Hackett v. Shuford, 86 N. C. 144, 149; Benedict v. Montgomery, 7 
 Watts <fe S. 238 ; Chester v. Greer, 5 Humph. 26, .34 : Cox r. Scott, 9 
 Baxt. 305. 312 ; Cowden v. Pitts, .58 Tenn. 59, 60 ; Perkins v. Clements, 
 
 1 Pat. & H. 141 ; M'ard t>. Morril, 1 Chip. D. 322, 329 ; Barber v. Slade, 
 30 Vt. 191 ; Ellsworth v. Hinds, 5 Wis. 613, 626 ; Hamlin v. Jones, 20 
 Wis. 536, 539. 
 
 11 Dula V. Young, 70 N. C. 4.50, 453. See Barnet v. Goings, 8 Black, 
 284 ; Bowie v. Stonestreet, 6 Md. 418 ; Dearing, 9 Paige, 283 ; Temple v. 
 Williams, 4 Ired. Eq. 39 ; ante, I 42 ; post, U 9i)-134. 
 
 12 De Lonis v. Sage, 13 Iowa, 146, 147 ; Campbell t'. M'llliams, 12 
 N. H. 362, 366 ; Davis, 60 Pa. St. 118 ; 42 Pa. St. 342. 
 
 13 Post, U 149, 159, 178. 
 
 14 Tillman, 50 Mo. 40, 41. See Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 351; 
 post, i 209. 
 
 15 McCullough V. Ford, 06 HI. 4.39; Talbot v. Dennis, 1 Cart. 471 ; 
 Dixon, 18 Ohio, 113. 
 
 16 McCrary v. Foster, 1 Iowa, 271 ; Peacock r. Pembroke, 4 Md- 
 280, 282; Taggart v. Bouldin, 10 Md. 104, 116; Ramsdale v. Craighill, 9 
 Ohio, 199. 
 
 17 Higdon v. Thomas, 1 Hare & S. 1.39 ; Peacock v. Pembroke, 4 
 Md. 280, 282 ; Fenick v. Flagg, 30 N. J. L. 25. 
 
 18 Hughes, 1 Dev. Eq. 118, 119 ; post, § 280. 
 
 19 Rice V. Hoffman, Xi Md. 344, 351, 352 ; Mann, 50 Pa. St. 375, .380. 
 See Athey v. Knotts, 6 Mon. B. 24 ; Ross v. Adams, 29 N. J. L. 160, 
 Mathews v. Duryee, 45 Barb. 69; Ellsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige, 643; 
 Hillenbeck v. Bradt, 2 Paige, 316 ; Finch, Clarke, 5.38 ; Brvan, 1 Dev. 
 Eq. 47; Hughes, 1 Dev. Eq. 118; Mebane r. Yancy, 3 Ired. Eq. 88; 
 Forbes ?'. Smith. 5 Ired. Eq. 369; Rives i'. Dudley, 3 Jones Eq. 126; 
 Jones t\ Edwards, 8 Jones, .3.J6 ; Scull v. Jernigan, 2 Dev. * B. Eq. 144 ; 
 Stehman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260; Com. r. Haffey, fi Piu St. :i48 ; Lan- 
 caster V. Stauffer, 10 Pa. St. 398 ; Snavely v. Wagner, 3 Pa. St. 275 ; 
 Ferrie v. Com. 8 Serg. & R. 314 ; Blocher ? . Carmonv, 1 Serg. & R. 
 460 ; Tilgman, 5 Whart. 44 ; Weeks j. Haas, 3 Watts & "S. 520 ; Mobley, 
 
 2 Rich. Eq. 56 ; Wardlaw v. Gray, 2 Hill Ch. 644. Contra, Jones v. 
 Plummer, 20 Md. 416, 421. 
 
 20 Hiillenbeck v. Bradt, 2 Paige, 316 : Finch, Clarke, ^S ; Hughes, 
 1 Dev. Eq. 118.
 
 213 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. §^ 137-138 
 
 21 Cost V. Kose, 17 III. 276, 278 ; De Lonis v. Sage, 13 Iowa, 14fi, 147 ; 
 Ciimpbell V. Wallace, 12 N. H. 362, 36ti ; Llppincott, 8 N. J. h. 88, 89 ; 
 Uoble V. Cromwell, 26 Barb. 475, 480. 
 
 J 137. General effect of marriage on the property rights 
 of the parties. — Since by marriage the parties become 
 at common law one person, and the wife's identity is 
 merged in that of her husband/ lie naturally stands in 
 her place, and wliile he is liusband lias possession and 
 control of all property wliicli would otherwise have 
 come into her possession and control ;2 but she has 
 during coverture no estate in his property .^ So that 
 all the profits of the lands they occui^ied,* or of the 
 money or chattels they got into their possession, be- 
 longed to the husband.^ But courts of equity very 
 soon recognized her sejiarate existence,^ and preserved 
 for her sole and separate use all property settled upon 
 her for this purpose,' and statutes have now been 
 passed almost elsewhere, destroying wholly or par- 
 tially the husband's rights over his wife's property 
 during coverture,^ 
 
 1 Ante,i3S. 
 
 2 Pott, H 141-183. 
 
 3 PosU H 140, 244-30L 
 
 4 Post, 5? 141-162. 
 
 5 Post, II 163-183. 
 
 6 Ante, U 8, JiS, 42. 
 
 7 Post, Equitable Separate Estate, ?? 197-216. 
 
 8 Post, SUATUTORY SEPARATE ESTATE, JJ 217-263. 
 
 § 138. Effect of death or divorce on estates of husband 
 and wife. — The ettects of the death of liusband or wife 
 on marriage estates or property rights are stated in 
 Stewart on "Marriage and Divorce," ' as are those of 
 the various forms of divorce,^ and they will therefore 
 be referred to herein but incidentally. Dower and 
 curtesy, however, although they vest only on the 
 death of husband and wife respectively, will be fully 
 discussed.
 
 I 139 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 214 
 
 1 Stewart M. & D. U 452-175. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. H 427-451, 
 
 I 139. Estates of husband and wife divided and enumer- 
 ated. — The estates of husband and wife are divided 
 into those (1) of the husband in his own property, (2) in 
 his wife's realty, including curtesy ; (3) in his Avife's 
 l^ersonalty ; (4) of the wife in her own property, includ- 
 ing her equity to a settlement, and her separate equi- 
 table and separate statutory estates ; (5) in her hus- 
 band's realty, including dower ; (6) in lier husband's 
 personalty ; (7) and of both husband and wife in tlieir 
 joint and common estates, including jointure, com.- 
 munity, entireties, and homestead.
 
 215 husband's estate. g 140 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 husband's estate in his own property 
 
 } 140. a husband's estate, how limited by marriage. 
 
 § 140. A husband's estate, how limited by marriage. — 
 A man holds his property after marriage substantially 
 as before ; ^ during his life no present estate arises in it 
 ■for his wife,^ but on his death she has dower or other 
 share of his realty ,3 and thirds or other share of his 
 personalty,* which estates or shares of hers he cannot 
 defeat by deed or will.* He, however, is under certain 
 disabilities as respects his conveyances to her ; * and she 
 is a quasi creditor of his for her support,' and may de- 
 feat his conveyances made with intent to defeat her 
 rights ; ^ so in Alabama by statute, if he is wasting his 
 estate she may have a trustee appointed to take charge 
 of it,* and may recover money lost by her in gamb- 
 ling.^o 
 
 1 Sims V, Rlcketts, S5 Ind. 181. 
 
 2 Poit, WiFK's Estates i>f Husband's Property, §? 244-301. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. ? 461 ; post, U 244-300. 
 
 4 Stewart M. &-D. 1462; post, I 301. 
 
 5 Post, U 268, 301 ; Stewart M. & D. U -161, 462. 
 
 6 Ante, U ■iO, et seq. ; 99 et seq. 
 
 7 Ante, ii 64, 74 ; Stewart M. & D. U 381. 473. 
 
 8 .Stewart M. & D. | 381. 
 
 9 Ala. R. C. 1876, U 2723-2727. 
 10 Ala. R. C. 1876. ? 2132.
 
 g^ 141-143 husband's estate. 216 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 husband's estates in wife's eeai-ty 
 
 Art, I. In General, ?? 141-145. 
 
 II. Estate During Coverture Jure Uxoris, 
 
 g^ -> 4G-150. 
 III. Curtesy, ?? 151-162. 
 
 Art. I. Husband's Estates in Wipe's Realty, in 
 General. 
 
 ? 141. Under common law, settlements, and Statutes. 
 
 i 142. During coverture, and after death or divorce. 
 
 § 143. In wife's estates of inheritance. 
 
 i 144. In wife's life estates. 
 
 i 143. In wife's chattels real. 
 
 § 141. Estates under common law, settlements, and stat- 
 utes. — 111 detenniniiig tlie nature of the estate of a 
 husband in his wife's realty it is first necessary to 
 ascertain whether the realty in question is held as at 
 common law, under a settlement, or by virtu© of a 
 statute. 
 
 g 142. Estates diu-ing coverture, and after death or di- 
 vorce. — In determining tlie nature of the estate of a 
 husband in his wife's realty it is necessary to ascertain 
 whether coverture exists, or whether it has been dis- 
 solved by death ^ or divorce.*. 
 
 1 It Is not possible to absolutely separate ei?t."ites during cover- 
 ture, and estates after dissolution : See Stewart M, «fe D. J 463, n. 
 
 2 Stewart U. & T). ?| 452-475. 
 <J Stewart M. & T>. U 427-451, 
 
 § 143. Husband's estates in his wife's estates of inherit' 
 ance. — At common law a liusband has during cover- 
 ture a freehold jointly with his wife In her estates of
 
 217 husband's ESTATE. g§ 144-145' 
 
 inheritance 1 with absolute ownersliip of the rents and 
 profits,^ and if he survived her he might have a life 
 estate therein called curtesy .^ This estate during cov- 
 erture jure uxoris^ and curtesy are sej)arately fully 
 discussed.^ 
 
 1 Barber v. Boot, 10 Mass. 260, 263. 
 
 2 Shaw V. Partriage, 17 Vt. 626, 631. 
 
 3 Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 86. 
 
 4 Post, U 146-150. 
 
 5 Post, li 151-162. 
 
 I 144. Husband's estate in wife's life estates. — In his 
 wife's life estates — as, for example, her dower in the 
 lands of a former husband* — a husband has, at com- 
 mon law, practically the same estate during coverture 
 as he has in her estates of inheritance.^ If her estate 
 were for her life it terminated on her death, and he had 
 nothing but emblements ; ^ if her estate were for the 
 life of some one else, he took, probably,* as special 
 occupant ; ^ but in no case could he have curtesy .^ If 
 before marriage she had demised her life estate for the 
 term of her life, her interest is simply a chose in action.'' 
 
 1 Doe V. Brown, 5 Blackf. 30!), 310; Van Note v. Downey, 28 
 N. J. L. 219, 220, 223 ; Mann, 50 Pa. St. 375, 3sl ; Cheney v. Pierce, ;18 
 Vt. 515, 523 ; Ellsworth r. Hinds, 5 Wis. 613, 626. As to her estate of 
 dower, see post, U 244-300. 
 
 2 Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 263 ; Gray v. Mathias, 7 Jones 
 (N. C.) 502, .t04 ; ante, i ; jmst, H 
 
 3 Bennett, 34 Ala. .53 ; Spencer ?>. Lewis, 1 Houst. 223. 
 
 4 See 1 Bish. M. W. ? .532, n. 
 
 5 2 Kent Com. 134 ; 1 Bright. H. & W. 112, 113 ; Schoul. H. & W. 
 ? 417. 
 
 6 Stead v. Piatt, 18 Beav. 50, 57 ; Gray v. Mathias, 7 Jones (X. C.) 
 502, 504 ; jyjsl, 'i 157. 
 
 7 Daniels v. Richardson, 22 Pick. 565, 570. 
 
 I 145. Husband's estate in wife's chattels real. — In his 
 wife's chattels real — as, for example, lands leased to her 
 before i or after '^ marriage for a term of years — the hus- 
 band has an almost absolute estate at common law.^ 
 H. & W.-19.
 
 g 145 HUSBAND'S ESTATE. 218 
 
 He may sell,* mortgage,^ or otherwise dispose of them 
 during his life,^ and they are liable for his debts," but 
 he cannot dispose of them by will.^ If he survive his 
 wife his ownership is as absolute,^ as his ownership of 
 lier personalty in possession.^" But if slie survives and 
 has not appropriated tliem to his separate use or dis- 
 posed of them," and his creditors have not had them 
 sold for his debts, ^^ she takes them absolutely ,^3 much 
 as she does her choses in action not reduced to posses- 
 sion during coverture.^* His disposition may be by 
 any act to take effect in interest during his life,'* such 
 as an under lease to commence after liis death ;'8 if he 
 assigns only a part, the remainder will survive to liis 
 wife.'^ He may dispose of her contingent interest in a 
 term,'8 provided the contingency be one which could 
 possibly happen during coverture.'^ He may forfeit 
 the term, 20 or dissever her joint tenancy.^^ The same 
 rule applies to equitable chattels real,^' and he takes all 
 chattels real subject to the equities against her.^ Still 
 his rights in her chattels real may be excluded by a 
 settlement of them to her sole and separate use,'** or by 
 a separate property act.^ 
 
 1 See 2 Bliwkst. Com. 386 ; 1 Bish. M. W. f 184, cases infra. 
 
 2 Baxter i-. Smith, 6 Binn. 427, 429. 
 
 3 Bell H. & W. 102-110 ; quoted In full in 1 Bish. M. W. ?? 184-204 ; 
 cases infra. 
 
 4 Meriwether v. Broker, 5 Litt. 254 ; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 3T1, 
 374 ; Turn. <fe R. 180 ; Bates v. Dandy, 2 Atk. 207. 
 
 5 Allen V. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374. See Clark v. Burgh, 9 Jur. 679 ; 
 Pitt. 
 
 6 Coke LItt. 46 6, 351 a ; Roberts v. Polgrean, 1 Black. H. 5.35. 
 
 7 Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374. See Mitford, 9 Ves. 98 ; Coke 
 Litt. 351 a. 
 
 8 Roberts V. Polgrean, 1 Black. H. 535. 
 
 n Young V. Radford, Hob. 3; Mason v. Morgan, 2 Ad. <fe E. 30; 
 Stewart M. & D. J 463. 
 
 10 Post, U 166-170. 
 
 11 Roberts v. Polgrean, 1 Black. H. 5:i5 ; Young v. Radford, Hob. 
 3 ; RUey, 19 N. J. Eq. 229.
 
 219 husband's estate. 1 143 
 
 12 1 Bish. M. W. ? 204 ; quoting Bell H. & W. 102-110. 
 
 13 See Turner, 1 Vern. 7 ; Pitt v. Hunt, 1 Vern. 18 ; Coke Litt. 46 6, 
 300 a, 351 a ; 1 Kob. Abridg. 345 ; Stewart M. & I). J 460. 
 
 14 Post, l\ 171-176. 
 
 15 1 Bish. M. W. § 192, quoting Bell H. & W. ?? 102-110. 
 
 16 Tlieobald v. Duffay, 9 Mod. 102. 
 
 17 Sym. Cro. Ellz. 33 ; 1 Rob. Abridg. 344 ; Moor. 395. 
 
 18 See Shaw v. Stewart, 1 Ad. cfe E. 300 ; Theobald v. Dufifay, 9 
 Mod. 102 ; (Jhundos v. Talbot, 2 P. Wms. G08. 
 
 19 Duberly v. Day, 16 Beav. 33, 43 ; 5 H. L. Cas. 388. 
 
 20 Plow. 2G1 ; Coke Litt, 331 a. 
 
 21 Coke Litt. 185 6 ; Plow. 41S. 
 
 22 Tudor v. Samyne, 4 Myliie & C. 380 ; Pitt, Turn. & R. 180 ; Jack- 
 sou ('. Parker, Ami). 6S7 ; Clark v. Burgh, 2 Colly. C. C. 221. 
 
 23 Rawle V. Chichester, Arab. 71') : Mitford, t Ves. 98 , Moody v. 
 Matthews, 7 Ves. 183 ; Winslow v. Tighe, 2 Brod. & B. 204 ; Stubbs v 
 Roth, 2 Brod. & B. 553. 
 
 24 Tullet V. Armstrong, 4 Mvlne & C. 395 ; Turner, 1 Vern. 7 ; 
 Draper, 2 Freem. 29 , Tudor v. Samyne, 2 Vern. 270 ; post, U 197-216. 
 
 25 Post,U-lVl-1i3. 
 
 Abt. II. — Husbajjd's Estate During Coverture 
 Jure Uxoris. 
 
 I 146. Husband's estate during coverture defined. 
 
 J 147. Incidents of the estate. 
 
 § 148. Wife's estates which are subject to this estate. 
 
 1 149. Effect of settlements on this estate. 
 
 2 150. Effect of statutes on this estate. 
 
 § 146. Husband's estate during coverture in Ms wife's 
 lands defined. — At common law a husband holds dur- 
 ing coverture! in right of his wife,' she being merged 
 in him,3 all* her lands in possession,^ and owns the 
 rents and profits thereof absolutely.^ This is called his 
 freehold estate ./wre uxoris;'^ it is often said to be an es- 
 tate for the joint lives of the hu.sband and wife,* but 
 this is a mistake as it terminates with absolute divorce.' 
 It differs from curtesy initiate in tliat it is a vested i° 
 estate in possession,^! while curtesy initiate is a contin- 
 gent i^ future estate,!^ it is independent of birth of
 
 g 146 husband's estate. 220 
 
 issue,'* is held in riglit of the wife,'^ and is not added to 
 • or diminished wlien curtesy initiate arises.'^ 
 
 1 Wright, 2 Md. 42D, 453, 4M ; Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 349, 350 ; 
 Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 2()0, 263 ; infra, n. 9. 
 
 2 Wright, 2 Md. 42:), 453 ; Porter ?•. Bowers, 55 Md. 213, 215. 
 •i Lancaster v. Stouffer, 10 Pa. St. 3<J8, 399 ; ante, i 38. 
 
 4 Post, i 148. 
 
 5 See Baker v. Floumoy, 5S Ala. 650 ; Osborne v. Edwards, II 
 N. J. Eq. 73 ; Gentry v. Wagstaff, 3 Dev. 270 ; cases infra, n. 7. 
 
 6 Harcourt r. Wyman, 3 E.t.817; Beaver v. Lane, 2 Mod. 217; 
 Nunn 11. Givhaii, 45 A hi. 370, 376; Chancey v. Strong, 2 Root, 3H9; 
 Haralson v. Bridges, 14 III. 37, ;« ; Bailey v. Duncan, 4 Mon. 260; 
 Edrington v. Harper, 3 Marsh. J. J. 360 ; Babb v. Perlev, 1 Me. 6, 8 ; 
 ■Clapp ('. Stoughton, 10 Pick. 463 ; Barber r. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 263; 
 Burleigh r. Coffin, 22 N. H. 118, 128 ; Van Note i-. Downey, 28 N. J. L. 
 •219, 223 ; Decker v. lavingston, 15 Johns. 47.), 482 ; Lucas r. Rickerieli, 
 
 1 Lea, 726, 72S ; Dold v. Geigor, 2 Gratt. 98, 116 ; Shaw r. Partridge, 17 
 Vt. 626, 631 ; post, I 147. 
 
 7 See Clifton , 5 Coke, 75 ; Kingham v. Lee, 15 Sim. .•?n6 ; Pol.yblank 
 t'. Hawkins, 1 Doug. 329; Harcourt v. Wyman, 3 Ex. 817 ; Robertson 
 V. Norris, 11 Q. B. 916 , Elliott v. Teal, 5 Sawy. 249, 252 ; Cheek v. Wal- 
 drum, 25 Ala. 152 ; Bishop v. Blair, 36 Ala. 80 ; Pliari.s v. Leachman 20 
 Ala. 662; Nunn v. Givhan, 45 Ala. 370, 376; Eaton v. Whitaker, 13 
 Conn. 222 ; Chancer v. Strong, 2 Root, 369 ; Rovston, 21 Ga, 161 ; Kib- 
 bev ">. Williams, 5s"ril. ;'0, 31 ; Haralson v. Bridges, 14 III. 37, 38 ; But- 
 terfleld v Bcall, 3 Ind. 2(i3, 20i: ; Junction %\ Harris, 9 Ind. 184 ; Mont- 
 gomery V Tate, 12 Ind. 015 ; (Jregory v. Kord, 5 Mon. B. 471 ; Allen v. 
 Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 373 ; Bealc v. Knowlcs, 45 Me. 479 ; Slooro v. Kich- 
 ardson, 37 Me. 438 ; Tr:is!< r. Patterson, 29 Me. 499 ; Austin r, Stevens, 
 24 Me. 520 ; Porter v. Bowers, 55 .Md. 213, 215 ; Rice v. lleirni-m. -io J[d. 
 344, 349 ; Mutual v. Deal, IS Md. 26, 47 ; Wright, 2 Md. 429, 4.V! ; P.arher 
 V. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 2(.l ; M elvin v. Proprietors, 16 Pick. 161, 16.",; 
 Clapp V. Stoughton, 10 Pick. 463 ; Croft «. Wilbar, 7 Allen, 248 ; Bayn- 
 ton V. Finnall, 12 Miss. 193; (ionsolis v. Donchouquette, 1 Mo. 6(i6 ; 
 .Schneider v. Staihr, 20 Mo. 269; Burleigh v. Coflin, 22 N. H. 118, 125 ; 
 ^'ir■h()lls J'. O'Neill, ION. J. Eq. 88. 90; Den v. cniinbv, 3 N. J. L. 985; 
 Van .Note r. Downey, 2S N. J. L. 219,223; Jackson v. Caines. 20 Johns. 
 301 ; Decker v. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479, 4M2 ; Shallenberger, 25 Pa. 
 St. 152 ; Lancaster r. Stouffer, 10 Pa. St. 398, 3;)9 ; Starke v. Harrison, 
 5 Rich. 7 ; Coleman v. Satterfi' id, 2 Head. 259 ; Guion v. Anderson, 8 
 Humph. 298, 335; Dold v. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 98, 116; Degarnette v. 
 Allen, f Gratt. 4'i9, 514 , Evans v. Kingberrv, 2 Rand. 120, 131 ; Shaw 
 V. Partridge, 17 Vt. 626, 631 ; Stroebe v. Fehl, 22 Wis. 337, 342. 
 
 8 Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 349 ; cases supra, n. 7. 
 
 I Wright, 2 Md. 429, 455 ; Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 2G3 ; Stew- 
 art M. & D. § 443. 
 
 10 Van Note v. Downey, 28 N. J. L. 219, 222 ; Mann, 50 Pa. St. 375, 
 381 ; ante, I 22. 
 
 11 Post, 1 147. 
 
 12 Porter, 27 Gratt. 599, 606 ; post, ? 162 ; ante, ? 22. 
 
 13 Post, ? 15S. 
 
 14 Wright, 2 Md. 429, 454 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 15 Elliott V. Teal, 5 Sawy. 249, 252 ; post, I 147.
 
 221 husband's estate. § 147 
 
 16 Kibbey v. Williams, 58 111. 30, 31; Winne, 2 Lims. 21, 2i; jjost, 
 §158- 
 
 § 147. Incidents of husband's estate during coverture 
 jure uxoris. — The husband is seized during coverture 
 in the lands of his wife jointly with her,i he cannot 
 aver that he alone is seized in her right, ^ so that while 
 he can sue alone for severed personalty,^ or for rents 
 and profits,* he must join her in an ejectment suit for 
 the lands, 5 or in any suit depending on seisin.^ Tiie 
 rents and i^rofits accruing during coverture are his 
 absolutely ; ' he may sue for them alone ; ^ and arrears 
 belong to his representatives on his death,^not to her.'*' 
 But subject to his beneficial enjoyment during cover- 
 ture the ownership remains in her," and on dissolution 
 of the marriage goes to her or her heirs discharged 
 entirely of his estate.'^ He can alone convey his 
 estate,'^ but his conveyance carries only his interest,^* 
 and limitations begin to run against her estate as soon 
 as the marriage is dissolved .'^ He may lease it,'^ 
 while a lease by her is worthless," but the lease ends 
 with the coverture'^ (tlaough his tenant may have 
 emblements"), and thereafter is not binding on her, 
 even though she lias joined in it,^" unless she is a party 
 and has ratified it;"^' whether .statute 32, Hen, YIII., 
 ch. 28, is in force in the United States seems doubtful.^^ 
 It is liable for his debts,-^ but only his usufructuary 
 interest during coverture.^* He has a right to reason- 
 able estovers.^ Thougli he has no right to commit 
 waste, ^ as his Aviie has no remedy against him," this 
 right has been alleged ; ^s but it is well settled that his 
 assignee may be sued for waste.'® On his wife's death 
 his estate ceases, and he has no riglit to compensation 
 for iinprovements,3° but he has a right to emblements.'^ 
 He may bo barred by limitations ;3^ but not of course 
 by any act of the wife during coverture.^^
 
 g 147 . husband's estate. 222 
 
 1 Moore V. Vinter, 12 Sim. 161, 164 ; Frosdick v. Sterling, 2 Mod. 
 269, 270; Oanvickard v. Sidney, Hob. 1, 2 ; Weller v. Baker, 2 Wils. 
 414, 42:i, 424 ; Melvin v. Proprietors, 16 Pick. 161, 16.i, 166 ; NichoHs v. 
 O'Neill, 10 N. J. Eq. 88, 90 ; Battle v. Mitchell, 7 Watts, 113, 115 ; 
 Guion V. Anderson, 8 Humph. 298, 325; Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 
 Head, 674 ; Stroebe v. Fehl, 22 Wis. 337, 342. 
 
 2 Melvin v. Proprietors, 16 Pick. 161, 165 ; Stroebe v. Fehl, 22 Wis. 
 337, 342. 
 
 3 Fairchild v. Chaustelleu.x, 8 Watts, 412, 413 ; post, 
 
 4 Decker v. Livingston, 15 Johns. 479, 482 ; Dold v. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 
 98, 116. 
 
 5 Weller v. Baker, 2 Wils. 414, 423, 424 ; Battle v. Mitchell, 7 Watts, 
 113, 11.5. 
 
 6 Wyatt?'. Simpson, 8 W. Va. 394. 
 
 7 Lucas V. Rickerich, 1 Lea, 726, 728 ; (inte, ? 146, n. 6 
 
 8 Supra, n. 4. 
 
 9 See cases ante, ? 146, n. 6. 
 
 10 Shaw V. Partridge, 17 Vt. 626, 631. 
 
 11 Infra, notes 12, 14, 15, 18. 
 
 12 Stroebe r. Fehl, 22 Wis. 337, 340. See Rogers v. Brooks, 30 Ark. 
 612 ; Junction v. Harris. 9 Ind. 184 ; Clarke, 79 Pa. St. 376 ; cases ante, 
 I 142, n. 7. 
 
 13 Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 373. See Butterfleld v. Beall, 3 Ind. 
 203, 206; Trask v. Patterson, 29 Me. 499 ; NichoUs v. O'Neill, 10 N. J. 
 Eq. 88, 90. 
 
 14 Evans v. Kingberry, 2 Rand. 120, 131. 
 
 15 Miller, 1 Meigs, 484. 
 
 16 Harcourt v. Wyman, 3 Ex. 817 ; Eaton v. Whitaker, 18 Conn. 
 222. 
 
 17 Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 373 ; Murray v. Emmons, 19 N. H. 
 4S.3, 486 ; Ross v. Adams, 28 N. J. L. 160, 162, 16.3. 
 
 18 Jackson v. Holloway, 7 Johns. 81, 85, 86. 
 
 19 Rowney , 2 Vern. 322 ; Gould v. Webster, 1 Vt. 409. 
 
 20 George v. Goldsby, 23 Ala. 326. 
 
 21 Toler v. Slater, Law R. 3 Q. B. 42, 45, 46. 
 
 22 Alex. Brit. Stats, pp. 321-326 ; 1 Bish. M. W. ?? 550-565. 
 
 23 Nicholls v. O'Neill, 10 N. J. Eq. 88, PO. See Cheek v. Waldrum, 
 2.") Ala. 1.52 ; MontKonu ry v. Tate, 12 Ind. 615 ; Williams v. Morgan, 1 
 Litt. 168 ; Beelc r. Kimwles, 45 Me. 479 ; Sale v. Saunders, 24 Miss. "24 ; 
 Schneider v. Smilir, 20 3Io. 269 ; Brown v. Gale, 5 N. H. 416; Perkins 
 ■J'. Cottrell, l", liiub. 446 ; Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio, 79 ; Mitchell r. 
 Sevier, 9 Humph. 146. 
 
 24 Litchfield v. Cadworth, 15 Pick. 23. 
 
 25 Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226, 228. 
 
 28 Stroebe v. Fehl, 22 Wis. 337, 343. 
 
 27 Babb v. Perley, 1 Me. 6, 9 ; Davis v. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. 308, 309. 
 23 Clifton, 6 Coke, 175 ; Ware, 6 N. J. Eq. 117, 121 ; Degarnette r. 
 Allen,5Gratt. 499, 614. 
 
 29 Babb v. Perley, 1 Me. 6, 10 ; Davis v. Gilliam, 5 Ired. Eq. sas, 
 309 ; Degarnette v. Allen, 5 Gratt. 499, 514.
 
 223 husband's estate. ■ ^g 148-150 
 
 30 Washburn ?'. Sprout, 10 JIass. 449 ; Runey v. Edwards, 15 Mass. 
 291 ; Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 118, 125, 12ti ; Marable v. Jordan, 5 
 Humph. 417, 418 ; ante, i 131 ; Stewart M. & D. \l 460, 473. 
 
 31 Bennett, 34 Ala. 53, 55. 
 
 32 Kibbey 1'. Williams, 53 111. .30, 31. Compare ;3os<, ? IS^. n. 18. 
 
 33 Den V. Quinby, 3 N. J. L. 9S5. 
 
 \ 148. What estates of wife are subject to this estate. — 
 This estate in riglit of his wife arises in favor of tlie 
 husband in all her common-law estates in possession ;i 
 he has a joint seisin ^ with her in all estates of which 
 she is seized,^ whether of inheritance or for life,* and 
 whether several or joint.^ But her equitable separate 
 and statutory separate estates are usually not in any 
 way in the possession or control of her husband during 
 coverture.^ 
 
 1 Not in remainder : Gentry v. Wagstaff, 3 Dev. 270 ; 1 Bish. M. 
 W. \ 505, n. 
 
 2 Ante, \ 147, n. 1. 
 
 3 Compare posi, 5 155. 
 
 4 Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 263 ; Van Note v. Downey, 28 N. J. 
 L. 219, 223 ; ante, I 144. 
 
 5 Bishop V. Blair, 36 Ala. 80 ; Royston, 21 Ga. 161. 
 
 6 PoHi, l\ 149, 150. 
 
 g 149. Effect of settlements on the husband's estate dur- 
 ing coverture. — The chief object of a settlement to the 
 sole and separate use of a married woman is to exclude 
 the rights of her husband during coverture, ^ and all 
 such settlements do prevent his estate jure uxoris from 
 arising,^ although they may leave his rights after her 
 death unaffected.^ 
 
 1 Cooney v. Woodburn, 33 Md. 320, 326 ; post, ? 157. 
 
 2 Post, Equitable Separatk Estate, \l 197-216. 
 
 3 See post, § 157. 
 
 I 150. Effect of statutes on the husband's estate during 
 coverture. — The chief purpose of the .separate property 
 acts passed in all States where the common law once 
 prevailed was to free the property of wives from the
 
 gl51 
 
 224 
 
 marital rights of their husbands, and this estate jure 
 uxot-is is now almost universally abolished.^ Gener- 
 ally, the wife is enabled to hold her property alone, 
 free from the husband and his creditors,^ though in 
 Alabama he is made trustee of her property subject to 
 removal for unfitness.^ The estate is, however, a vested 
 one,* and cannot be destroyed by statute.* 
 
 1 Posf, ?? 233, 243. 
 
 2 Post, Statutory Separatk Estate, ?? 217-243. 
 
 3 Ala. Code 1876, § 2706 ; Dent v. Slough, 40 Ala. 518, 523 ; Bishop d. 
 Blair, 36 Ala. 80. 
 
 4 Van Note v. Downey, 8 N. J. L. 219, 222 ; Mann, 50 Pa. St, 375, 381. 
 
 5 Ante, ? 22 
 
 Article III. — Curtesy. 
 
 I 151. Definitions of curtesy. 
 
 § 152. Common-law requisites of curtesy. 
 
 ? 153. Marriage necessary to give curtesy. 
 
 ? 154. Birth of issue necessary to give curtesy. 
 
 § 155. Seisin of wife necessary to give curtesy. 
 
 i 156. Death of wife necessary to give curtesy. 
 
 I 157. Property in which curtes}' exists. 
 
 I 158. Incidents of estate of curtesj-. 
 
 I 159. Barring and defeating of curtesj-. 
 
 I 160. Curtesy under statutes, generally. 
 
 ? 161. Efifect of married women acts on curtesy. 
 
 ? 162. Retrospective effect of statutes. 
 
 g 151. Definitions of curtesy. — At common law curtesy 
 is the estate of a husband' which arises out of such of 
 his wife's estates of inheritance ^ as she is seized of in 
 fact ^during coverture,* if a child of theirs who could 
 inherit such estates * is born alive before her death.' 
 After marriage, seisin, and birth of such child, the es- 
 tate is initiate^ or contingent on the death of the wife ;3 
 after such death it is conszcmmate'^'' — a freehold estate 
 for the life of the husband" with the incidents of a 
 conventional life estate.'^ Under statutes curtesy may 
 differ from curtesv at common law in one or more
 
 225 CURTESY. g 151 
 
 re.sijec^s.'3 Livtleton's definition is : " Where a man 
 taketh a wife seized in fee siuii:)le, or in fee tail general, 
 or seized as lieir in tail especial, and hatli issue by the 
 same wife, male or female, born alive, albeit tlie issue 
 after livcth or dietli. yet if the wife dies tlie husband 
 shall hold the land during his life.''^' Bishop's is : 
 " Tenancy by tlie curtesy arises where, after a marriage 
 not void in law, and if voidable not actually annulled 
 by judicial sentence, there is issue of the marriage 
 born alive ; then if the husband survives the wife, he 
 holds for his life the real estate which was hers in actual 
 possession at any time during the coverture, and which 
 also could be inherited by the child if living as tenant 
 by the curtesy consummate ; while after the birth of 
 the child and before the death of the mother he sus- 
 tains a somewhat similar relation to it, known as ten- 
 ancy by the curtesy initiate." ^^ Other definitions are 
 referred to in a note.'* 
 
 1 Heath v: White, 5 Conn. 22S, 235. Must be valid marriage to 
 render him " husband " : I'ost, i 15:5. 
 
 2 Kawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 26, M; Stead v. Piatt, 18 Beav. 50; 
 post., 'i 157. 
 
 3 Carpenter, 75 Va. 120, 134 ; post, § 155. 
 
 4 McBaniel v. Grace, 15 Arlc. 4G5, 483 ; post, I 155. 
 
 5 Coke Litt. 40 a ; jiost, i 154. 
 
 6 Heath v. WMiite, 6 Conn. 22S, 236 ; post, i 154. 
 
 7 Marsellis v. Thalhimer 2 Paige, 42. 
 
 8 Kice t>. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; pos<, § 158. 
 
 9 Porter, 27 Gratt. 503, GOG ; 2'ost, \ 156. 
 
 10 Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 225, 230 ; post, I 158. 
 
 11 Foster r. Marshall, 22 N. H. 401, 493 ; post, I loS. 
 
 12 Rice V. Hoffman, 35 .Aid. 344, 343, 350 ; post, \ 158. 
 
 13 Post, \ 160. 
 
 14 Litt. ? 35. 
 
 15 1 Bish. M. \V. \ 473. 
 
 16 1 Greenl. Cruise, 130, 140 ; 2 Blackst. Com. 120, 127 ; 4 Kent Com 
 27, 23; Boone Keal Prop. \A\;\ Wash. Real Prop. 148, 143; Orr c. 
 Hollidays, 3 Mon. B. 53; Da.v v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261,274; Furguson 
 V. Tweedy, 56 Barb. 168, 172, 173 ; Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 345 ; 
 Statutes cited post, 1 160.
 
 g 152 CUBTEST. 226 
 
 g 152. Common law requisites of curtesy. — At common 
 law there are said to be four requisites of curtesy : ^ 
 (1) marriage ; ^ (2) birth, of issue capable of inheriting ;3 
 (3) seisin of the wife during coverture ; •• (4) death of the 
 wife.^ Tliese requisites need not all exist at the same 
 time.^ Thus, birth of issue before the marriage is suffi- 
 cient, if the issue is legitimated by the marriage.' So 
 seisin during coverture is sufficient tliough disseisin 
 occurs before birth of issue.^ So birth of issue is suffi- 
 cient, thougli such issue dies before seisin.' And cur- 
 tesy initiate exists before the death of the wife.'" It is 
 not proper to say that curtesy initiate arises on the 
 birtli of issue,^! for it really arises on birth of issue or 
 seisin which ever first takes place.'' The marriage 
 must exist when the wife dies,'^ for an absolute divorce 
 destroys curtesy.'* Another requisite is that the hus- 
 band be capable of holding real estate,'^ not, for 
 example, an alien.'^ 
 
 1 Menvil, 13 Coke, 19, 23 ; Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, 967 ; 
 McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465, 483 ; Wheeler ii. Hotclikiss, 10 Conn. 
 225, 2:30; Stewart !'. Boss, 60 Miss. 776, 788; Jackson v. Johnson, I 
 C'owen, 74, 95 ; 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Furguson v. Tweed.v, 43 N. Y. .M3 ; 56 
 Bnrb. 168 ; Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, 133; Winkler, 18 W. Va. 
 455, 4.57. See Definitions, ante, 1 151. 
 
 2 Post, i 153. 
 
 3 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen, 166, 169 ; post, i 154. 
 
 4 McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 46.5, 483 ; post, 1 155. 
 
 5 Stewart M. & D. ? 463 ; post, ? 156. 
 
 6 See Menvil, 13 Coke, 19, 23 ; Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, 969 ; 
 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen, 166, 169; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 
 Cowen, 74, 95 ; Coke Lltt. 30 a. 
 
 7 Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 966, 969 ; post, ? 153. 
 
 8 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen, 166, 169 ; post, ? 155. 
 
 9 Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cowen, 74, 95; 15 Am. Dec. 433; nost, 
 I 154. 
 
 10 Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 789 ; jtost, U 166, 158. 
 
 11 Ayite, i 151 ; Bishop'.s definition. 
 
 12 Gibbins v. Eyden, Law R. 7 Eq. 371, 376. 
 
 13 Post, ? 153. 
 
 14 Stewart M. & D. J 443 ; post, I 159. 
 
 15 1 Greenl. Cruise, 144 ; Boone Real Prop. I 49.
 
 227 CURTESY. §? 153-154 
 
 16 Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, 235. See Fosa v. Crisp, 20 Pick. 
 121 ; Keese v. Waters, 4 Watts & S. 145. 
 
 g 153, Marriage necessary to give curtesy. — A man has 
 curtesy in a woman's lands only as her husband,* 
 though in asserting his rights he may prove his mar- 
 riage by cohabitation and repute.^ The marriage be- 
 tween them must be valid,-' this term including a 
 voidable marriage not decreed void before the wife's 
 death ; ^ there is no curtesy if the marriage were void,* 
 this term including a voidable marriage duly avoided.^ 
 The marriage may take place after tlie birth of issue if 
 such issue is thereby legitimated.' But it must exist at 
 the time of tlie wife's death, for a divorce a vinculo 
 destroys curtesy.^ 
 
 1 1 Cruise Dig. 107 ; 1 Wasli. Real Prop. 130 ; Boone Real Prop. 
 ? 45 ; ante, ? 151. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. U 129, 136. 
 
 .3 See fully Stewart M. & D. U 45, et seq. 
 
 i Stewart M. <fe D. ? 51. 
 
 5 Stevvart M. &. D. ? 50. 
 
 6 Stewart M. & D. ? 147. 
 
 7 Hunter v. Wliitworth, Ala. 0C5, 960. 
 
 8 Stewart M. & D. 5 443 ; post, i 153. 
 
 I 154. Birth of issue necessary to give curtesy. — At 
 common law there is no curtesy without Inrth of issue.* 
 The issue must be born alive,^ but if so born it makes 
 no diftbrcnce whether it lives an hour or to old agc.^ 
 It must be born during the life of its mother ; * a deliv- 
 ery by a Csesarean operation after the mother's death 
 is not sutficient.* It must be capable of becoming heir 
 to the estate;* the birth of a girl would not give cur- 
 tesy in an estate tail male.' It may be born after dis- 
 seisin,^ or die before seisin.^ Its birth may be proved 
 by its father.!" Statutes in some States have done away 
 with this requisite."
 
 §155 CURTESY. 228 
 
 1 Winkler, IS W. Va. 455, 466. See Paine, 8 Colce, 34 ; Heatla v. 
 Wliite, 5 Conn. 2JS, 236 ; Rvan r. Freeman, 36 Miss. 175 ; Day r'. Cocli- 
 rane, 24 Miss. 261 ; Porcii v. Fries, 4 N. J. Eq. 204 ; Marsellis v. Thal- 
 hiiner, 2 Paige, ;55, 42 ; ante, \ 152. 
 
 2 Colie Litt. .30 a, 60 6 ; 2 Blaclist. Com. 101 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 3 Heath v. Wliite, 5 Conn. 22S, 2.36. 
 
 4 2 Blackst. Com. 127, 12^ ; 1 Greenl. Cruise, 143 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 5 Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige, .35, 42. 
 
 6 Coke Litt. 40 a ; Poreli )'. Fries, 4 N. J. Eq. 204 ; stq^ra, n. 1. 
 
 7 Paine, 8 Coke, .34, 35 b ; Coke Litt. 29 6. 
 
 8 Johnson v. Jackson, 5 Cowen, 74, 95 ; 15 Am. Dec. 4;!3. 
 
 9 Comer r;. Cham..erlain. 6 Allen, 166, 16;). 
 
 10 Jones V. Ricketts, 31 Law J. Ch. 75.3. 
 
 11 Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 154 : post, \ 160. 
 
 \ 155. The seisin of the wife necessary to give curtesy. — 
 The word ".seisin" applies only to freehold estates.^ 
 One who is in actual possession of real estate, claiming 
 a freehold, 2 or one who though not in actual possession 
 has the immediate right to pos.session by deed^ or judi- 
 cial judgment,' is seized in fact; one who has a mere 
 right of possession in law, as an heir,^ or in equity, as 
 one who has a right to have a trust declared,* is seized 
 in law or in equity. The wife's seisin to give curtesy 
 must be, (1) seisin in fact ; (2) it must be benejicial ; 
 (3) it must be sole; but (4) it may exi.st at any time 
 during coverture. 
 
 1. Seisin in fact is necessary to give curtesy,' though 
 this rule has been somewhat relaxed," and is not ap- 
 plicable to wild lands.' Thus, j)ersonal possession ,1" 
 or pos.session through one's agent," trustee,'^ lessee.^^ 
 or co-parcener," or constructive possession given by 
 deed, '5 or judgment in ejectment,^* is sufficient seisin ; 
 but there is no curtesy in the estate of an heir before 
 entry,!' qj- qJ q^c who has to resort to law or equity to 
 obtain possession, '^ as when it is held under claim of 
 adverse title.'' IS^or can a husband have curtesy in his 
 wife's remainders,^'' unless the intermediate estate deter- 
 mines, as when it vests in her and merges,^' or the life
 
 229 CTJETEST. g 155 
 
 tenant dies,^^ during coverture ; for otherwise there is 
 no seisin in fact.^ 
 
 2. The wife's seisin must be beneficial ;^^ there is no 
 curtesy in a wife's hare legal estate,-^ or if there is it is 
 itself a bare legal estate.^* 
 
 3. The wife's seisin must be sole; there is no curtesy 
 of property in which she is joint tenant,^^ though there 
 is when she is tenant in common,^ or coparcener.^^ 
 
 4. The wife must be seized during coverture,^ but not 
 necessarily at the time of her death,^i or of the birth of 
 issue.*^ Thus, if after marriage a wife be seized and 
 then be disseized and then have issue, ^'^ or if she have 
 issue and tlie issue die and she be thereafter seized,^* 
 the husband has his curtesy. 
 
 1 Slater v. Ravvson, 6 Met. 439, 444. See Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 
 Marsh. J. J. 42 i ; l!» Am. Dec. i;?:» ; Towle v. Aver, 8 N. H. 58 ; Eng- 
 lishbe V. Heliuuth, 3 N. Y. 294 ; Boone Real Prop. ^ 20 ; Co. Litt. 153 a. 
 
 2 Vanderheyden v. Crandell, 2 Denlo, 9, 21 ; 1 N. Y. 491. See 
 Hovenden v. Aiineslev, 2 Schoules & L. 623; Mercer v. Selden, 1 
 How. 37, 54 ; Durando, 32 Barb. 529. 
 
 3 Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. .37, 54. See Higbee v. Rico, 5 Mass. 352 ; 
 Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill, 1S2. 
 
 4 Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige, 643. 
 
 5 Carpenter i\ Garrett, 75 Va. 129, 1G5. 
 
 6 Sartlll V. Robeson, 2 Jones Eq. 510, 512. 
 
 7 Carpenter v. Oirrott, 7") Va. 129, 1.34. See Mercer v. Sold'^'i, 1 
 How. 37, 54 ; Bush ( . Bradley. 4 Day, 298, 305 ; Adams v. Logan, 6 Mo:i. 
 17); Furguson r. Tweedy, 50 Barb. 168; 43 N. Y. 543, 648; Glbbs v. 
 Esty, 22 Hun, 266. 
 
 8 Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day, 298, 305. See Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 
 494; Wass V. Bucknam, 33 Mo. 356; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; 
 Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo 31); Iliirvev v. AVickham, 23 Mo. 112; 
 Reaume v Chaniliors, 22 Mo. 36 , McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416 ; 
 Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cowen, 74. 94 ; 15 Am. Dec. 4.33 ; Adair v. T.ott, 
 3 Hill, 182 ; Merritt v. Home, 5 Ohio St. 307 ; Borland v. Marshall, 2 
 Ohio St. 308 , Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377 ; Buchanan ?'. Duncan, 
 40 Pa. St. 82 ; Chew v. Commissioners, 6 Rawlo, 100 ; McCorry v. 
 King, 3 Humph. 267. 
 
 9 Davis V. Mason, 1 Peters, .503, 506, 507 ; Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 
 .37, 54. See Barr v. Galloway, 1 McLean, 476 ; Wells v. Thompson, 13 
 Ala. 793 ; 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261, 377 ; Jackson v. 
 Selllck, 8 Johns. 202. Contra, Neely v. Butler, 10 Mon. B. 48. 
 
 10 Mercer v. Selden, 1 How. 37, 54. 
 
 11 Carpenter t'. uarrett, 75 Va. 129, 13.'>. 
 
 12 Rawlings v. Adams, 7 :M;1. 23,54; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170; 
 post, I 157. 
 
 IL & W. — 2 3.
 
 § 156 CURTESY. 230 
 
 13 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen, 166, Ifi" ; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 
 Cowen, 7-1,90. See Powell v. Gossom, IS Mon. B. 179; Ellsworth r. 
 Cook, 8 Paige, 643 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. 338 ; Carter v. Williams, 
 8 Ired. Eq. i77 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170. 
 
 14 Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush, 679; 15 Am. Rep. 747. See De Grey v. 
 Kii;hardson, 3 Atk. 469 ; Buckley, 11 Barb. 43. 
 
 15 Davis V. Mason, 1 Peters, 503, SIS; Bedus v. Hayden, 43 Jliss. 
 614 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill, 182 ; supra., n. 3. 
 
 16 Ellsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige, 643. 
 
 17 Cnrpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, 13.5. See Mercer v. Selden, 1 
 liow. 37, 55 ; Phaelon l'. Houseal, 2 McCord Ch. 42.i. 
 
 IS Sartill V. Robeson, 2 Jones Eq. 510, 512. 
 
 19 Parker \<. Carter, 4 Hare, 400. But see Borland v. Marshall, 2 
 Ohio St. 308 ; supra, n. 8. 
 
 20 Doe V. Rivers, 7 Term, 272 ; Stoddard v. Glbbs, 1 Sum. 263 ; 
 Planters r. Davis, 31 Ala. 626 ; Baker v. Flournoy, .5.S Ala. 650 ; Mackey 
 V. Proctor, 12 Mon. B. 4:« ; Stewart >•. Barclay, 2 Bush, 5.50 ; Shores t'. 
 Carlev, 8 Allen, 426 ; Malone v. MoLauriii, 40 Miss. 161 ; Redus v. 
 Havden, 43 Miss. 614; McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416; Oxford 
 V. Benton, 36 N. H. .395 ; Furguson r. Tweedv. 43 N. Y 543 ; Tavloe v. 
 Gould, 10 Barb, .^ss ; Watkins r. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. :J67 ; Hitner v. 
 Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305; Reed, 3 Head, 491; Upchurch v. Anderson, 59 
 Tenn. 410. 
 
 21 Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. 388. 
 
 22 McKee t>. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416 ; Watkins v. Thorrton, 11 Ohio 
 St. 367. 
 
 23 Watkins v. Thornton , 11 Ohio St. 367. 
 
 24 1 Perry Trusts, ?? 322-324. 
 
 25 Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 303 ; Prescott v. Walker, 16 X. 11. 
 343 ; Chew c. Commissioners, 5 Rawle, IGO. 
 
 26 Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50. 
 
 27 I Wash. Real Prop. 1:5.5 ; Litt. ? 45. 
 
 28 Wash V. Bucknam, 3H Me. 360. 
 
 29 Carr v. Givens, Bush, 679, 683 ; 15 Am. Rep, 747 ; supra, n. 14. 
 
 30 Mercer V. Selden, 1 How. 37, 55 ; McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465, 
 483 ; Upchurch v. Anderson, 5J Tenn. 410, 411 ; supra, n. 20. 
 
 31 Except by statute : Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. 
 
 32 Jackson i'. Johnson, 5 Cowen, 74, 95 ; ante, i 152. 
 
 33 Comer v. Chamberlain, 6 Allen, 1B6, 169 ; ante, J? 152, ISti, 155. 
 
 34 Jackson v. Johnson, 6 Cowen, 74, 95 ; ante, U 152, 154. 
 
 § 156. Death of wife necessary to givo curtesy. — Until 
 the death of the wife curtesy i.s initiate ^ — a contingent 
 and not a vested estate ;2 only after it is consummated 
 by the wife's deatli is the husband i>roperly a tenant 
 by the curtesy.* On her death ho becomes so, without 
 any assignment,* by operation of law,* and has a life
 
 231 CURTESY. 1 157 
 
 estate with the rights of a coiivenlional ll.'e tenant." 
 Civil death is probably not sufiicient J tliough her con- 
 viction of bigamy may be, by statute.^ 
 
 1 Rice V. HoEfman, 35 Md. 3+4, 350 ; ante, U 22, 151 ; post, ? 158. 
 
 2 Porter, 27 Gratt. 599, 606 ; ante, J 22 ; 2)ost, § 162. 
 
 :! Jones v. Davies, 7 Hurl. & N. 507, 508 ; Wheeler v. Hotch::is3, 10 
 Coiia. :;25, ZiO ; Wi.me, 2 Laus. 21, 21 ; jjost, \ los. 
 
 4 Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 244, CJO ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill, 182. 
 
 5 AVatson, 13 Conn. 83, 86. 
 
 6 Shortall v. Hinkley, 31 III. 210, 227 ; post, J 158. 
 
 7 Stewart M. & D. ? 475. 
 
 8 Md. U. C. 1878, p. 807^ § 102. 
 
 I 157. Property in which curtesy exists. — Curtesy is 
 an estate in real j^ropert^'/ though Avhen money is 
 treated in equity as realty a husband may have the 
 interest thereof as curtesy,^ It arises only out of 
 estates of inheritance^ — not, for example, out of an 
 estate j)er autre vie* — and arises equally wliether the 
 fee is absolute or determinable.^ But whether or not it 
 continues after a determinable fee has determined is 
 disi^uted,* and, strangely enough, the prevailing opin- 
 ion is that it does.'' Tlie fee must be a present one, for 
 no curtesy arises out of remainders ;* and it must not 
 be held by the wife as joint tenant,^ Curtesy arises out 
 of equitable as well as legal estates of inheritance,'" if 
 there is seisin in fact ; '^ indeed, it does not arise out of 
 bare legal estates.'- But when proiDcrty is settled on a 
 married woman, and the settlement contains words 
 clearly excluding the marriage rights of her husband," 
 it i;i her equitable separate estate,'^* and he has no cur- 
 tesy in it ; '^ still if the words do not also exclude his 
 rights after lier death, he will have curtesy if lie sur- 
 A'ives her, '6 unless in pursuance of powers in the settle- 
 ment she lias conveyed the property away '' or willed 
 it. '8 And much the same rule applies to her statutory 
 separate cstatc,^^ out of Avhich curtesy may or may not
 
 §157 CUKTESY. 232 
 
 arise.^" There is no cux'tesy in a Avife's pre-emption 
 rights in United States lands.^' 
 
 1 2 Blackst. Com. 126 ; 1 GreoiU. Cruise, 140. 
 
 2 Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 3.52. See Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 
 Vern. 536 ; Fletcher v. A.shburner, 1 Brock. 409 ; Dodson v. Hay, 3 
 Brock. 404; FoUett v. Tyrer, 14 Sim. 125; Davis c. Mason, 1 Peters, 
 503; Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. 506; 7 Am. Dec. 504; Clipper v. Liver- 
 good, 5 Watts, 116 ; ante, I 136. 
 
 3 Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 47 ; Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147 ; 
 Simmons v. Goodinjj, 5 Ired. liq. 3s2. 
 
 4 Stead v. Piatt, 18 Beav. 50, 57. 
 
 5 Paine, 8 Coke, 67, 6S ; Thornton v. Krepps, 37 Pa. St. 391 ; With- 
 ers V. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 5i*7. 
 
 6 Mason v. Johnson, 47 Md. 347, a57 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 34 N. Y. 
 284. 
 
 7 Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. <fe P. 6ri2, n ; 4 Doug. 323 ; Moody 
 V. King, 2 Bing. 447 ; 9 Eng. C. L. 475 ; Smith v. Spencer, 6 DeGex, 
 M. & G. 632 ; Northcott v. Whipp, 12 Mon. B. 65 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 
 54 N. Y. 280 ; Thornton v. Knapp, 37 Pa. St. 391 ; Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190 ; 
 Taliaferro v. Burwell, 4 Call. 321 ; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597 ; I 
 Wash. Real Prop. i:^i; 1 Greenl. Cruise, 146, 147; 4 Kent Com. 32; 
 Boone Real Prop. ? 50. But see Doe v. Hulton, 3 Bos. & P. 663 ; 
 Weller, 28 Barb. 589. 
 
 8 Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614, 636 ; ante, 1 165. 
 
 9 1 Wash. Real Prop. 135 ; ante, I 155. 
 
 10 Rawliugs V. Adams, 7 Md. 28, 54. See Appletoii t'. Rawley, Law 
 R. 8 Eq. 139, 143 ; Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown Ch. 5U3 ; Robinson 
 V. Codman, 1 Sum. 128 ; Phillips v. Codman, 2 Duval, 549 ; Gardner v. 
 Hooper, 3 Gray, 404 ; Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. 1.T4 ; Robb v. 
 Griffin, 26 Miss. 579 ; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ; Alexander r. Wor- 
 rance, 17 Mo. 228 ; Tremmell r. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App. 549; Cushiiig v. 
 Blake, 2;) N. J. Eq. 399 ; 30 N. J. Eq. 696 ; Sartill ?•. Robeson, 2 Jones 
 Eq. 510, 512 ; Dowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 171 ; Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 151 ; Night- 
 ingale- ?i. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115 ; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597 ; Baker 
 V. Heiskell, 1 Cold. 641 ; Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455. 
 
 11 Sartill V. Robeson, 2 Jones Eq. 510, 512. See Parker v. Carter, 4 
 Hare, 413 ; Pitt v. Jackson, 2 Brown Ch. 51 ; Morgau, 5 Madd. 408 ; 
 ayUe, 1 155. 
 
 12 Chew V. Commissioners, 5 Rawle, 160, 163 ; ante, ? 155. 
 
 13 Mitchell v. Moore, 16 Gratt. 275, 280. See Moore \\ Webster, Law 
 R. 3 Eq. 267; Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Payne, 11 Mon. B. i:ia ; Tremmell 
 V. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App. 54.) ; Douglas v. Cruger, 80 N. Y. 15 ; Dubs, 31 
 Pa. St. 149 ; Kge r. Jledlar, 82 Pa. St. 86 ; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea, 710 ; 31 
 Am. Rep. 660 ; jyosl, i 200. 
 
 14 Fost, U 19fr--l". 
 
 15 Hearle v. Greenbank, 1 Ves. Sr. 298 ; Moore v. Webster, Law R. 
 3 Eq. 267 ; Barker, 2 Sim. 249 ; Monroe v. Van Meter 100 III. 347 ; 
 Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 4 '5 ; Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361 ; Stokes v. 
 McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. 267; Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. 95; 39 
 Am. Dec. 69 ; Bottoms v. C'arley, 5 Heisk. 6 ; Beecher i\ Hicks, 7 Lea, 
 207 ; infra, u. 16. 
 
 16 Cooney v. Woodburn, 33 Md. 320, 326, .'527 ; Winkler, 18 W. Va. 
 455, 466, 467. See Appletoii v. Rawley, Law R. 8 Eq ICJ, 143 ; Cooper
 
 233 CURTESY. § 158 
 
 V. McDonald, Law K. 7 Ch. D. 2SS ; 23 En?. R"p. oSl ; Follott v. Tvrer, 
 U Sim. 125 ; Bur:Kt v. Davis, 2 P. Wnis. ;uii ; Rochon ?■. Lccott, 2 
 Stewt. 42u; De Hart v. Dean, 2 McAr. bO; Payne, 11 Jlon. B. i:» ; 
 Hart V. Soward 14 Mon. B. 305; DousUi.s v. Cruger, 80 N. Y. 15; 
 Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; Hardy v. Van Harliiigen, 7 Oliio St. 
 208 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170 ; Ege v. M"di:ir, 82 Pa. St. 86 ; Til- 
 linghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383 ; Frazer v. Hightower, 12 HeLsk. 94 ; 
 Carter v. Dale, 3 La. 710 ; ?1 Am. Eep. 660 ; Sayer v. Wall, 26 Gratt. 
 3M ; 21 Am. Rep. 303. 
 
 17 Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 415, 502. 
 
 IS Stokes V. McKibbin , 13 Pa. St. 267, 269. 
 
 13 Post, ch. xiU., ii 217-243. 
 
 20 Post, a 160-162. 
 
 21 McDaniol v. Grace, 15 Ark. 4&5, 484. 
 
 g 153. Incidonts of tlio estate of curtesy. — Curtesy has 
 tAVO stages : one in which it is initiate and contingent, 
 the other in which it is eonmimmate and vested. 
 
 1. Curtesy initiate. When inarriage,i birth of issue,^ 
 and seisin' have taken place,' curtesy initiate exists,^ 
 Although the husband Iiolds this estate in his own 
 right,^ and by the old common law had through it cer- 
 tain rights to homa2;e, etc.,' he has by virtue of it no 
 present tenancy,* it works no change in the incidents 
 of his tenac3'' during coverture in his wife's riglit ^ It 
 is not a vested estate,^'' and may be destroyed by 
 divorce^^ or by statute ;^- and thougli it arise in prop- 
 erty in which the husband is tenant for years no 
 merger foUow.s," Still the husband may convey his 
 contingent interest,'* it may be seized for his debts,'^ he 
 cannot in fraud of creditors"* settle it on his wife,'' nor 
 Avill a court of equity interfere Avith it on her behalf. '^ 
 All the luisband's rights during coverture are, however, 
 suspended by settlements to the wife's sole and separate 
 use,'^ and almost every Avhere now by statutes.'-"' 
 
 2. Curtesy consummate. Only on the wife's death 
 does curtesy become consummate and vest,"-^' and is the 
 husband properly tenant by tlie curtesy.^^ He becomes 
 so by operation of law,23 no assignment being neces- 
 sar3^,2* and whether he so desires or not.'^^ He takes
 
 g 158 CUETESY. 234 
 
 rather as an heir than as a purchaser,"® and holds the 
 proijerty subject to all encumbrances.^ His estate has 
 the incidents of a conventional life estate ; ^ he may 
 eject others t herefrom, -"s and defend an ejectment suit 
 brought against him by his "W'ife's heirs.^" He may 
 sell 51 or lease^'^ it, but only his interest ;^^ an attempt to 
 convey the fee, under the old law working a forfeiture 
 against him ; 3* aid it may be taken for his debts.^ He 
 has a right to reasonable estovers,^® but not to commit 
 waste. 3^ 
 
 1 Ante, I 153. 
 
 2 Ante, I 154. 
 
 3 Ante, I 15o. 
 
 4 As shown, ante, ? 1C2. 
 
 5 Eice V. Hoffman, 35 Mfl. 314. S-JO ; Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. K. 
 4ni, 44;i ; Winiie, 2 Laiis. 21, 21 ; Wilson v. Arentz, 70 N. C G70, 673 ; 
 ante, H 151, 152, lod. 
 
 6 Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 235 ; Shortall v. HInkley, 31 HI. 219, 
 227 ; ante, \ 116. 
 
 7 Wright, 2 Md. 42!), 5.-)4 ; SG Am. Bee. -23 ; 1 Bish. M. W. § 580. 
 
 8 Jones V. Bavies, 5 Hurl. <fe X. 766; 7 Hurl. & X. 507, 508 ; Winne, 
 2 Lans. 21, 24. 
 
 9 Winne. 2 Lans. 21, 21. See Kibbey v. WUliams, .=18 IIU 30, 31; 
 Cole V. Van lliper, 41 III. 53, 66 , Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 469. 
 
 10 Ante, \ 22. 
 
 11 Stewart M. & D. \ 44.3. 
 
 12 Winne, 2 Lans. 21, 2G ; ante, \ 22. 
 
 13 Jones V. Davies, 5 Hurl. & N. 766 ; 7 Hurl. <fc N. 507, 508. 
 
 14 Central r Copeland, IS Md. .S05, 320. See Wells r. Thompson, 13 
 Ala, 7a3; 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Shortall v. Hinkley, 31 111. 219, 226. 
 
 15 Shortall v. Hinkley, 31 111. 219, 227 ; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261, 
 275 ; Canbv v. Porter, 12 Ohio, 79, 80. See Plumb v. .Sawyer, 21 Conn. 
 351; Long II. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550; Aiiflerson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 
 443 ; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 :Mass. 186 ; Winne, 2 Laus. 21, 25 ; Burd v. 
 Dansdale, 2 Binn. SO ; Mattock v. Stearns, 9 Vt 326. 
 
 16 Ante, U 113-118. 
 
 17 Wickes v. Clarke, 8 Paige, 161, 172. 
 
 18 Van Duzer, 6 Paige, 366, 370. 
 
 19 Cooney v. Woodburn, 33 Md. 320, 326 ; ante, ? 157. 
 
 20 Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 443 ; Staples v. Brown, 13 Allen, 
 16; Winne, 2 Lans. 21, 25 ; Curry v. Bott, 53 Pa. St. 400, 403 ; post, J 161. 
 
 21 Wheeler v. HotchkLss, 10 Conn. 225, 2.30 ; Henderson v Oldham, 
 5 Dana, 2.54, 2.-)7 ; Rice v. Hoffman, 3.5 Md. 344, 349, 350 ; Foster v. Mar- 
 shall, 22 X. H. 491, 493 ; Stewart M. & D. 5 463 ; ante, U 22, 156 ; post, 
 i 162,
 
 \ 
 
 235 CURTESY. g 169 
 
 22 Jones v. Davies, 7 Hurl. & N. SO", 508 ; Winne, 2 Lans. 21, 2^. 
 
 23 Watson , 13 Conn. 83, 86 ; Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 701. 
 
 24 Bice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. ZU, a50 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill, 182. 
 
 25 Jones v. Davies, 7 Hurl. & N. 507 ; Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 86. 
 
 26 Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 86. See Coleman v. Waples, 1 Har. (Del.) 
 196 ; Willis r. Snelling, 6 Rich. 280. 
 
 27 See Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Xeb. 520 ; Winne, 2 Lans. 21. 
 
 28 Shortall, 31 111. 210, 227 ; Rice v. Hofifman, 35 Md. 354. 350 ; Miller 
 V. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96, 105. 
 
 29 Hall, 32 Ohio St. 184. 
 
 30 Grant v. Townsend, 2 Hill. 554. 
 
 31 Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793; 48 Am. Dec. 76; Bottoms v. 
 Coiley, 5 Heisk. 1, 5 ; infra, n. 33. 
 
 32 Shortall v. Hinliley, 31 111. 219, 226. 
 
 33 Maraman v. Caldwell, 8 Mon. B. .32 ; Flagg v. Bean, 25 N. H. 49 ; 
 Koltenbrocli v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio St. 584. 
 
 34 French v. Rollins, 21 Me. 372 ; McKee r. Pfout, 3 Dall. 486. 
 
 35 Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 443 ; supra, n. 15. 
 
 36 Armsirong ?'. Wilson, 60 111. 226, 228. 
 
 37 Weise v. Welsh, 30 N. J. Eq. 431, 434. 
 
 g 159. How ciirtesy may be barred, defeated, or lost. — A 
 husband being sui juris can, before ^ or after marriage,^ 
 make an agreement enforeible in equity^ Avitli hi.s wife, 
 whereby he relinqui.shes curtesy.* And as he can con- 
 vey this estate,^ lie may of course release it to any one,^ 
 which he generally does by joining in his wife's con- 
 veyances.' But he cannot by disclaimer prevent its 
 vesting on his wife's deatli.^ The wife's property may 
 be so settled by deed' or by statute "* that curtesy never 
 arises, or it maj^ arise and be defeasible by her deed" 
 or will;!^ but where her will is valid onlj' with the 
 husband's assent, he may revoke his assent any time 
 before probate.^' So by statute it may be forfeited by 
 bigamy,!' adultery,^* or treason.^^ A divorce a xnnculo 
 destroys it.^' It may be barred by limitations, ^^ or by 
 the acceptance of a provision in its stead. ^' Formerly, 
 it was forfeited by an absolute conveyance of the lands, ^^ 
 but this law is obsolete.^! 
 
 1 Waters v. Tagewell, 9 Md. 291, 303 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 32.
 
 g 160 CUKTESY. 236 
 
 2 HutcUins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29, 37 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 182 ; ante, 
 il 40, et seq., 9y, et seq. 
 
 3 ^«te, 2H2, 53, 
 
 4 See also Roclion v. Lecott, 2 Stewt. 429. 
 
 5 Ante, I 158. 
 
 6 1 Wash. Real Prop. 152. 
 
 7 See Carpenter v. Davis, 72 111. 14 ; Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. 
 Compare Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. 402 ; Gilniore, 7 Oreg. 374 ; 
 Honcli V. Ritter, 76 Pa. St. 280 ; post, H 394-408. 
 
 8 Watson, 13 Conn. 83, 86. 
 
 9 nutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29, 37, 38 ; ante, \ 157. 
 
 10 Tong V. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60, 70, 73 ; post, i 161. 
 
 11 Undor settlement. Pool v. Blakie, 53 111. 4r)5, 502 ; under statute, 
 Porch V. Pries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204, 208. 
 
 12 Under settlement, Stokes v. McKibbln, 13 Pa. St. 267, 269 ; under 
 statute, Stewart c. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 791. 
 
 13 George v. Bussing, 15 Mon. B. 563. See Sibsby v. Bullock, 10 
 Allen, 94. 
 
 14 Md. R. C. 1878, p. 807, § 102. See Stewart M. & D. 5 178. 
 
 15 Not without : Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; 
 
 1 Cireenl. Cruise, 150. 
 
 16 Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn. 1. 
 
 17 Stewart M. & D. i 443. 
 
 18 Shortall v. Hinkley, .31 111. 219, 227. See Wright r. Plumbtree, 3 
 Barn. & Aid. 474 ; Carter v. Cartrell, 16 Ark. 154 ; Neal v. Robertson, 
 
 2 Dana, 86 ; Thompson v. Green, 4 Ohio St. 216 ; Weisinger v. Murphy, 
 2 Head, 674. 
 
 19 Pa. Purd. Dig. 1876. p. 1008, ^ 23 ; 77 Pa. St. 276, 379. 
 
 20 1 Greenl. Cruise, 150 ; Boone Real Prop. ? 51 ; ante, ? 158. 
 
 21 See Dennett, 40 N. H. 505 ; Miller, Meigs, 184. 
 
 ? 160. Curtesy imder statutes, generailj. — In the He- 
 vised Laws of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, 
 Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, Texa.s, 
 and Virginia, there seems to be no mention of curtesy.^ 
 In those of Connecticut, ^ Delaware,^ Maryland,^ New 
 Jersey ,5 New York," Pennsylvania," Rhode Island,* and 
 Tennessee,^ curtesy is incidentally mentioned as exist- 
 ing. In those of Kentucky ,io Maine," Massachusetts,!^ 
 Michigan," Nebraska," New Hampshire,!^ North Caro- 
 lina,'« Ohio," Oregon, "«Verinont,'9 and West Virginia,^" 
 curtesy is expressly given. In those of California,^! 
 Florida,22 Illinois, -^ Indiana,^' lowaj-^ Kansas,-^ Missis- 
 sippi,-^' and Nevada,28 curtesy is cxjiressly abolished.
 
 237 CURTESY. § 160 
 
 When curtesy is abolished another estate is generally 
 given in its place, as in Illinois, where a husband lilce 
 his wife lias dower.® And when curtesy is recognized 
 it is often expressly modified and made a different es- 
 tate; as in Ohio, whei'e bh-th of issue is done away 
 with;^" in West Virginia, where tlie wife must die 
 seized ;^i in Wisconsin, where the wife must die intes- 
 tate;^^ in Michigan, wliere a second husband lias no 
 curtesy if his wife leaves a child by her first husband ; ^^ 
 and as in Minnesota, where it is forfeited by desertion.^* 
 But a statute giving curtesy will not be construed to 
 change the requisites and incidents thereof, except so 
 far as express words require.^^ Thus, the West Vir- 
 ginia statute, which provides " if a married woman die 
 seized of an estate of inheritance in land, her liusband 
 shall be tenant by the curtesy in tlie same,"^^ does not 
 do away with the necessity of birth of issue.^' Wlien, 
 however, curtesy is not expressly given or abolished, 
 it exists as a part of the common law,^^ except in 
 Louisiana and Texas, where this law as to curtesy was 
 never in force,^* unless it is impliedly abolished by 
 married women's separate property acts.*" In any case 
 these acts work important changes in common-law 
 curtesy.*! A statute providing tliat the husband shall 
 not have curtesy when his wife has cliildren by a 
 former husband, applies only to lands which such 
 children inlierit, or their shares.'*^ 
 
 1 There may be statutes in these States later than the Revised 
 Laws. The hiws of Minnesota do refer to curtesy, but only to repeal 
 the acts relating thereto : Minn. Stats. 1878, p. 572. 
 
 2 Conn. G. S. 1875, p. 392, \ 28. 
 
 3 Del. R. O. 1S74, p. 478, I 1, p 479, ? 4. 
 
 4 Md. R. C. 1878, p. 397, ? 2, p. 412, \l 59, 60, p. 807, ? 102. 
 
 5 N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 638, J 9, p. 639, I 14, p. 298, \ 6, p. 12.35, \ 2. 
 
 6 N. y. R. S. 1882, p. 2213, ? 20. 
 
 7 Pa. Purd. Dig. 1876, p. 1007, ? 18, p. 1008, \ 2.3. 
 
 8 B, I. P. S. 18S2, p. 424, \ 14, p. 471, ? 3, p. 190, \ 8.
 
 § 161 CURTESY. 238 
 
 9 Tenn. R. S. ISTH, U 24SC,, 3263. 
 
 10 Ky. R. S. 1871, p. '>27, § 1. 
 
 11 Me. R. S. 1871, p. 7.-.S, ? 15. 
 
 12 Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 710, J? 1, 3, p. 818, ? L 
 
 13 Mich. B. 8. 1S82, ?? 5770, 5783. 
 
 14 Neb. C. L. 18S1, pp. 215, 255. 
 
 15 N. H. G. L. 1878, pp. 4.35, 475. 
 
 16 N. C. Bat. Rev. 1873, pp. 5.30, 531, 592. 
 
 17 Ohio R. S. 1880, U 2852, 3108, 4176, 4177. 
 
 18 Oreg. G. L. 1872, p. 588, § 30. 
 
 19 Vt. R. L. 1880, ?? 2223, 2230. 
 
 20 W. Va. R. S. 1879, p. .502, i 15, p. 556, ?? 17, 18. 
 
 21 Cal. Civ. Code 1881, § 173. 
 
 22 Fhx. Dig. 1881, p. 471. 
 
 23 111. R. S. 1880, p. 42.",, J 1. 
 
 24 Ind. R. S. 1881, ? 2482. 
 
 25 Iowa R. C. 1880, ^ 2440. 
 
 26 Kan. C. L. 1881, U 21, 29. 
 
 27 Miss. R. S. 1880, ? 1170. 
 
 28 ■ Nev. C. L. 1873, ? l.-i7. 
 
 29 III. R. S. 1880, p. 425, ? 1. See also Ind. R. S. 1881, ? 2485 ; Iowa 
 R. S. 18S0, ? 2440. 
 
 .30 Ohio R. 8. 1880, ? 4170. See also Oreg. G. L. 1872, p. 588, J 30 ; Dubs, 
 31 Pa. St. 1.>I. 
 
 31 W. Va. R. S. 1879. p. 502, ? 15"; Winkler, 18 W. Va. 4.55, 408. See 
 also Wis. R. S. 1878, i 2180. 
 
 .32 Wis. R. S. 1878, ? 2180. 
 
 33 Mioh. R. S. 1882, ? 5770. See also Neb. C. S. 1S81, p. 215; Ohio 
 R. 8. 1880, J 476 ; Vt. R. L. 1880, § 2229. 
 
 34 Minn. R. 8. 1878, p. 56.5. 
 
 35 See full discussion in Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455. 
 
 36 W. Va. R. S. 1879, p. 502, § 15. 
 
 37 Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 466, 488. 
 
 38 Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. .36, 51 ; Denny v. McCabe, 32 Ohio 
 St. 576, 578 ; ante, i 6. 
 
 39 "See ante, ? 6. In Texas the common law is declared in force, 
 R. S. 1879, 1 3128 ; but the community system prevails : Post, i S!- 
 
 40 Post, ? 161. 
 
 41 Post, I IGO. 
 
 42 Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360, 362. 
 
 I 161. Curtesy under married women acts. — Though 
 some cases hold that statutes which secure to a mar- 
 ried woman her property free froin the control of her 
 husband with power to dispose of it by will or deed by
 
 239 CURTESY. g 161 
 
 implication wliolly abolish curtesy /i it is generally 
 said that the legislature must express all intended 
 changes in common law estates,^ and the prevailing 
 oiJinion is, as in the ease of equitable separate prop- 
 erty," that while separate property acts do suspend 
 during coverture all the rights of tlie husband or his 
 creditors in statutory separate property,^ they do not 
 destroy curtesy or prevent its vesting on her death,* 
 unless such an event is clearly excluded, ^ as where the 
 statute not only provides that the property of a wife 
 shall be hers with power to will, etc., but also defines 
 her husband's interest therein if she dies intestate," in 
 which case curtesy is excluded.^ Wlien she has power 
 to alienate or charge her property ^ she may thereby 
 defeat curtesy;'" but a statute must contain express 
 words to enable her to convey alone ; '^ so when she 
 has power to make a will she may thereby defeat 
 curtesy. '2 
 
 1 Tong V. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60, 70, 73 ; Ransom, 30 Mich. 328, fSO ; 
 Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 790 ; Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 343, long 
 discussion. 
 
 2 Winne, 2 Lans. 21,34; Houston v. Brown, 7 Jones (X. C.) 161, 
 162 ; Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 46y. 
 
 3 Pool v. Blakle. 53 111. 495, 502 ; ante, § 
 
 4 Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 130, 131, 1.32; 16 Am. Rop. 57S ; Beach v. 
 Miller, 51 111. 206, 20it ; 2 Am. Rep. 290; Cole v. Van Ript-r, 44 111. 5s, 66 ; 
 Kice V. Hoffman, 3.5 MU. ■J44, 3.t0 ; Schindel, 12 ."'.M. l!M, oi:! ; Anderson v. 
 Tydlngs,8 Md. 427,443 ; Logan v. McGill, 8 Md. W,\, 470 ; Brown v. Clark, 
 44 Mich. 400, 411 ; Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 2(4, 208 ; Hatfield r. Sne- 
 den,54N. Y. 280, 289 ; Winne, 2 Lans. 21,26, ;« ; Kurd i'. Cass, 9 Barb. 306, 
 369; Jones v. Carter, 73 N. C. 148, 149; Houston v. Brown, 7 Jones 
 (N. C.) 161, 162; Clark, 76 Pa. St. 376, 478, Col,-man v. Satterfield, 2 
 Head, 259, 261 ; Bottoms v. Corley, 5 Helsk. 1, 6, 9. 
 
 5 Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 65, 66 ; Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 
 •427, 443 ; Rice v. Hoffman. 35 Md. 344, 3.50 : Pcjrcli v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 
 204, 209; Prall r. Smith, 31 N. J. L. 244. 2jr, • JlHtfield v. Sneden, 54 
 N. Y. 280, 287; Hurd v. Cass, 9 Barb. JWft, 3(;s :;7>) ; Winne. 2 Lans. 21, 
 26,34; Leach, 21 Hun, 381, 382; Zimmerman r. Schoenfeldt, 3 Hun, 
 692, 6:^15; Houston v. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.) 161, 162; Winkler, 18 
 W. Va. 45.5, 464, 467 ; Kiiigsley r. Smith, 14 Wis. 360, 366. 
 
 6 Compare ante, ? 157 
 
 7 Mason ti. Johnson, 47 Md. 347, 357, 3.18. 
 
 8 See Md. R. C. 187S, p. 481, ? 20 , Minn. St. 1S78, p. .56.5. Sometimes 
 there is an express provision that tlie chapter on " descent " shall 
 Mot affect curtesy : feee iJ. Y. R. S. 1882, p. 2213, j 20.
 
 § 162 CURTESY. 240 
 
 9 Discussed 7ws<, 
 
 10 Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204, 208 ; ante, § 159. 
 
 11 Cole V. Van Eiper, 44 III. 58, 66 ; post, ? 399. 
 
 12 Stewart v. Ross, .50 Miss. 776, 791 ; post, ?? .340-354. Unless the 
 statute provides to the contrary : See N. H. G. L. 1878, p. 435. 
 
 § 162. Prospective and retrospective effect of statutes on 
 curtesy. — Unlike the hu.sband's rights during cover- 
 ture hi right of L's wife to lands of which she has pos- 
 session,' curtesy initiate is not a vested right ^ — it does 
 not vest till the wife's death,^ and may therefore be 
 destroyed by statute.* But if the statute does not ex- 
 pre.ssly refer to existing rights it will be applied only 
 to those which arise after its passage.^ From another 
 point of view, curtesy consummate is regarded as an 
 estate acquired by descent,^ and as rules of descent are 
 determined by the law existing at the time of the 
 ancestor's death,' during such ancestor's life the chance 
 of its arising may be destroyed,* or it may be created to 
 arise.* 
 
 1 Van Note v. Downey, 28 N. J. L. 219, 222 ; ante, ?? 22, 156, 159. 
 
 2 Porter, 27 Gratt. 599, 606 ; Stewart M. & D. § 443 ; ante, ? 22. 
 
 3 Hill V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, 427 ; ante, ^? 156, 158. 
 
 4 Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37, 41 ; Hill v. Chambers, SO Mich. 422, 
 427; Hiithon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93,95; Winne, 1 Lans. 508, .513; 2 Lans. 
 21, 26 ; TlmrbpF ?'. Townsend, 22 N. Y. 517 ; Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 
 343, :Mfi; nciiiiy r. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. 576, 580; Mellinger ?•. Bails- 
 man, 45 P;i. St. 522, ,529 ; Sharpless v. West, 1 (Jrant, 257, 260 ; King.s- 
 ley V. Smith, 14 Wis, 360, :J65 ; ante, i 101, n, 4. 
 
 5 Porter v. Bowers, 55 Md. 213, 215, 216 ; ante, § 20. 
 
 6 Watson, 13 Conn. 8.3, 86 ; Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, .^50 ; 
 Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 309, 311 ; Stewart •)'. Ross, .50 Miss. 776, 790; 
 ante, i 22. 
 
 7 Ante, ? 22. 
 
 8 Hi:i )'. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, 427 ; supra, n. 4. 
 
 9 Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. .309, 311.
 
 241 husband's estates. § 163 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 husbaxd's estates in wife's personalty. 
 
 Art. I. In General, gg 163-165. 
 
 II. Personalty in Possession, gg 166-170. 
 
 III. Choses in Action, ?§ 171-176. 
 
 IV. Reduction to Possession, H 177-183. 
 
 Art. I. — Husband's Estate in Wife' Personalty 
 IN General. 
 
 I 163. At common law. 
 
 ? 164. In equity. 
 
 ? 165. Under Statutes. 
 
 § 163. Husband's estate in wife's personalty at common 
 law. — A married womian being at common law merged 
 in lier husband ^ could not hold property at all,' and as 
 estates in personal iiroperty were unknown,^ her hus- 
 band did not take a mere estate during coverture in her 
 l^ersonalty as he did in her realty,* but he took it abso- 
 lutely.'' Still as change of title to personalty was af- 
 fected only by change of possession,^ if the husband 
 did not get possession while liusband," the title on dis- 
 solution of the marriage remained in her* or her reprc- 
 sentatives.9 The common law rule, therefore, is thai 
 all the wife^fi personalti/ in poisessio7i^° vests in the hus- 
 band absolutely," and that he may reduce her choses -in 
 «c<?OH, '^ to possession any time during coverture, ^^ and 
 thus make them his own absolutely ;i* otherwise they 
 continue to belong to her.i* 
 
 1 Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 118, 124 ; .M Am. Dec. 2nC ; ante, I 38. 
 
 2 Ante, § 137. 
 
 3 Antf, ? 136. 
 
 4 Ante, Vi 146-150. 
 
 5 Fleet r. Perrins, 3 Q. B. 536, 511 ; 4 Q. B. 500, 507; Kcsner v. 
 Trigs, flS r. .S. .50. .54 ; Price ?'. Sessions, 3 How. 624, 6:i5 ; McCaa v. 
 Woolf,42 Ala. 389, 3!)2 ; Jacobs v. Adair, 31 Ark. 016, 623; Trvou v. Sut-
 
 ^ 164 HCSBANC'S ESTATES. 242 
 
 ton, n Cal. 4!>0, 493 ; Morgan v. Thomas, 14 Conn. 99, 102 ; Johnson v. 
 Fleetwood, 41 Har. (Del.) 442, 444 ; Pope i<. Tucker, 23 Ga. 484, 487 ; 
 Thomas v. Chicago, 55 111. 403, 40fi ; fetandiford v. Devol, 21 In d. 404, 
 407; Campbell v. Galbreath, 12 Bush, 4-59, 4fi4 ; Carleton v. Lovpjov, 54 
 Me. 44.5, 447 ; Sabel v. Slingluff, 52 Md. i:J2, 135 ; Ha.vward, 20 Pick. 
 517, .522 ; Hopkins r. Carey, 23 Miss. 54, 5S ; Clark v. Bark, 47 Mo. 17, 
 19 ; Cadwell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 4fi7, 410 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403, 406 ; 
 Kennv v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 4fi4, 473 ; Stokes v. itucken, 62 Barb. 145, 
 ]4(t ; O'Connor v. Harris, 81 X. C. 279, 282 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 4:W ; 
 Maver, 77 Pa. St, 482, 4<) ; Arnold v. Rliggles, 1 R, I. 165, 178 ; Willis 
 r. Snelling, 6 Rich. 280, 284; Ewlng v. Helm, 2 Tenn. Oh. 3fi8, 369 ; 
 AVallace v. Burden, 17 Tex. 467, 468; Browning »•. Headley,2 Rob. 
 fVa.) 340, 36? ; 40 Am. Dec. 755; Barron, 24 Vt. 376, 392. 
 
 6 This seems to have been the reason, though the authorities do 
 not refer to it. 
 
 7 Post, REDfCTI02Sr TO POSSESSIOX, ?? 177-183. 
 
 8 Stewart M. A; D. ? J 445, 460 ; Hayward, 20 Pick. 517, 522 : post, ? 176. 
 
 9 Price V. IMcReynolds, 8 Lea, 36, 40. See O'Connor v. Harris, 81 
 N. C. "27:1, 282 ; Buckingham v. Carter, 2 Disu. 41, 43. 
 
 10 Post, U 166-170. 
 
 11 Post, 'i 170. 
 
 12 Post, H 171-176. 
 
 13 Po.'jf, ?? 1~-183. 
 
 14 Post, i 176. 
 
 15 Supra, notes 8, 9 ; post, ? 176. 
 
 ? 164. Husband's estate in wife's personalty in equity. — 
 A husbaml ha.s tinder the unwritten law the same 
 rights in his Avife's equitable personalty ' as he has in 
 her legal personalty,* unless it is personalty settled to 
 her sole and separate u.se,'and except that when he has 
 +o appeal to equity to reduce a chose in action* the court 
 may make a provision for her out of it.* Gifts from 
 him to her are likewise sustained in equity * 
 
 1 See Vanderveer c. Alston, 16 Ala. 494 ; Lenoir i'. Rainev, 15 Ala. 
 667 ; Lamb v. M'ragg. 8 Port. 73 ; Lindsey v. Harrison, 3 Eng". 302, 311; 
 Pope V. Tucker, 23 «a. 484, 487 ; Beall ?'. Darden, 4 Ired. Eq. 76 ' Mc- 
 Donald V. Crockett, 2;McCord Ch. 1.30; Riddlehoover v. Kinard, 1 
 Hill Ch. ;W; Eaves o. Gillespie, 1 Swan, VIS; Ewing -.•. Helm, i 
 Tenn. Ch. 368, 369. 
 
 2 Ante, ? 163. 
 
 3 See Resor, 9 Ind. 347; George v. Spencer. 2 Md. Ch. a59, .360 ; 
 Clark )'. Maguire, 16 Mo. 302 ; post, Wikk's Eqititable Sepakate 
 ESTATK, ii 197-216. 
 
 4 Post, i 194. 
 
 5 Post, Wife's Equity, ?? 190-196. 
 
 6 Bent, 44 Vt. 5J5, SCO • ante, H 42, 105, 127. Consult pw<, i 178.
 
 243 PERSONALTY IX POSSESSION. ?^ 165-166 
 
 'i 165. Husband's estate in wife's personalty nnder stat- 
 utes. — Married women separate proi^erty acts usually 
 destroy all the husband's rights in his wife's person- 
 alty ; 1 but a statute relieving her property from liabil- 
 ity for his debts does not.^ These acts do not destroy 
 any existing rights in personalty in possession,^ for 
 such rights are vested and cannot be destroyed;* and 
 they are construed prosjiectively," so as not to affect 
 existing rights to property not in i^ossession ; ^ but a 
 husband's mere right of reduction to possession is not 
 vested and may be destroyed by express statute/ 
 though the contrary view has in many cases prevailed.^ 
 In some States the husband is given special rights in 
 his wife's choses in action after her death.^ 
 
 1 See Peck v. Hendersholt, 14 Iowa, 40, 44 ; Noble v. Milliken, 74 
 Me. 225, 22S ; 4a Am. Kep. oSl ; post. Wikk's SxATUXOiiV Skpauatk 
 ESTATK, ii 217-243. 
 
 2 Weems, 19 ua. 3.34, 3H. 
 
 3 Farrell v. Patterson, 43 111. 52, 58. See Sharp v. Maxwell, 30 
 Miss. 589 ; Westervelt r. (Jregg, 12 N. Y. 202 ; KiUer v. Hulse,o3 Barb. 
 264 ; Hawkins v. Lee, 22 Tex. 544. 
 
 4 Ante, J 22. 
 
 5 Ante, I 20. 
 
 6 Stearns v. Weathers, 30 Ala. 712, 713 ; KIdcJ v. Montague, 19 Ala. 
 619 ; Andersou, 1 Ala. Sel. fus. 612 ; Farrell v. Patterson, 43 111. 62, 5S. 
 
 7 Henrv i>. Dilley, 25 N.J. L. 302, 304, 305, 307; cases cited ante, 
 I 22, note 21. 
 
 8 Dunn v. Sargeant, 101 Mass. 3.36, 339 ; cases cited emte, i 22, n. 22. 
 
 9 See Md. K. C. 1878, art. 50, ? 92, p. 447 ; Md. Acts, 18S2, ch. 477, 
 p. 7:i8 ; Brown v. Bokee, 53-jMd. 155, 163. 
 
 Articlk TI. — Personalty in Possession. 
 
 i 166. iJefined. 
 
 { 167. Possession by wife. 
 
 { 168. Possession by hnsband. 
 
 J 169. Possession by third person. 
 
 i 170. Husband's rights in. 
 
 § 166. Personalty in possession defined. — In this con- 
 nection the word " possession " api^lies properly only 
 to corporeal proiJerty* — stocks, shares, etc., though
 
 § 1G7 PERSONALTY IX POSSESSION. 244 
 
 actually in hand are not property in jjossession ; - and 
 one's iiersonalty in possession is sucii property as is 
 detained and enjoyed by one as owner or by anotlier 
 for him^ — property held by him in a representative 
 capacity,* or adversely held by another,^ is not his 
 jjroperty in possession. Personalty in possession is 
 perhaps best defined as not choses in action;^ but it 
 may be separately determined what possession by a 
 husband' or by his wife,^ or by a third person,^ gives 
 him her personalty absolutely under the common 
 lavv.io 
 
 1 Fleet V. Perrlns, 3 Q. B. 5S6, Wl ; Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 K. I. 165, 
 173 ; Bouv. Law Diet. " Possession." 
 
 2 Brown v. BoUec, 5:5 Md. 155, 164, 165 ; post, I 173. 
 
 3 Bouv. Law Diet. " Possession." 
 
 4 Price v. .Sessions, 3 How. 624, 6:55 ; pr^st, ? 163. 
 
 5 Thrasher v. Ingham, 32 Ala. 645, 6(i3 ; pmt, \ 169. 
 
 6 8ee fully, po«<,H71. 
 
 7 Pos<,?168. 
 
 8 Po*<, n67. 
 
 9 Post, ? 169. 
 
 10 Post, \ 170 ; ante, \ 16.3. 
 
 \ 167. Possession by wife is possession of husband. — 
 Whatever personalty is in a wife's possession is in the 
 jjossession of her husband, ^ unless .she holds it in a 
 representative capacity,^ or it is protected by some 
 settlement^ or statute.* Thus, chattels in the family 
 liome,^ money in her pocket,^ and articles used by her,' 
 are in her husband's possession ; stealing from her is 
 stealing from him;^ money received by her is his in 
 law.* And this is true, although he lias abandoned 
 heri" — unless this has been absolute and finaP' — and 
 prima facie in spite of married women property acts.''^ 
 
 1 Bell, ^ Ala, 536, 542 ; ante, U n%-\1\. 
 
 2 Farringeon r. Edgerly, 13 Allen, 453, 455. See Standiford ?'. 
 Devol, 21 Inil. 404, 407. 
 
 3 Ante, ? 164. 
 
 4 Ante, 5 lft5. 
 
 5 Topley, 31 Pa. St. 32S, 329 ; ante, I 119.
 
 245 PKHSONALTY IN POSSESSlOjr. I 168 
 
 fi Cox V. ScoU, Biixt. 305, 310 ; ante, I 119. 
 V Stokes !'. Mackeii,C2 Barb. 1-115, 1-19. ' 
 S Com. t'. Williams, "Gray, 337, : 38. 
 9 Cox V. Scott, ;) Caxt. 305, 31 1. 
 
 10 Bell, 37 Ala. o3G, 5-12. 
 
 11 Stewart M. £ D. ? 177. See Coughlln v. Ryan, -17 Mo. 90 ; 
 Uumond v, Magee, 4 Joiiiis. Ch. 318 ; Rees i'. Waters, 9 Watts, 90; 
 ante, i 90. 
 
 12 Winter r. Walter, 37 Pa. St. 155, Idl ; ante, ? 119. 
 
 ^ 168. Tho husband's possession must be as husband. — 
 A wife's personalty in the actual jjossession of her hus- 
 band is not deemed in possession unless held by him 
 as liusband in exercise of his marital rights ; ' choses 
 in liis hands as trustee,'^ executor,* or agent,^ are choses 
 in action,^ just as thougli he Avere a tliird person.* Ex- 
 cept as against creditors,' he may give her any property 
 whether acquired througli iier or not,^ and when he is 
 in possession of tliis or other separate property of hers 
 the possession is hers.* 
 
 1 Wall i\ Tomlinson, Ifi Ves. 413. 410; Scarpellini v. Acheson, 7 
 Q. B. 8f.4, 870 ; B:iker?'. Hall, 12 Ves. J r. 41W ; Price i'. Sessions, 3 How. 
 024, 6.3.5; MuvfieUi?'. Clifton, SStewt. 375; Savage t. Benham, 17 Ala. 
 119; MacUeiii, 28 Ala. 374; Lockhart v. Cameron, 29 Ala. 355, 363; 
 Vanderveer v. Alston, 16 Ala. 494; Lowe v. Cody, 29 Ga. 117, 120; 
 Standiford v. Wevol, 21 Ind. 404, 407; Resor, 9 Jnd. 347; State v. 
 Reigart, 1 Gill, 1. 26, 27 ; 39 Am. Dec. 628 ; Walker, 25 Mo. 367 ; Dunn 
 V. Sargeant, 101 Mass. 336. ;^38 ; Vreeland, 15 N. J. Eq. 512 ; Caswell v. 
 Hill, 4; N. H. 407, 410; Pierson r. Smith, 9 Ohio St. 554, 557; Walden 
 V. Chambers, 7 Ohio St. 30; KUis v. Baldwin, 1 Watts & S. 2.5;, 2.i<j ; 
 Timbers v. Katz, 6 Watts & S. 2;)0, 298 ; Hind. 5 Whart. 138; 34 Am. 
 Dec. M2 ; Mover, 77 Pa. St. 482, 485 ; Johnston, 31 Pa. St. 450, 453, 454 ; 
 Gocheiiaur, 23 Pa. St. 460, 463; Mr-Campbell, 2 Lea, 061,063; Cox v. 
 Scott, 9 Baxt. "05, 312 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 376, 392 ; Perry v. Wheelock, 4U 
 Vt. 63,67 ; post, U 169, 174, 178. 
 
 2 Wall V. Tomlinson, 16 Ves. 413, 410 ; Terrell v. Green, 11 Ala. 207, 
 216 ; Lowe v. Codv, 2:i Cla. 117, 120 ; State v. Reigart. 1 Gill, 1, 26 ; Dunn 
 V. Sargeant, 101 Mass. 336, 3;» ; Moyer, 77 Pa. St. 482, 485. 
 
 3 Price V. Sessions, 3 How. 624, 635 ; Walker, 25 Mo. 367. 
 
 4 Pierson v. Smith, Ohio St. 554, .557. 
 
 5 Post, \ 172. 
 
 6 Post, ? 169. Sometimes, therefore, it is In his possession, a7id 
 sometimes not, since the possession of her agent is her husband's 
 possession : Post, \ 169. 
 
 7 Ante, \\ 113-118, 127. 
 
 8 Lockhart v. Cameron, 29 Ala. .3.j5, 363; Fletcher v. Updike, 3 
 Hnn, 3.50 ; Wesco, 52 Pa. St. 195 ; ante, \ 127. 
 
 9 ^)i?e, S? 119, 120.
 
 § 169 PERSONALTY IN POSSESSION. 246 
 
 \ 169. Possession ot third person for husband or wife is 
 possession of husband. — Personalty belonging to the wife 
 in the possession of her agent,^ or bailee,- or trustee ^ 
 (for the husband's rights attach to equitable property*), 
 or guardian,^ or tenant in common,^ or any one not 
 holding adversely,' is constructively in the possession 
 of her husband • but not property held adversely,^ or 
 held by one who stands simply in relation of debtor 
 to the wife,* or who holds as trustee, administrator, etc., 
 property of some estate in which she has an interest,'" 
 her legacies, distributive shares, etc., being choses in 
 action}'^ Tlie estate must be settled up,'^ or her interest 
 definitely determined and set off,'' before an executor 
 or trustee ceases to hold for his estate and holds for 
 her ; " and this is true when her husband is such ex- 
 ecutor or trustee, and he holds as husband onij' when 
 his representative duties have ceased.'' There is little 
 difficulty in tlie application of these rules to chattels, '^ 
 but a serious question whether one who liolds money 
 for her is not simply her creditor." It seems settled 
 that money collected by lier agent inures at once to the 
 benefit of her husband ; '^ but while he may check on 
 her money in bank,'^ money with a banker is money 
 lent to him, and is a chose in action,'^'* and any part of it 
 left standing in her name when coverture ceases remains 
 hers.^ 
 
 1 Turton,6Md.375, 381; inrm, n. 18. 
 
 2 MasTPo 1'. Toland, 8 Port. 3fi, 37 ; fiwynn v. H.amllton, 2T Ala. 23."?, 
 237 ; Armstrong t'. Simontoii, 2 Jlurph. :i">l, .■?52 ; Whitaker, 1 Dev. 310, 
 311 ; Griiiibery v. Mhooii, 1 l)ev. -Joe, 4.i8 ; Pettijohii i'. Beasley, -4 Dev. 
 512. 
 
 3 Pope V. Tucker, 23 r?a. 484, 487 ; Miller v. Bingham, 1 Ired. Eq. 
 423; 36 Am. Dec. 58 ; Murphy v. Grice, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 199. 
 
 4 Ante, i 1&4. 
 
 5 .Sallie v. Arnold, 32 Mo. .'532, .MO. See Chambers )'. Perrv, 17 Ala. 
 726, 7:» ; McDaniel ?'. Whitman, IK Ala. ;}43 ; Nicholson v. WiJborn, 13 
 Ga.417; Wood »>. Henderson, 3 Miss. 8<13; Stephens v. Doak, 2 Ired. 
 Eq. 348; Davis, 60 Pa. St. 118, 122; Godbold v. Bass, 12 Rich. 202; 
 Daniel, 2 Rich. Eq. 115 ; 44 Am. Den. 244 , Ryan v. Bull, 3 Strob. Eq. 
 S6 ; Guerrant v. Hocker, 7 Leigh, 366,
 
 2i7 PKKSOXALTY IN POSSESSION. § 170 
 
 6 Walker i\ Fenner, 28 Ala. 307, 373 ; Hopper v. McWhorter, 13 
 Ala. 229, 231; Chambers v. Perry, 17 Ala. 72(i, 730; Hyde v. istone, 9 
 Coweu, 230, 232 ; Cotfee v. Kelley, Busb. Kq. 4rf, 50 ; Ordinary v. Geiger, 
 1 Brev. 484, 485. 
 
 7 Fleet v. Perrlns, 4 Q. B. 500, 508 ; Walker, 41 Ala. 353, 357 ; 
 Hawkiiis v. Providence, 119 Mass. 596, 599; 20 Am. Dec. 353; Brown 
 V. I-^tz, 13 N. H. 283, 286 ; Coffee v. Kelley, Busb. Eq. 48, 50 ; Sausev r. 
 Gardner, 1 Hill (S. C.) 191 ; Wallace v. Burden, 17 Tex. 467 ; infra, n. 8. 
 
 8 Fleet v. Perrins, 3 Q. B. 5.36, 542 ; Thrasher v. Ingham, 32 Ala. friS, 
 60S ; Broome v. King, 10 Ala. 819 ; Fightmaster v. Beasley, 1 Marsh. 
 J. J. 608; Armstrong v. Simonton, 2 Murph. 351, .i52 ; supra, n. 7. 
 Cmtrn, Pope v. Tucker, 23 Ga. 487 ; Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267, 
 270 ; Hooper v. Howell, 50 Ga. 165, 169. 
 
 9 Because a debt is of course a chose in action : Post, § 171. 
 
 10 Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196, 212 ; SmUie, 22 P;i. .St. 1.30, 
 lii ; post, i 172. 
 
 11 Hay ward, 20 Pick. 517, 519-530 ; post, R 173, 174. 
 
 12 Harper v. Archer, 8 Smedes & M. 2-29, 232; 43 Am. Dec. 472 ; 
 Schuyler r. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196, 212 ; Parks v. Cushman, 9 Vt. 
 320, 325 ; post, i 174. 
 
 13 Moss V. Ashbrooks, 20 Ark. 128, 134, 135 ; Carley, 22 Ga. 178, 183; 
 Hooper i'. Howell, 52 Ga. 315. .323 ; 50 Ga. 165, 168 ; Abington v. Travis, 
 15 Mo. 240, 244 ; Swanson, 2 Swan, 446, 460. 
 
 14 See cases cited jMst, i 172. 
 
 15 Vanderveer v. Alston, 16 Ala. 494 ; Walker, 25 Mo. 367 ; Mardree, 
 9 Ired. 295, 305; Ellis v. Bal.lwia. 1 Watts & S. 253, 256; Walden r. 
 Chambers, 8 Ohio &t. 30 ; ante, i 168. 
 
 16 See McNeill v. Arnold, 17 Ark. lU, 171 ; Sadler v. Bean, 4 Eng. 
 202 ; Abington v. Travis, 15 Mo. 240, 244 ; cases cited siqyra. 
 
 17 Infra, n. 20. 
 
 18 Dardier t'. Chapman, Law R. 11 Ch. D. 442; Crosby v. Otis, 32 
 Me. 256, 259 ; Turton, 6 Md. 375, 381. 
 
 19 Clark V. Bank, 47 Mo. 17, 19. 
 
 20 Pott t'. Clegg, 11 Jur. 283, 290 ; Carr, 1 Mer. 541, 543 ; HUl v. 
 Foley, 1 PhiU. (N. C; 399, 404. 
 
 21 Scrutton v. Patillo, Law R. 19 Eq. 369, 373 ; Fleet v. Porrins, 4 
 Q. B. 500, .508 ; Lloyd v. Pughe, Law li. 14 Eq. 241 ; Law R. 8 Ch. 88 ; 
 ante, i 128 ; post, \ 176. 
 
 I 170. Husband's rights in wife's personalty in posses- 
 sion. — All the wife's personalty in posses-sion^ at the 
 time of the marriage,- or thereafter coming into posses- 
 sion/ vests in her husband absolutely on the marriage, 
 or as soon as it is acquired.* Thus, he owns absolutely 
 money in her possession at the time of her marriage,^ 
 or personalty bought by her ,8 given lier J collected bj' 
 her,^ or money arising from the sale of her lands ;9 
 and i:i her place he is tenant in common ^o or life ten-
 
 § 170 PEESONALTY IX POSSESSION. 24S 
 
 ant." Such i^roperty goes to his administrator ; '^ he 
 sues alone for an injury to it,'^ and is sued alone for 
 damage done by it ; '^ if she attemi^ts to dispose of it he 
 may recover it back ; '* if he forfeits her life interest the 
 forfeiture inures to the benefit of the remainderman ; '^ 
 a gift of such property to her stands on th«.' same foot- 
 ing as one of projjerty which she never owned,'^ 
 wliether as between them ^^ or as against creditors ;^3 
 and such proi>erty is liable for his debts.™ He does 
 not, however, take as purchaser,^! or any greater inter- 
 est than slie liad."-'- 
 
 1 Defined, ante, «? 16&-16!). 
 
 ? Cram v. Uiidlej', 28 N. H. 537, 541 ; cases infra, n. 4. 
 
 3 Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 403, -lOK ; cases infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 Agar v. Blethvii, 1 Tyrw. & G. 160 ; Carre v. Brice,7 Mees. & W". 
 183 ; Barrack v. WcCulloch, 3 Kay & J. 110; Lampliir c. Creed, 8 Ves. 
 SIW, 600 ; Kcsncr r. Iri'^i,', !I8 U. 8. 50. 54 ; Mobley v. Leopliart, 47 Ala. 
 257, '261; Colbert r. lianiol,32 Ala. 314, 327 ; Nelson v. Goree, 34 Ala. 
 865 ; Hopper v. McWliorter, 18 .A.la. 229 , Jamison v. May, 13 Ark. 600; 
 McjVeill ,}. Arnold, 17 Ark. 154, 171 ; Morgan v. Thames, 14 Conn. 1)9. 
 103 ; Pope V. Tucker, 23 Ga. 484, 487 ; FarreU v. Patterson, 43 Dl. 52, 58 ; 
 Mahoney v. Bland, 14 lud. I7fi ; Hawkins v. Craig, 6 Mon. 254, 257; 
 Quigley V. Muse, 15 La. An. 107 ; Carloton v. Lovejoy, 54 Me. 445 ; 
 Jordan, 52 Mv. 320 ; Crosby v. Otis, 32 Mp. 256, 25!) ; Sabel v. Slingluff, 
 52 Md. 132, 135 ; I'iumnier v. Jurman, 44 Md. 632, 637 ; Hawkins v. Prov- 
 idence, 111) Mass. o:)fi, 5J!) ; 20 Am. Rep. 353 ; Legg, 8 Mass. !i9, 101 ; Hop- 
 kins V. Carev, 23 Miss. 54, 58 ; Clarlc i'. Bank, 47 Mo. 17, 10 ; Walker, 24 
 Mo. 367 ; Abington v. Travis, 15 ISIo. 240. 244 ; Cram r. Dudley, 28 N. H. 
 537, 541 ; Hall v. Young, 37 N. H. 135, 144 ; Skillman, 13 N. J. Eq. 40.1. 
 406 ; Fletcher v. Updike, 3 Hun, 350; Stokes r. Macken, 62 Barb. 1-15. 
 14!); Black t\ Justice, 86 N. C. 504, 511; Armstrong i>. Simonton, 2 
 Murph. a51, 352 ; Walden v. Chambers, 7 Ohio -St. 30 ; Moyer, 77 Pa. .St. 
 482,485; Davis, 60 Pa. St. 118. 122; Ewing r. Helm, 2 Tenn. Ch. 3(iS, 
 30!) ; Cox V. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305, 313 ; Wallace v. Burden. 19 Tex. 467 ; 
 Rawlings v. Bounds, 27 Vt. 17; Bent, 44 VU 555, 560; Barrou, 24 Vt. 
 376, 392 ; ante, § 163. 
 
 5 Cox V. Scott, 9 Baxt. 3a5, 310 ; ante, i 167. 
 
 6 Lamphir v. Creed, 8 Ves. 509, 600. 
 
 7 Ewing V. Helm, 2 Tenn. Ch. 368, 369. See Bnrns v. Hudson, 1 
 Ala. Sel. Cas. 321 ; Frierson, 21 Ala. 54); Campbell v. Galbreath, 12 
 Bush, 459, 4(M ; Polk v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467. 
 
 8 Tnrton, 6 Md. 375, 381 ; Cox v. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305, 311. 
 
 9 Kesner r. Trigg, 98 V. S. 50, W ; Crosby v. Otis, 32 Me. 256, 2.5!) ; 
 Sabel 1'. SlingluIT, 52 Jld. 132, 135; Plummer .-. Jarman, 44 Jld. 632, 
 637 ; Hackott v. Shuford, 86 N. C. 144, 149 ; Black v. Justice, 86 N. C. 
 504, 511 ; Cox V. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305, 312 ; ante, i 136. 
 
 10 Hopper v. McWhorter, 18 Ala. 229, 231 ; cases ante, J 169, n. 6.
 
 249 CHOSES IN ACTION. § 17a 
 
 11 Colbert v. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314, 327 ; Smith v. Atwood, 14 Ga. 402 ; 
 lJurnall r. Artams, 13 JNIon. B. 273 ; Robinson v. Rice, 2fl Mo. 229, 2:i4 ; 
 Warner, :« Miss. 547, 54!) ; Stocl<ton v. Martin, 2 Bay, 471 ; Green v. 
 GoodaU, 1 Colli. 4(M ; Deadrieh v. Armour, 10 Humpli. 5S3. 
 
 12 Colbert )'. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314, 327 ; Standiford v. Devol, 21 Ind. 
 404, 407 ; ilawlcins v. Craig, 6 Mon. 254, 257; Crosby v. Otis, 32 Me. 256, 
 25a ; Stewart M. & D. ^ 460. 
 
 13 Rawlings v. Bounds, 27 Vt. 17. 
 
 14 Cram «i. Dudley, 28 N. 11. 5:!7, 511. 
 
 15 Casey r. Wi-^^in, S Gray, 231. 
 
 16 Warner, 33 Mlss. 547, 54X 
 
 17 Consult ante, I 127. 
 
 18 See Lockhart v. Cameron, 23 Ala. 355 ; W'esco, 52 Pa. St. 195 ; 
 Bent, 44 Vt. 555, SCO. 
 
 19 SeeFletcberv. Updike, 3 Hun, .350. 
 
 20 Morgan v. Thames, 14 Conn. 09, ICJ. 
 
 21 Willis V. Snelling, 6 Rich. 280, 2S4. 
 
 22 Robinson v. Rice, 20 Mo. 229. 1?A. 
 
 Article III. — Choses ln Actioit. 
 
 I m. Defined. 
 
 ( I 172. Chattels out of possession. 
 
 ? 173. Bonds, stock, notes, etc. 
 
 i 174. Legacies, distributive shares, etc. 
 
 § 175. Remainders, possibilities, etc. 
 
 I 176. Husband's rights in. 
 
 ? 171. Cho393 in action defined. — The word "chose- 
 In-aetion" has never been satisfactorily defined.^ It 
 means primarily "a right to be asserted in an action at 
 law,"^ *'a right to recover something in an action,"^ 
 but it may also be an equitable right,* and the right to 
 sue is not necessarily involved, for United States bonds 
 are choses in action.^ It includes all rights to one's 
 ascertained chattels (corporeal personalty) out of one's 
 actual or constructive possession,* and all one's incor- 
 poreal personalty in hand or not,^ all debts or evidence 
 of indebtedness,^ and all unascertained interests.^ To 
 illustrate : A wife's right to a chattel, wrongfully taken 
 from her before marriage, is a chose in action ; i" so is 
 her interest in one half of a lot of slaves before they
 
 g 172 CHOSES IN ACTION. 250 
 
 are divided ;" so is her "thirds " in a former husband's 
 estate before it is settled up ; ^^ so is her interest in a 
 lottery prize before she has received it,^^ or in the pro- 
 ceeds of realty sold in partition proceedings," or in 
 realty left to a trustee to be sold and distributed to 
 her;^ so are her bonds, stocks, notes, etc.,*^ her lega- 
 cies, etc.,^^ her remainders, etc. ; '^ and so is money in 
 her name in bank.'* Tlie income of a chose in action 
 is a chose in action.™ 
 
 1 See Bnshnoll v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387 ; Hill v. Winne, i Biss. 275 ; 
 Magee v. Toland, 8 Port. 40 ; Pitts v. Curtis, 4 Ala. .'J50 ; Devlne v. 
 Harvey, 7 Mon. 443 ; Haskell v. Blair, 3 Cush. 3*4 ; Zollar ?•. Jaiivrin, 
 49 N. H. 11-5 ; 6 Am. Rep. 467 ; Gillett r. Fairohild, 4 Denio, SO , Bamsey 
 V. Gould, .S7 Barb. 408 ; People r. Troja, 19 Wend. 7.5 ; Dial v. Gary, 14 
 S. C. .WS; Gibson, 43 Wis. 23; 28 Am. Rep. 527; Noonan v. Orton, 34 
 Wis. 25U ; 17 Am. Rep. 441 ; and eases cited in this article. 
 
 2 Fleet v. Perrins, Law R. 4 Q. B. 500, 50S ; Law E. 3 Q. B. 5.36, 512. 
 
 3 Fleet v. Perrins, Law R. 4 Q. B. 500, .508. 
 
 4 Oswald II. Hoover, 43 I«d. .360, 369 ; Gillis v. McCoy, 4 Dev. 172, 179. 
 
 5 Brown v. Bokee, 53 5td. 1.55, 164. See Dundns r. Dntens, 1 Ves. 
 Jr. 106 ; Seawen v. Blunt, 7 Ves. 294 ; Wildman, 9 Ves. 174 ; Hutchlna 
 V. State, 12 Met. 421. 
 
 6 Seeon?e, ??16fi-170. 
 
 7 Arnold r. Buggies, 1 R. I. 165, 173 ; post, U 17^175. 
 
 8 Brown v. Bokee, 53 JId. 155, 164 ; liosl, | 173. 
 
 9 Hooper v. Howell, 52 Ga. 315, 323 ; 50 Ga. 165, IGS ; cases ante, J 169, 
 n. 13 ; post, J 174. 
 
 10 Armstrong %\ Simonton, 2 Murph. 3.51, .352. 
 
 11 5I0SS r. Ashbrooks, 20 Ark. 12S, IM, 135 ; Corley, 22 Ga. 178, 183; 
 Swanson, 2 Swan, 446, 460. 
 
 12 Harper v. Archer, 8 Smedes <fc M. 229, 232 ; 43 Am. Dec. 472. 
 
 13 Salter v. Williams, 10 Ga. 186, 189. 
 
 14 Oswald V. Hoover, 43 Md. 360, 369. 
 
 15 Smille, 22 Pa. St. 130, 133 ; post, I 174. 
 
 16 Post, ? 17.3. , 
 
 17 Post, I 174. 
 
 18 Post, i '75. 
 
 19 Scrutton c. PatUlo, Law R. 19 Eq. 369, 373 ; aiite, J 169. 
 
 20 Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, 11 Jur. 644, 645. 
 
 § 172. Chattels out of possession as choses in action. — 
 Chattels out of tlie actual or constru<;tive possession ol 
 the husband or wife^ — that is to say, ciiattels held
 
 251 CHOSES IX ACTION. '^ 173 
 
 adversely by a third person,"^ are choses in action.^ 
 Thus, the wife's interest in a chattel wrongfully 
 taken from her is merelj'^ a chose in action,* but it be- 
 comes a chattel in possession if replevied \>j the hus- 
 band.^ A contrary view has sometimes prevailed, and 
 any chattel belonging to the Avife, whether held by 
 another adversely or not, has been treated as a chose in 
 possession,* but this view is not the better one." How 
 far money can be treated as a chattel seems doubtful :* 
 on the one hand, it may be said that any one who holds 
 another's money is a debtor to tliat other,^ and every 
 debt is a chose in action ; ^^ on the other, possession of 
 one's agent is one's own possession," and money col- 
 lected by the wife's agent has always been treated as in 
 the possession of her husband.^^ 
 
 1 Ante, \l 167-169. 
 
 2 Ante, \ 169. 
 
 3 Thra-sher r. Ijigham, 32 Ala. W5,.e6S ; ante, \ 169. 
 
 4 Armstrong v. Simonton, 2 Murph. 351, 352. 
 
 5 McNeill v. Arnold, 17 Ark. 154, 171. 
 
 6 Pope V. Tupkpr, 23 Ga, •)S4, 487 ; Wellborn t>. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267, 
 270 ; liooper v. Howell, .W Ga, 165, 169. But see Hooper v. Howell, 52 
 Ga. 315, ;{23. 
 
 7 1 Bish. M. W. \ 71 ; ante, \ 169. 
 
 8 Ante, \ 169. 
 
 9 A debtor is one " who may he constrained to pay what he 
 owes " : Bouv. Law Diet. " debtor " ; and any one who has another's 
 money may be sued for money "had and received." The wife's 
 banker is her debtor : Ante, J 169. 
 
 10 Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 155, 164 ; ante, \ 17L 
 
 11 Gwynn v. Hamilton, 29 Ala. 2.33, 2.37. 
 
 12 Turton, 6 Md. 375, 3S1. .See Dardier v. Chapman, Law R. 11 
 Ch. D. 442 ; Crosby v. Otis, 32 Me. 256, 259. 
 
 \ 173. Bonds, shares of stock, promissory notes, etc., as 
 choses in action. — Bonds,' shares of stock, ^ promissory 
 notes,2 and other such incorporeal property,* or evi- 
 dences of indebtedness,^ though in possession,* are 
 choses in action. The fact that they are negotiable 
 makes no difference,' though a contrary view was for-
 
 g 174 CHOSES IN ACTION. 252 
 
 merly lield;» but if tliuy pass as money without 
 indorsement they are treated as money.* 
 
 1 Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 155, 164. See Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. 
 Jr. 19(i; Scawen r. Blunt, 7 Ves. 2i)4 ; Wildman, i) Ves. 17-1 ; Hutchins 
 V. State, 12 Met. 421 ; aiaymaker v. Bank, 10 Pa. St. 373, 376. 
 
 2 Arnold v. Buggies, 1 R. I. 165, 178. See Nicholson v. Drury, 
 Law K. 7 Ch. Div. 4i, o5; Blount v. Bestland, 5 Ves. Jr. 515 ; Gounard 
 V. Eslava, 20 Ala. 732 ; Winslow v. Crocker, 17 Me. 29, 31 ; Brown i . 
 Bokee, 53 Md. l.>5. 164 ; Phelps, 20 Pick. 556, 5(iO; Stanwood, 17 Mass. 
 57 ; lieciprocity Bank, 22 N. Y. 9, 
 
 3 Dixon, 18 Ohio, '13, 11.5. See Richards, 2 Barn. & Ado' 447; 
 Gaters v. Madelev, 6 Mees. & W. 427 ; i.inderinan i: Talley, 1 Houst, 
 523; Turpin r. Thompson, 2 Met. I Kv.) 420; Kuss i-. George, 45 N. H. 
 467, 46U ; Wilder v. Aldrich, 2 R. I. 618. 
 
 4 See Hore v. Becher, 12 Sim. 405, 467 ; cases cited supra. 
 
 5 See Scrutton v. Patillo, Law R. 19 Eq. 30:), 373 ; cases cited siqira. 
 
 6 Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. l.'>5, 167, 103. 
 
 7 Russ I'. George, 43 N. H. 4G7, 469 ; cases cited snpra, n. 3. 
 
 8 See Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East, 432 ; McNeilage v. Holloway, 1 
 Barn. '& Aid. 213. 
 
 9 See Brown v. Bokee, ."iS Md. 1.55. lf.^ i64, 165. And see Lender- 
 man t'. Talley, 1 Houst. 523 ; Russ r jeorge, 45 N. H. 467 ; Holmes, 
 28 Vt. 765. As to money, see ante, iz 166, 169, 172. 
 
 § 174. Legacies, distributive shares, etc., as Glioses in 
 action. — Legacies ^ and distributive shares'^ until deliv- 
 ery are choses in action.* Until the estate is settled 
 up the administrator holds for the estate and ad- 
 versely to the legatees and dLsfributees,* and all prop- 
 erty adversely held is chose in action ; ^ but after it is 
 settled up he may hold simply as agent for the parties 
 entitled, that is to say, instead of a delivery to such 
 parties, tlipre may be a delivery from himself as ad- 
 ministrator to liimself individually," and such parties 
 may be in pcssession through him as agent or bailee.^ 
 Ordinarilj% actual possession of a specific legacy, how- 
 ever acquired, makes it property in possession.^ The 
 same principles are applicable to a wife's interests 
 in property to be sold and divided,* or simply to be 
 divided.!'' 
 
 1 Walker, 41 Ala. 353, XiS ; Wells v. Tyler, 2b N. H. aiO, 312 ; inf7-a, 
 n. 3.
 
 253 CHOSES IN ACTIOX. § 175 
 
 2 Hayward, 20 Pick. 517, 519-530 ; infra, n. 3. 
 
 3 Carr v. Taylor, 10 Ves. Jr. 574, n7S ; Bibb v. McKinlev, 9 Port. 636 ; 
 Machem, 28 Ala. 374 ; Walker, 41 Ala. 3.53, 358 ; Stewart. 31 Ala. 207, 
 216 ; Jacks v. Aflair, 31 Ark. 616 ; Sadler v. Bean, 9 Ark. 202 ; Cantrell, 
 16 Ark. 1.54 ; Wiggins v. Blonnt. 33 Ga. 409 ; Hooper v. Howell, .50 Ga. 
 165 ; Chappell v. Causev, 11 Ga. 25 ; Bell. 1 Ga. 637 ; ilcCaulev v. Rodes, 
 7 Mon. B. 462; Willis v. Roberts, 48 Me. 2.57; Turton, 6 Md. 37.5. 382; 
 Norris v. Lantz, 18 Md. 2G0 ; Havward, 20 Pick. 517, 519 ; Foster v. 
 Fifleld, 20 Pick. 67, 70 ; Com. v. Manbv, 12 Pick. 173, 175 ; Lowrv i-. 
 Houston, 4 Miss. 394 ; Wade v. Grimes. 8 Miss. 425 ; Walker, 24 Mo. 
 367; Gillet %i. Camp, 19 Mo. 404 ; Polk v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467; Abington 
 %K Travis, 15 Mo. 240, 244 ; Leakey v. Maupin, 10 :Mo. 36S ; 47 Am. Dec. 
 120 ; Wells V. Tyler, 25 N. H. 340, ai2 ; Wheeler ?■. Moore, 13 N. H. 478 ; 
 Marston v. Carter, 12 N. H. 1.59 ; Schuvler v. Hovle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196, 
 212 ; Shirley, 9 Paige, 363 ; Hardie v. Cotton, 1 Ir'ed. Eq. 61, a5 ; Poin- 
 dexteriT. Blackburn, 1 Ired. Eq. 286,288 ; Eevel,2Dev. & B. 272 , Curry 
 V. Fulkinson, 14 Ohio, 100; Skinner, 5 Pa. St' 262, 263 ; Ellis )'. Bald- 
 win, 1 Watts & S. 2.53 ; Stewart, 3 Watts & S. 476 ; Dennison ?'. Nigh, 
 
 2 Watts, 90 ; Kirtzinger, 2 Ashm. 4.55; Lewis v. Price, 3 Rich. Eq. 
 172; Hill, 1 Strob. Eq. 1 ; Dawson, 2 Strob. Eq. 34 ; Harris v. T:ivlor. 
 
 3 .Sneed, .536, .540 ; Hall v. McLain. 11 Humph. 425 ; Prohati- r. Xil(^s. 32 
 Vt. 775, 778 ; Short v. Moore, 10 Vt. 6G4 ; Parks v. Cushman, 9 Vt. 320. 
 325. 
 
 4 .Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196, 212 ; ante, § 169. 
 
 5 Ante, R 169, 172. 
 
 6 See Mardree, 9 Ired. 295, 305 ; Parks v. Cushman, 9 Vt. 320, 325. 
 
 7 Ante, ? 169. 
 
 8 Sadler v. Bean, 4 Eng. 202 ; Abington v. Travis, 15 Mo. 240, 244. 
 
 9 Smilie, 22 Pa. St. 1.30, 133. 
 
 10 Moss V. Ashbrooks, 20 Ark. 128, 134, 1.35; Corley, 22 Ga. 178, 183 ; 
 Swanson, 2 Swan, 446, 460. 
 
 § 175. Bemainders, possibilities, etc., as choses in action. 
 — ^^ Rights of future enjoyment, whethei* vested ^ or con- 
 tinoent,^ the various kinds of remainders, reversions, 
 etc., are at most choses in action.^ It is said tliat a 
 husband has no rights at all in property which he can- 
 not get possession of during coverture, without being a 
 trespasser,* for how can there be a right of action until 
 there is a present right of enjoyment?^ So that even 
 when the husband was life tenant and his wife remain- 
 der-man, his right to sell^ the whole property was 
 denied.'' But there are cases recognizing the same 
 rights in future as in present interests.^ 
 
 1 Caplinger v. Sullivan, 2 Humph. 548, 549 ; 37 Am. Dec. 575 ; infra. 
 n. 3. 
 
 2 Price v. Sessions, 3 How. 624, 635 ; Taylor v. Wilson, 8 Rich. 28.5, 
 Z86. 
 
 H. & W. -22.
 
 } 176 CHOSES IN ACTION. 254 
 
 3 Box, 6 I. R. Eq. 174, 195 ; Gibson v. Land, 27 Ala. 117 ; Cox v. 
 Morrow, 14 Ark. 603, 620; Lynn v. Bradley, 1 Met. (Ky.) 2.32, 235; 
 Ewins? )'. Handley, 4 Lift. 346, 3.56 ; Banks v. Marksberry, 3 Litt. 275, 
 284 ; Ring v. BaldVidge, 7 Hon. B. 535 ; Holloway v. Conner, 3 M.on. B. 
 395 ; Turner v. Davis, 1 Mon. B. 151, 152 : Houck v. CampUn, 25 Mo. 
 378, .379 ; Hardie v. Cotton, 1 Ired. Eq. 61, 65 ; Howell, 3 Ired. Eq. 528 ; 
 47 Am. Dec. 335; McBride v. Choate, 2 Ired. Eq. 610, 613; Larey v. 
 Beagley, 9 Rich. Eq. 119, 122 ; Duke v. Palmer, 10 Rich. Eq. 380 ; Co- 
 been V. Gordon, 1 Hill Ch. .51 ; Caplinger v. Sullivan. 2 Humph. 548, 
 549; 37 Am. Dec. 575 ; Buggi). Franklin, 4 Sneed, 129 ; Tune v. Cooper, 
 4 Sneed, 296; Crittenden v. Tosey, 1 Head, 311 ; Hayes v. Ewell, 4 
 Gratt. 11, 15 ; Henrv r. Graves, 16 Gratt. 244 ; Street r. Pinsley, 2 Pat. 
 & H. 612 ; Dade v. Al -xander, 1 Wash.(Va.) 30 ; Upshaw, 2 Hen. & M. 
 381 ; 3 Am. Dec. 632. These are nearly all slave cases. 
 
 4 Hair v. Avery, 28 Ala. 267. 
 
 5 See Lynn v. BratHey* 1 Met. (Ky.) 2.32, 235. 
 
 6 See post, ? 181. 
 
 7 Crittenden v. Tosey, 1 Head, 311. 
 
 8 Walker, 41 Ala. .353, 3.57 ; Walker v. Fenner, 28 Ala. 367, 373 ; Pitts 
 V. Curtis, 4 Ala. 3.50, .3.51 ; Smilie, 22 Pa. St. i:«), 1.33 ; Webb, 21 Pa. .St. 
 248, 260 ; Woelper, 1 Pa, St. 71 ; 2^ost, Assignment, § 181. 
 
 g 176. Husband's rights in wife's choses in action. — The 
 husband's only right over his wife's choses in action is 
 to reduce them to pos.session ; ^ when so reduced they 
 are personalty in possession, and vest absolutely in 
 him.'' This right to reduce is said to be a personal one,' 
 and must be exercised during coverture ; * it ceases 
 with the death of either party,* or with absolute di- 
 vorce.^ Ignoring the case of divorce, in which case 
 the chose in action simply remains the wife's discharged 
 of the husband's power to reduce,' and that of the death 
 of the wife, in which case it goes to her representative,* 
 who at common law was always her husband,' it is 
 usually said that choses in action differ from choses in 
 possession in tliat the former survive to the wife.'" 
 More correctly, if a husband dies before reducing to 
 possession his wife's choses in action, antenuptial*' or 
 postnuptial,'^ they survive to her in her own right.'' 
 Therefore a husband cannot dispose of them by will,'' 
 and his right to assign,'* release,'^ exchange them," 
 etc., exists only as a part of his right to reduce them to 
 possession.'^ Reduction to possession tlius remains to
 
 255 CHOSES IN ACTIOX. § 176 
 
 be considered.'^ Though choses in action are " prop- 
 erty," ^o they are not so far the husband's property as 
 to pass under an assignment of "all liis personal prop- 
 erty," 21 or probably that his rights in them can be 
 seized by his creditors,'^'-' or cannot be destroyed by 
 statute.^ While his wife's shares are unreduced, the 
 husband is not liable as a member of the company 
 wliich issued them.''* 
 
 1 Post, M 177-183. 
 
 2 Cox V. Scott, 7 Baxt. 305, 310 ; ante, i 170. 
 
 ^ Andover v. Merrimack. 37 N. H. 4:J7, 444. Compare Ware, 23 
 Gratt. 670, 673. See 2^ost, I 177. 
 
 4 Rice V. McReynolds, 8 Lea, 36, 40. 
 
 5 Buchingham v. Carter, 2 Disn. 41, 43, 44. 
 
 6 Legg, 8 Mass. 99, 101 ; Kirtzinger, 2 Ashm. 455, 463 ; Stewart M. 
 & f). J 445. Divorce a mensa lias no effect: Ames v. Chew, 5 Met. 320, 
 324 ; Lewis v. Lee, 3 Barn. & C. 2J1 ; Stewart M. & D. J 445. 
 
 7 Supra, n. 6. 
 
 8 O'Connor v. Harris, 81 N. C. 279, 282 ; Buchingham v. Carter, 2 
 Disn. 41, 43 ; Holmes, 28 Vt. 765, 768 ; Stewart M. & D. § 465. 
 
 9 Stewart M. & D. ? 465. 
 
 10 Chappelle v. OIney, 1 Sawy. 401, 409 ; Rice v. McRevnolds,8 Lea, 
 39, 40 ; Ware, 28 Gratt. 670, 672 ; Stewart M. & D. JJ 460, 465. 
 H Hay ward, 30 Pick. 517, 522 ; infra, n. 13. 
 
 12 Boozer v. Addison, 2 Rich. Eq. 273, 279 ; 46 Am. Dec. 43 ; infra, 
 n. 13. 
 
 13 Coffin, 2 P. Wms. 497 ; Howell v. Maine, 3 Lev. 403 ; Scawen %>. 
 Blunt, 7 Ves. 294 ; Fleet v. Perrins, Law K. 3 Q. B. 536, 511 ; 4 Q. B. 500 ; 
 Mc Daniel v. Whitman, 16 Ala. 343 ; Puryear, 12 Ala. 13 ; Lenderman, 
 1 Houst. 523, 524 ; Chappell v. Causey, 11 Ga. 25; Miller. 1 Marsh. J. J. 
 169 ; Brown v. Latigford, 3 Bibb. 497 ; Pike v. Collins,' 33 Me. 3S, 4! ; 
 Bond V. Conway, 11 Md. 512 ; Hayward, 20 Pick. 517, 522 ; Burleigh, 22 
 N. H. 118 ; Snowhill, 2 N. J. Eq. 30 ; Orphan v Strain, 2 Bradf. 34, 41 ; 
 Revel, 2 Dev. & B. 272 ; Curry v. Fulkinsoii, 14 Ohio, 100 ; Needles, 7 
 Ohio St. 432; Tritt v. Colwell, 31 I'a. St. 22S ; Lodge r. Hamilton, 2 
 Serg. <fe R. 491, 493 ; Boozer v. Addisi.n, 2 Uic-h. Eq. 273, 279 ; 46 Am. 
 Dec. 43 ; Richardson v. Daggett, 4 Vt. ::.'«;, '.'Ai ; supra, n. 10. 
 
 14 Grebill, 87 Pa. St. 105, 103 ; Upshaw, 2 Hen. & M. 3S1 ; 3 Ara. Doc. 
 0^2. 
 
 15 Post, ? 181. 
 
 16 Post, I 182. 
 
 17 Post, ? 180. 
 
 18 See Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 433, 433 ; Dold v. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 93, 
 110 ; post, U 177-183. 
 
 19 Post, ?? 177-183. 
 
 20 Barton, 32 Md. 212, 224, 225. Discussed post, U 229, 230.
 
 I 177 KEDUCTIOX TO POSSESSION. 256 
 
 21 Skinner, o Pa. St.. T^l, 1C>X See Sherrington v. Yates, 12 Mees. & 
 W. 855, 864 ; Mitford, 9 Ves. 87. 
 
 22 This has been differently decided in different States : I'ost, § 177. 
 
 23 Ante, ?? 22, 165. 
 
 2i Dodgson v. Bell, 3 Eiig. L. & Eq. 542, &46. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 — Reductiox to Possession. 
 
 ? n: 
 
 How far a personal right. 
 
 ? ITS. 
 
 The intention and the act. 
 
 i 170. 
 
 Getting possession or receiving payraent. 
 
 { ISO. 
 
 Substitntion. 
 
 I ISl. 
 
 Assignment. 
 
 ? 182. 
 
 lielease. 
 
 I 183. 
 
 Suit. 
 
 g 177. How far the right to reduce is a mere personal 
 Tight. — The riglit to reduce is said to be per.sonal with 
 the husband,! and therefore the guardian of a lunatic 
 husband was held incajiable of exercising his right for 
 liim ; ^ and the right was formerly not assignable,^ and 
 in many States the husband's creditors could neither 
 compel him to reduce,* nor acquire any riglits in the 
 choses in action;'^ still in other States the contrary is 
 held as to creditors,® and an infant's guardian was 
 allowed to reduce,^ and money paid into court for a 
 lunatic was held a reduction,^ and the right to reduce 
 is now tjencrally assignable:^ so that rules applicable 
 in all States cannot be laid down. In New Hampshire, 
 Xorth Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 
 Carolina, Tennessee, and A^ermont, the husband's cred- 
 itors have no rights in his wife's choses in action ;^^ in 
 Delaware, INIaryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and 
 Virginia they have.^i 
 
 1 Andover v. Merrimack, 37 N. H. 437, 444 ; Perrj- v. W'heelock, 49 
 Vt. §3, 67. 
 
 2 Andover v. Merrimack, 37 N. H. 437, 444. 
 
 3 Post, I 181. 
 
 4 Gallego, 2 Brock. 285, 2S7, 231 ; ?)i/ra, n. 5.
 
 257 REDUCTIOX TO POSSESSION. § 178 
 
 5 Gallego, 2 Brock. 285, 287 ; Coffin v. Morrill, 22 N. H. 352, 350, 357 ; 
 Poor V. Hazleton, 15 N. H. 5fi4, 567, 56J ; Wheeler v. Moore, 13 N. H. 
 478, 481 ; Marston v. Carter, 12 N. H. 159, 165; Brvaii v. Spruill, 4 Jones 
 Eq. 27, 28 ; McVaugh, 10 Phila. 457, 459 ; Deniiisoii v. Nigh, l' Watts, 
 90 ; Timbers i>. Katz, 6 Watts <fe S. 290, 299 ; Mellinger v. Bausman, 
 45 Pa. St. 522,, .528 ; Stoner v. Com. 16 Pa. St. 387, 392 ; Skinner, 5 Pa. St. 
 262, 263 ; Arnold ,'. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165, 175 ; Godbohl v. Boss, 12 Kieh. 
 202; Harris?'. Taylor, 3 Sneed, 536, 540 ; Snowden v. Lindsli'v, r, ('old. 
 122. 126 ; Short )'. Moore, 10 Vt. 446 ; Probate v. Niles, 32 Vt. 775, 778, 
 779 ; Perry v. Wheelock, 49 Vt. 63, 67. 
 
 e Johnson j. Fleetwood, 1 Har. (Del.) 442 ; Babb v. Elliott, 4 Har. 
 (Del.) 466; Peacock v. Pembroke, 4 Md. 280, 282; State v. Krebs, 6 
 Hir. & J. 31, m ; Wheeler v. Bowen, 20 Pick. 563, 567 ; Holbrook r. 
 Waters, 19 Pick. 3.54, .355 ; Alexander v. Crittenden, 4 Allen, 342, .343; 
 Strong V. Smith. I .Mot. 476; Hockaday u. Bailee, 26 Mo. 219, 220, 221; 
 War3, 28 Gratt. 670, 673 ; Yerby v. Lynch, 3 Gratt. 439, 474, 477. 
 
 7 Ware, 28 Gratt. 670, 673. 
 
 8 Jenkins, 5 Russ. 183, 187. 
 
 9 Post, I 181. 
 
 10 Cases s^tpra, n. 5. 
 
 11 Cases supra, n. 6. 
 
 'i> 178. The intontion and the act requisite to a reduction. 
 — I!; is thus ^ a matter of jiersonal choice with a husband 
 whether he Avill reduce his wife's choses in action to 
 possession,^ and therefore though he got possession of 
 her property it is a question of intent whether it is or is 
 not reduced to his possession.^ He may get possession 
 ars administrator, agent, or trustee,* but to reduce ho 
 must take possession as husband.^ Still whenever he 
 does take possession he is presumed to do so as hus- 
 band, and the burden of proof lies on the party nega- 
 tiving reduction, 6 just as any jjroperty in the possession 
 of the husband or wife is presumed to belong to the 
 hu.sband.' But intention to reduce is not enough, a3 
 long as the property if a chattel is adversely held,^ or 
 if incorporeal stands in the wife's name,^ there is no 
 reduction — the intention must be accompanied by 
 acts.i" The most usual modes of reducing choses in 
 action to pos.session are:" (1) by getting possession of 
 a chattel or receiving payment of a debt ; i'^ (2) by sub- 
 stituting the wife's chose in action for another in the 
 husband's name;'^ (3) by assignment;" (4) by re-
 
 g 179 REDUCTION TO POSSESSION. 258 
 
 lease ;^^ and (.5) by suit.i« Reduction may be pre- 
 sumed from la^ise of time." 
 
 1 Antf, ? 17S. When creflitors are not concerned aiul the husband 
 Is sni. juris all agree to this statement. 
 
 2 Arnold v. Rnggles, 1 R. I. 16.5, 17.5 ; ante, ? 178. 
 
 3 Tomlinson, 16Vos. 41S, 41« ; McCampboll, 2 Lca.fiGl, 66.'!; 31 Am. 
 Rep. 623 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 376, 3;)2. 
 
 4 Ante, U 16S, 169, 174. 
 
 5 Barron, 24 Vt. 376, 392. See Machem, 2? Ala. 374 ; Standiford v. 
 Devol,21 Ind. 404,407, Vreeland, 15 N. J. Eq. 512; Johnston, 31 Pa. 
 St. 4.50, 453 ; ante, I 168. 
 
 6 Moyer, 77 Pa, St. 482, 485. 
 
 7 Ante, I 119. 
 
 8 Post, 1 179 ; ante, ? 169. 
 
 9 Post, ? ISO. 
 
 10 Blount r. Bestland, 5 Ve.s. Jr. 515 ; Cadwell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407 
 410 ; Buchingham v. Carter, 2 Disn. 41, 44. 
 
 11 Dixon, IS Ohio, 113, 115, 116 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 437 ; Buch- 
 ingham V. Carter, 2 Disn. 41, 45. 
 
 12 Dixon, 18 Ohio, 113, 115 ; post, ? 179. 
 
 13 Nicholson v. Drury, Law R. 7 Ch. Div. 48, 55 ; 2>ost, ? ISO. 
 
 14 Needles, 7 Ohio St. 4"2, 444 ; post, ? ISl. 
 
 15 Hore %>. Becher, 12 Sim. 405, 467 ; post, ? 182. 
 
 16 Scarpellinl v. Acheson, 7 Q. B. 864, 876 ; ;)0«?, ? 18-3. 
 
 17 Harper v. Archer, 2S Miss. 212, 223. 
 
 ? 179. Reduction by taking possession of a chattel or 
 collecting a debt. — If a husband, as husband, ^ gots 
 actual possession of a chattel of his wife's which had 
 been held adversely,^ or if debts due her are paid,^ 
 such cliattel or money are choses in possession and 
 absolutely his.* But collection of dividends is not a 
 reduction of stock.^ Her receipt, except as his agent in 
 fact, is valueless.^ Receipt of part is not reduction of 
 whole.'' 
 
 1 Ante, ? 178. 
 
 2 McNeill V. Arnold, 17 Ark. 151, 171. 
 
 3 Turton, 6Md. .375, 381 ; Rees r. Keith, 11 Sim. 3.88,390. See John- 
 son, .33 Ala. 284 ; Chase v. Palmer, 25 Me. 341 ; Latourette v. Wil- 
 liams, 1 Barb. 9 ; Hill v. Royce, 17 Vt. 190. 
 
 4 Ante, § 170. 
 
 5 Hart V. Stevens, 6 Q. B. 937 ; Burr !•. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 8b. 
 
 6 Thrasher v. Tuttle, 22 Me. 3.35 ; Phillips !•. Com. IS Pa. St. 116. 
 
 7 Blount V. Bestland, 5 Ves. 516 ; Harper v. Archer, 28 Mise. 212.
 
 259 REDUCTION TO POSSESSION. gg 180-181 
 
 § 180. Reduction by substitution. — A husband may 
 reduce his wife's choses in action by substituting for 
 them other securities in his own name.^ Thus, it is a 
 reduction of liis wife's note when lie gets a judgment 
 on it in his own name ; ^ so, it is of her shares of stock 
 if he transfei's them in his own namo.^ Taking the 
 new security in their joint names does not deprive her 
 of her right of survivorship,* unless it appears that 
 such was his intent.^ So if he takes something else 
 instead of payment of a debt, intending to appro^jriate 
 it to his own use.^ So an award to him on a claim is a 
 reduction,^ but not an unfinished compromise.^ 
 
 1 Needles, 7 Ohio St. 422, 437 ; Lassiter v. Turner, 2 Yerg. 413. 
 
 2 Scarpellini v. Acheson, 7 Q. B. 864, 876 ; Henderson v. Guyot, 6 
 Smedes & M. 209 ; Dixon, IS Ohio, lis, 115, 116 ; post, \ 183. 
 
 3 Winslow V. Crocker, 17 Me. 2:), 31 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 Nicholson v. Driiry, Law R. 7 Ch. D. 4S, .5.); Shuttleworth v. 
 Greaves, 2 Jur. i)57 ; Blount v. Bestland, 5 Ves. Jr. 515 ; AVall v. Tom- 
 linsoii, 16 Ves. 413, 416 ; SlaymaUer v. Bank, 10 Pa. St. 373 ; Arnold v. 
 Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165, 178. 
 
 5 Compare ante, l\ 127-129. 
 
 6 See Goodwyn, Yel. 476; Howman v. Corisr, 2 Vern. 130; Burn- 
 ham V. Bennett, 2 Colly. C. C. 254; Howard v. Bryant !) Gray, 23!), 
 240; Rogers v. Bunipass, 4 Ired. Eq. 3S5 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432; 
 Stewart, 3 Watts & S. 476 ; Yerby v. Lynch, 3 Gratt. 460. 
 
 7 Oglander v. Boston, 1 Vern. 396. 
 
 8 Macaulay v. Phillips, 4 Ves. 15. 
 
 \ 181. Reduction by assignment. — At common laAV a 
 chose in action could not be assigned,^ but in equity 
 such an assignment if on valuable consideration was 
 enforcibie ; ^ and now by statutes choses. in action are 
 generally assignable.^ And a husband may assign his 
 choses in action,* but unless there is a valuable consid- 
 eration,^ his assignment will not be enforced if it is 
 executory only,^ or in equity.' His assignment in 
 some cases is reduction, in others it conveys to the as- 
 signee only his right to reduce. ^ In general, an assign- 
 ment of a legal chose in action immediately reducible
 
 § 181 EEDUCTION TO POSSESSION. 200 
 
 is a reduction by the Imsband.^ Thus, he reduces her 
 shares to possession, and cuts off all her rights, by i)lac- 
 ing them in another's name.i" So her negotiable paper 
 is reduced by indorsement. '^ He can transfer her note 
 by his sole indorsement ; i'^ she cannot indorse at all," 
 except as his agent in fact;i* lier joinder with him is 
 permissible,^^ but adds notliing to tlie effect of the as- 
 signment.i^ So he can transfer her non-negotiable 
 paper in his own name." He cannot thus transfer a 
 note to her as administratrix,!^ tliougli only slie or her 
 representatives and not tlie maker can object. '^ But 
 ■\vlien a husband assigns his wife's unascertained, ^o con- 
 tingent, ^i or equitable*'^ chose in action, he does not 
 thereby reduce it to possession, but assigns his right to 
 reduce, and his assignee stands in his shoes,^ being cut 
 out by the dissolution of tlie marriage before reduc- 
 tion,2* and holding the chose in action subject to the 
 wife's equity.23 And it is the same though the Avife 
 joins in the assignment.^ A general assignment of a 
 husband in bankruptcy," or "of all his property,"'^ 
 does not pass his wife's choses in action ; ^ but it does 
 if these are specified.^" 
 
 1 Anson Coiit. 20G ; Stogtlel v. Fugate, 2 Marsh. A. K. 136. 
 
 2 Anson Cent. 20S ; Mayo ji. Carrington, 19 Gratt. 12-1. 
 
 3 See Broughton v. Batigptt, 1 Ga. 75; Ford v. Hale, 1 Mon. 23; 
 Lucas V. Byrne, .io Md. 188 ; Waterman v. Frank, 21 Mo. 108 ; McPike 
 1'. McPherson, 41 Mo. .521 ; Campbell v. Mumforr), I Hayw. 398; Mc- 
 Cutchen v. Keith. 2 Ohio, 262 ; Bailey v. Rawley, 2 Swan, 205. 
 
 4 McCaa v. Woolf. 42 Alf.. 389, 303 ; T.owrv r. Houston, 4 Miss. 304, 
 396 ; Ahington v. Travis, 15 Mo. 240, 244 ; Brvan v. Sprnill. 4 Jones Eq. 
 27, 28 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 438 ; Taliaferro, 4 Cull, 93, 96 ; Ware, 23 
 Gratt. "570, 672. 
 
 5 Webb, 21 Pa. St. 248, 250. 
 
 6 See Lonsdale, 29 Pa. St. 407 ; Harwood r. Fisher, 1 Vounge <fe C. 
 110. 
 
 7 Kennedy v. Ware, 1 Pa. St. 445 ; 44 Am. Dec. 14.5. 
 
 8 The cases on this topic are irreconcilable. 
 
 9 AVidgery v. Tepper, Law R. 7 Ch. D. 423, 426 ; Xeedles, 7 Ohio St. 
 432, 441. 
 
 10 Winslow V. Croclcer, 17 Me. 29, 31. Compare ante, { ISO.
 
 261 KEDUCTIOX TO po3St:ssion. I 183 
 
 11 Scarpellini v. Acheson, 7 Q. B. 8.T4, 876; Gaters v. MacMeloy, G 
 Mees. & W. 423 ; McNeilage v. HoUoway, 1 Barn. & Alrl. 218 ; Shor- 
 rington v. Yates, 12 Mees. A \V. S.jr,, m-t ; Droper i\ Jackson. 10 Mass. 
 4S0 ; Richardson v. Daggett, J Vt. 'Siii ; cases infra. 
 
 12 Mason v. Morgan, 2 Ad. & E. .SO, S2 ; Trvon v. Sutton, in Cal. 4n0, 
 4i:i ; Evans v. Secrest, 3 I:id. Mi ; Holland v. Moortv, 12 Ind. 170 ; 
 Page v. Estes, 19 Pick. 203, 272; Henniugway v. Matthews, 10 Tex. 
 207, 208. 
 
 13 Henningway v. Matthews, 10 Tex. 207, 203. 
 
 . 14 Snarpf'llini v. AcheSon, 7 Q. B. 864, 876 ; Turpin v. Thoriipson. 2 
 Met. (Kv.) 420 ; Savage v. tCing, 17 Me. :«>1 ; Stevens v. Beale, in Cush. 
 291, 2'.)2, 2;)3 ; McClaiii v. Weidemever, 25 Mo. 364 ; George v. Cutting, 
 46 X. H. 130 ; Lee v. Satterlee, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 1. 
 
 15 Tryon v. Sutton, 13 Cal. 400, 403. 
 
 16 Prole V. Soadv, Law R. 3 Ch. App. 220, 222 ; Hord, 5 Mon. B. 81, 
 85 ; Xorris v. Lantz, 18 Md. 260 ; Scott v. Hix, 2 Sneed, 192, 194 ; post, 
 i 181. 
 
 17 Evans v. Secrest, 3 Ind. 545. 
 
 18 Ante, \ 167. 
 
 , 19 Roberts v. Place, IS X. H. 183, 18.5. 
 
 20 Harper v. Archer, 28 Miss. 212, 21'J. 
 
 21 Matheney v. Guess, 2 Hill Ch. 03, 06. 
 
 22 Bold V. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 98, 110. 
 
 23 Tidd V. Lister, 3 DeGex M. & G. 857, 8frl ; Mlckelmore v. Mudge, 
 2 Gi£f. 18.3, 184; Ashby, 1 Coll v. C. C. 519, .5.>1 ; .Scott v. Spashett, 3 
 Macn. & G. .599, 603, 604 ; Prole )'. Soady, Law R. 3 Ch. App. 220, 222 ; 
 Box, 6 Irish Eq. 174, 195 ; Rogers v. Acastar, 14 Beav. 44.5, 4.50 ; (Jeorgo 
 V. Goldsbv, 23 Ala. 320 ; State v. Robertson, 5 Har. (Del.) 201 ; Smith v. 
 Alwood, 14 Ga. 402, 413 ; Lvnn v. Bradey, i Met. flvv.) 232, 235 ; Piige r. 
 Estes, 19 Pick. 26), 271 ; Van Epps v. Van Deusen, 4 Paige, 64, 73; 
 25 Am. Dee. 516 ; O'Connor v. Harris, 81 X. C. 279, 2.82 ; Xeedles, 7 Ohio 
 St. 4;e, 438, 439 ; Duke v. Palmer, 10 Rich. Eq. 380; Bugg v. Franklin, 
 4 Sneed, 120; Rice t;. McReynolds, 8 r,ea, 36, 3'); Browning v. Head- 
 lev, 2 Rob. (Va.) 340, 368 ; 40 Am. Dec. 7.5.5. That he can dispose abso- 
 lutelv of such, see Tuttle v. Fowler, 22 Conn. 58, 64, 66 ; Smilie, 22 Pa. 
 St. 130, 1.33 ; Webb, 21 Pa. St. 248, 250. 
 
 24 Lvnn v. Bradlev, 1 Met. fKv.) 232, 235 ; Outcalt v. Van Winkle, 2 
 N. J. Eq. 513, 516 ; Van Epps v. Van Deusen, 4 Paige, 64, 73 ; 25 Am. 
 Dec. 516 ; Bryan v. Spruill, 4 Jones Eq. 27, 28 ; Xeedles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 
 440. 
 
 25 Moore, 14 Mon. B. 2.59, 261 ; Kennv v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 473 ; 
 Dold V. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 9S, 110. 
 
 26 Cases supra, n. 16. 
 
 27 Sherrington v. Yates, 12 Mees. & W. 8.55, S64 ; Williams v. .Swan, 
 75 Va. 137, 144 ; infra, n. 29. 
 
 28 Skinner, 5 Pa. St. 262, 26.3. 
 
 29 See also Mitford. 9 Ves. 87 ; Poor v. Hazleton, 15 X. H. 501, .565. 
 
 30 Outcalt V. Van Winkle, 2 X. J. Eq. 513, 616 ; Van Epps v. Van 
 Deusen, 4 Paige, 04, 73, 74 ; 25 Am. Dec. 516. 
 
 \ 182. Reduction by release. — A hu.sband may release 
 his wife's clioses in acl.ion, and tlius desU-oy all her
 
 I 183 REDUCTIOX TO POSSESSION. 262 
 
 rights ; ^ but he cannot release Avhen there is no right 
 of action. 2 Thus he can release a legacy to her,^ but 
 not a promise to her to pay her money after his death;* 
 whether he can release an annuity to her is doubtful.^ 
 A release is strictly an instrument under seal.^ A parol 
 release must have a valuable consideration.' 
 
 1 Hore V. Becher, 12 Sim. 4fi5, 467 ; Jacks v. Adair, 31 Ark. 610, 623 ; 
 Fitch V. A.ver, 2 Conn. 14:i ; Griswolfl v. Penniman, 2 Conn "S4 ; Mau- 
 ion V. Titsvvorth, 18 Mon. B. 582, 602 ; Thomas v. Kelsoe, 7 Men. 521 ; 
 Chase v. Palmer, 25 Me. 341 ; Weems, 19 Md. 334, :il4 ; Thomas v. 
 Wood, 1 Md. Ch. 296 ; Com. v. Manlev. 12 Pick. 173 ; Foster v. Fifield, 
 20 Pick. 67 ; Duncan v. Prentice, 4 Met. 216 ; McGee v. Ford, 13 Miss. 
 769 ; Morton v. Massie, 3 Mo. 482 ; Tucker v. Gordon, 6 N. H. .564 ; 
 John.son v. Bennett, 39 Barb. 2.37; Hearne v. Keran, 2 Ired. Eq. 39; 
 Barnes v. Pearson, 6 Ired. Eq. 482 ; Lassiter v. Dawson, 2 Dev. Eq. 
 383 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 442 ; Brinton, 10 Pa. St, 408 ; Krause v. 
 Beitel, 3 Eawle, 199 ; 23 Am. Dec. 113. 
 
 2 Rogers v. Acastar, 14 Beav. 445, 450 ; Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432, 
 442. 
 
 3 Jacks V. Adair, 31 Ark. 616, 623 ; Weems, 19 Md. 3.34, 344. 
 
 4 Rogers i\ Acastar, 14 Beav. 445, 450. 
 
 5 Pro. Hore v. Becher, 12 Sim. 465, 467. Contra, Thompson v. 
 Butler, Sir F. Moore, 522. 
 
 6 See Palmer v. Green, 6 Conn. 14 ; Learned v. Bellows, 8 Vt. 79. 
 
 7 Webb, 21 Pa. St. 248, 250. 
 
 § 183. Eeduction by suit. — Whenever a suit is neces- 
 sary to get possession of property, such propertj^ is a 
 chose in action,' Avhich is reduced to possession by the 
 husband only if he gets actual possession of it.^ As 
 where he replevied her chattel,^ or gets a judgment for 
 it in his owti name.* Obtaining judgment in his own 
 name is reduction by substitution,' but there is no re- 
 duction if such judgment were gotten by him for her 
 as her agent or trustee.^ Nor is a judgment in their 
 joint names a reduction to possession." In Avhat cases 
 he must sue alone, and in what cases he may or must 
 join her, is discussed under "Hawes on Parties."* 
 
 1 Hall V. McLain, 11 Humph. 425, 428. 
 
 2 Ante, ? 179. 
 
 3 McNeil v. Arnold, 17 Ark. 154, 171.
 
 203 REDUCTION TO POSSESSION. g 183 
 
 4 Scarpellin! v. Acheson,? Q. B. 8ft4, 878 ; Heygate v. Annesley^ 3 
 Bro. C. C. :»J ; Mason v. McNeill. 23 Ala. 201, 208 ; Fischer v. Hess, 9 
 Moil. B. 6M. ()17 ; Henderson ik Ouvot, 6 Smedes «fe M. 209 ; Dixon, IS 
 fihio, 113, 11.1, 116 ; Needles, 7 Ohio, 432, 437; Boozer i'. Addison. 2 Rich. 
 Eq. 273 ; 46 Am. Dec. 43. 
 
 5 Ante, I 180. 
 
 6 Plerson v. Smith, 9 Ohio St. 654, 557. 
 
 7 Mason t'. McNeill, 23 Ala. 201, 2ns : Pike v. Collins, 33 Me. 3fi, 43 ; 
 Buckingham v. Carter, 2 Disn. 41,44 ; Perry u. Wheelock, 4J Vt. 6;i, 67. 
 
 8 Hawes Parties, j^ (ia-70.
 
 I 184 wife's estate. 264 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 wife's estate in her own property. 
 
 ART. T. Generally, g? 184, 185. 
 
 II. Wife's Paraphernalia and Pin-Money, 
 ?? 186-189. 
 III. Wife's Equity to a Settlement, gg 190-196. 
 
 Article I. — Generally. 
 
 i 184. Wife's general property. 
 
 5 ISh. Wife's separate property. 
 
 ? 184. Wifo's general property. — By the common law 
 the individuality of the wife is merged in that of her 
 husband,! she had no separate legal existence,^ and 
 dTiring coverture could not hold property or exercise 
 property rights.^ Through marriage by operation of 
 law all her personalty in possession passed absolutely 
 to her husband, ^ he acquired a right to reduce her 
 choses in action to possession, and thus make tliem his 
 own,^ of her chattels real he became practically abso- 
 lute owner,^ and he was entitled to all the rents and 
 profits of her real estate.' She could not acquire prop- 
 erty without his consent.^ And in any acquisitions of 
 hers he had the same rights as he had in her property 
 OA\Tied by her at the time of her marriage.^ But from 
 the earliest times courts of equity encroached on this 
 simiile and savage system,'" and statutes have now 
 more or less abolished it in every State where the com- 
 mon law has been in force.^^ 
 
 1 Barron, 2-1 Vt. 375, 398 ; ante, ? 38. 
 
 2 O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381, 389. 
 
 3 As to Markikd Women's Capacity, see post, Part iv. ??33l, 
 ei seq. 
 
 4 Cram V. Dudley, 2S N. H. 537, 541 ; ante, 1 170. 
 
 5 Cox V. Scott, 'J Eaxt. 305, 310 ; ante, I 176,
 
 263 wife's parapueenalia. g§ 185-186 
 
 6 Allen V. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374 ; ante, ? »3. 
 
 7 Lucas I'. Eickerick, 1 Lea, 7-6, 723 ; ante, I 147. 
 
 8 Patterson v. Robinson, 25 Pa. St. 81, 82 ; post, ? 223. 
 
 9 See Campbell v. Galbreath, 12 Bush, 4.59, 404 ; supra, notes, 4, 7. 
 
 10 2 &torj' Eq. Jur. ? 1378 ; 1 Fonb. B. C. 1, ch. 2, § 6, n, ; post, I 197. 
 
 11 For summary, see 6 South. Law Rev. p. 633 ; post, I 217. 
 
 § 185. Wife's separate property. — Besides her para- 
 phernalia, pin-money, and equity to a settlement dis- 
 cussed in this chapter, a wife may have separate 
 projiorty created by settlement or b.y statute, discussed 
 in chapters xii. and xiii. 
 
 Article II. — Paraphernalia and Pin-Money. 
 
 J 186. Paraphernalia defined. 
 
 § 187. Incidents of pai-aphernalia. 
 
 { 188. Pin-money defined. 
 
 { 189. Incidents of pin-money. 
 
 ? i85. Paraphernalia defined. — By the common law a 
 wife's paraphernalia were such articles of wearing 
 apparel,^ including jewels and ornaments,^ as well as 
 nocossury clothing,^ consistent with her condi;:iou and 
 degree,^ which her husband allowed her to wear.* 
 Thus, a watch bought by her husband for her was a 
 part of her parapliernalia,^ but not if such watch were 
 out of keeping with their station in llfc.^ So the jewels, 
 worth tliree thousand pounds, of a peeress, were so 
 held.^ But paraphernalia included only articles v/hich 
 she wore,* plate for family use,'" or ornaments for the 
 parlor," though given to her wore not paraphernalia. 
 Her parai)hernalia did not include, and must be dis- 
 tinguished from her sole and separate property secured 
 to her by equity,i^ or by statute.^^ So they must be 
 distinguished from paraphernal property under the 
 civil law ;i* the latter is tlie wife's extra-dotal separate 
 l^roperty, which she can manage alone f living cover- 
 n.&yv -23.
 
 1 187 wife's PAKAPHKRNALIA. 206 
 
 ture I '^ the former belong to the husband during his 
 life, but pass to her on his death, "^ in addition to her 
 dower,'' and tliirds.^^ Jewels, etc., wliicli are heir- 
 looms are not ijaraphernalia, tiiougli given to tiie wiio 
 to Avear.'" 
 
 1 feeymore i: Tresilian,3 Atk. 358,359 ; Hawkins ?>. Provideiicr, 
 no Jlass. 6!i6, 590 ; 20 Am. liep. 353 ; McUormick v. Pennsvlvania, -,.) 
 N. Y. 303, 317. 
 
 2 Howard v. i\renifee, 5 Ark. 668,670; Tllexan v. "Wilson, -lii Mo. 
 
 185, 190 ; McCormick v. Pt-nnsylvania, 41) N. Y. 303, 317. 
 
 3 1 RoUe, nil, L. 35 ; 2 Blackst. Com. 436 ; Townshenil r. WnnX- 
 ham, 2 Ves. 1, 7. 
 
 4 Vass V. Southall, 4 Ired, 301, 303. 
 
 See 2 Blackst. Com. 4:55, 436 ; W'illson v. Pack, Prpc. Ch. 295, 297 ; 
 Nortbey, 2 Atk. 77, 79 ; Kidout v. Plymouth, 2 Atk. KM, 105 : Marshall 
 V. Blew, 2 Atk. 217; Snelson v. Corbet, 3 Atk. 358, :<59 ; Uraliani r. 
 Londonderry, 3 Atk. 393, 3m ; Grant, 2 8torv, 312, 319 ; Puryear, 12 
 Ala. 13, 15 ; Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark. 668, 670 ; fctate lu Hav.s,21 Ind. 
 28^, 289 ; Tlle.tan !'. Wilson, 43 Me. 186, 190 ; Carroll c. Lee, 3 (iill A- J. 
 504, 5(9 ; Hawkins v. Providence, 119 Mass. 590, 599 ; 20 Am. Rep. 3.53 ; 
 Gully V. Hull, 31 Miss. 20; Harrall, 31 N. J. Kq. 101, 102; Rawson v. 
 Pennsylvania, 48 N. Y. 212, 2lfl ; 8 Am. Rep. 543 ; McCormick v. 
 Pennsylvania, 49 N. Y. 303, 317 ; Vass v. Southall, 4 Ired. 295, 297. 
 
 6 Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark, 668, 671 ; Tllexan v. Wilson, 43 Me. 
 
 186, 190. 
 
 7 Vass V. Southall, 4 Ired. 295, 297. 
 
 8 Northey. 2 Atk. 77, 79. 
 
 9 .Seymore v. Tresilian, 3 Atk. 3.58. 3.59. 
 
 10 Carroll v. Lee, 3 Gill & J. 504, 509. 
 
 11 Graham ^i. Londonderry, 3 Atk. 39.3, .W."-.. ..,, 
 
 12 Graham v. Londonderrv, 3 Atk. 393, 394 ; Gnllv v. Hull. 31 Mas.s. 
 20 ; 1 Bish. M. W. 5 220 ; post, U 197-210. 
 
 13 Rawson v. Peni;sylvania, 48 N. V. 212, 216 ; 8 Am. Uep. .^>4:!. 
 
 14 See La. Civ. Code, 1875, ?| 2315, 2317-2332, 2360-2369. 
 
 15 Cambre t>. Grobent, 33 La. An. 240, 217, 248 ; Guilbeau v. Cornier, 
 
 2 La. 6, 8. 
 
 16 Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark. 668, 671 ; post, 5 187. 
 
 17 Discussed Stewart M. & D. ?? 460, 461 ; post, ?? 244-300. 
 
 18 Discussed .Stewart M. & D. H 460, 462 ; post, ? 301. 
 
 19 Calmadv, 11 Vin. Abr. 181, 182; Jervoice, 17 Beav. ,566, 570, 571 ; 
 Berry, Irish Ch. 497. 
 
 g 187. Incidents of paraphernalia. — Although a hus- 
 band is bound to supplj^ his wife with necessarj' food, 
 shelter, and clothing,' and would not be allowed " to 
 leave her naked and exposed to shame and c-old," ■ the
 
 267 wifk's paraphernalia. I 187 
 
 very gown on her back is his;^ all personalty in her 
 possession is absolutely his.* So he can dispose of her 
 paraphernalia during his life;^ if any of them are 
 stolen the indictment must charge a larceny of his 
 goods,^ if injured or taken away the suit must be in Ms 
 name.^ But in this paraphernalia differ from ol;her 
 personalty : if he dies witliout having disposed of them 
 they are his wife's absolutely against every one except 
 creditors;* he cannot will them;^ if he has jsledged 
 them she can make his estate redeem them ; '" they 
 may, it is true, be taken by his creditors,^* except arti- 
 cles of necessary wearing apparel i- — which include 
 something moi"e than one gown^^ — and such articles, 
 perhaps, as her wedding ring," etc., but if taken she 
 may compel his estate to reimburse her.'^ Parapher- 
 nalia are therefore property of a widow rather than of 
 a wife, and are now generally secured to the widow by 
 statute. ^'^ In one case a statute validating gifts from 
 husband to wife was held to render the wife's para- 
 2>herna]ia sole and separate property. ^' 
 
 1 Ante, I 04 ; Stewart M. & D. \\ 179, ISO. 
 
 2 1 Bolle, 911, L. 35. 
 
 3 Carre v. Brice, 7 Meea. & \V. 183, 184 ; Regina v. Tollett, Car. & 
 M. 112, 118, 119. 
 
 4 Cox V. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305, 310 ; ante, U 10", 170. 
 
 5 Seymore v. Tresilian, 3 Atk. 35'l, 359 ; Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark. 
 668, 671 ; Tlle.xau v. Wilson, 43 Me. 186, 190; Kawson v. Pennsylvania, 
 48 N. Y. 212, 215 ; 8 Am. Rep. M3. 
 
 6 State V. Hays, 21 Ind. 288, 289. 
 
 7 Hawkins ?'. Providence, 119 Mass. 596, 599; 20 Am. Rep. 353; 
 Bawson n. Pennsylvania, 48 N. Y. 212,215; 8Am. Rep. 543; McCor- 
 mlck V. Pennsylvania, 4:t N. Y. 303, 317. 
 
 8 Rawson v. Pennsylvania. 48 N. Y. 212, 215 ; 8 Am. Rep. 543 ; 
 infra, n. !). See Hewson, 23 Eng. L. & Eq. 283. 
 
 9 Northey, 2 Atk. 77, 79 ; Marshall v. Blew, 2 Atk. 217 ; Howarl )•. 
 Menifee, 5 Ark. 668, 671 ; Rawson v. Pennsylvania, 48 N. Y. 212, 2:5 ; 8 
 Am. Rep. .543. 
 
 10 Gniham v. Londonderry, 3 Atk. 393, 395 ; Harrall, 31 X. J. I.q. 
 101, 102, 103. 
 
 11 Willson V. Pack, Pree. Ch. 296, 297 ; Ridout ?■. Plymouth, 2 Atk. 
 104, 105 ; Grant, 2 Story. 312, 319 ; Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark. 668, 071 ; 
 TlJexan v. Wilson, 43 Me. 186, 190.
 
 II 188-189 wife's paraphernalia. 268 
 
 12 2 Blackst. Com. 4C5, 406. 
 
 13 Townshend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 1, 7. 
 
 14 I Bish. M. & W. >i 218. 
 
 15 Snelson v. Corbet, 3 Atk. 35S. 3.53 ; Howard v. Menifee, 5 Ark. 6G8, 
 671. 
 
 16 See " Widow's Allowance," Stewart M. & D. ? 459. 
 
 17 Eawson v. Pennsylvania, 48 N. Y. 212, 216 ; 8 Am. Rep. 543. 
 
 ^ 188. Pin-money defined. — It is said that the books 
 contain no definition of i>in-money.' It is sinaplj^ a 
 husband's allowance to his wife for her dress and per- 
 sonal expenses.^ Sometimes it is created by a sottle- 
 ment,3 and is definite in amount.^ and specific in 
 purpose;'^ sometimes it takes the form of a gift to the 
 wife of her .savings out of the household expenses,* or 
 the profits of a dairy or hennery.'' It has been recog- 
 nized in Marj-land,* but rejected in Xorth Carolina.^ 
 
 1 Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh N. R. 224, 253, 2f.O ; 2 Clark & F. G:54, 654. 
 
 2 Compare 1 Bish. M. W. J 230. See Jodrell, 9 Beav. 45 ; 2 Story 
 Eq. Juris, i 1375 ; Macq. H. & W. 318 ; Peachey Mar. Sett. 298. 
 
 3 Board, 3 Atk. 72 ; Bell H. & W. 466. 
 
 4 Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh N. R. 224, 269 ; 2 Clark & F. 634, 654. 
 
 5 Powell V. Hankey, 2 P. Wms. 84. 
 
 6 Slaiining ". Style, 3 P. Wms. 3.37 ; Stamway v. Stiles, 2 Eq. Cas- 
 Abr. 1.56; (,'almadv, 11 Viii. Abr. 181 ; Mangey v. Huugerford, 2 Eq- 
 Cas. Abr. 156. Bui see Tyrell, 2 Freem. 304. 
 
 7 Shinning v. Style, 3 P. Wms. 337. 
 
 8 Miller v. Williamson, 5 Md. 219. 
 
 9 MclCinnon r. McDonald, 4 Jones Eq. 1, 6. 
 
 g 189. Incidents of pin-money. — Pin-money is the 
 v.'ife's .sole and separate jiropertj', and she has all the 
 incidents thereof,^ .save that more than one year's ar- 
 rears cannot be collected.^ It is generally secured to a 
 married woman by a settlement,^ which if made after 
 marriage must not prejudice the rights of her hus- 
 band's creditors.* It is enforced in equity.^ She may 
 contract with respect thereto as with respect to her 
 other equitable separate estate.* Accumulations thereof 
 are hers to dispose of by will.^ She does not forfeit it
 
 269 wief's equity. g 190 
 
 by elopement,^ though she may waive it (arrears) by 
 accepting from her husband apparel, etc.,^ or a legacy,'" 
 in its stead. After his death she can claim only one 
 year's arrears, i' and if siie dies her representatives can- 
 not claim any arrears ; '^ she can claim all arrears, how- 
 ever, if slie has demanded payment,'^ or has been 
 living apai't from her husband." 
 
 1 See Howard v. Digby, 2 Clark & F. 6.>1 ; 8 Bligli X. R. 22-1, 269. 
 
 2 Howard v. Bigby, 8 Bligh N. R. 224, 2-16. 
 
 3 Stewart M. & D. ^? 32-13 ; ante, U 99, et seq. 
 
 4 Beard, 3 Atk. 72 ; Bell H. & W. 46G ; ante, U 113, 118. 
 
 5 2 Story Eq. Jur. J 1375 a, note ; Slanning v. Style, 3 P. Wms. 337, 
 338. 
 
 6 Howard v. Digby, supra, n. 1. 
 
 7 Sugden Law of Prop. p. 163 ; Neal, Prec. Ch. 44. Contra, Bar- 
 rack V. McCuUoch, 3 Kay & J. 114. 
 
 8 Blount V. Winter, 3 P. Wms. 276, n. ; Field v. Serres, 1 N. R. 121 ; 
 Moore, 1 Atk. 272 ; Sidney, 3 P. Wms. 2SU ; Lee, Dick. 321 ; More v. 
 Scarborough, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 156. 
 
 9 Powell V. Hankev, 2 P. Wms. 84 ; Thomas ;•. Bennet, 2 P. Wms. 
 341 ; Fowler, 3 P. Wms. 355. 
 
 10 Arthur, 11 Ired. Eq. 511 ; Fowler, 3 P. Wms. 3.55. 
 
 11 Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh N. R. 224, 246 ; 2 Clark & F. 634 ; 
 Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 267 ; Towiishend )'. Windham, 2 Vos. 7 ; Peacock 
 IK Monk, 2 Ves. Sr. 2iK) ; 0!Hev, Prec. Ch. 2G ; Warwick v. Edwards, 1 
 Eq. Abr. 140 ; Poachey Mar. Sett. 303. 
 
 12 Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh N. R. 224, 271. 
 
 13 Ridout V. Lewis, 1 Atk. 269 ; Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 2G7. 
 
 14 Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 267. 
 
 Article III. — Wife's Equity to a Settlement. 
 
 \ 190. Definition. 
 
 \ 191. B.v what court enforced. 
 
 \ 192. On whose application enforced. 
 
 \ 193. Out of what property enforced. 
 
 I 194. Under what circumstances enforced. 
 
 ? 195. On whom the .settlement is made. 
 
 §196. Amount of the settlement. 
 
 \ 190. Wife's equity defined. — A wife's equity to a 
 settlement is her riglit enforcible in equity to have a 
 «ettlemeiit fox th6 benefit of licrscif and her children
 
 § 190 wife's equity. 270 
 
 out of her equitable choses in action.^ This settlement 
 may be made (1) by a court of equity ;2 (2) sua sponte, 
 or on application of a trustee, or of the husband, or of 
 the wife ; ^ (3) out of any fund over which it has juris- 
 diction ; * (4) wlienever tlie wife needs it, and against 
 her husband's creditors and assignees, unless slie lias 
 waived it ; ^ (5) on the wife alone or on her and lier 
 children; 6 (6) the amount depending on the special 
 circumstances of each particular case.' It originated 
 in tlie chancery courts of England,^ growing out of tlie 
 maxim that 'he who seeks equity must do eqviity," 
 and being at first recognized only when the husband 
 or his assignee went into equity to collect a chose in 
 action of tlie Avife's.^" It has been enforced in most of 
 the United States," but not in all ; ^^ and has been 
 superseded by married women's sepai'ate property acts 
 which have nearly universally destroyed the hus- 
 band's rights in his wife's clioses in action. '^ It is a 
 valuable right and valuable consideration for a settle- 
 ment by a husband," and paramount to the right of 
 the husband's creditoi's^* or assigns.^^ 
 
 1 See Tewson r. Moulson, 2 Atk. 417, 41!) ; Sturgis v. Champnovs, 
 5Mvln(> it ('. !!-, 1111, in.".; Wilts, s Md. 1, ; ^ Am. Dec. 7:i:t ; Durr v. 
 Boyer, 2 :S[(('nMl, .ic^, :.7--' • 1 White it T. Lead. Cas. 424, SfiO. It is liunl 
 to fletinc :(s it (l'i>ciHls vry imi''li on the priictice of the courts: 
 Kenny (•. UdiUl, ."> John.s. Ch.'4G-;, 474 ; 2 Perry Trusts, J 027. 
 
 2 Sturgis V. Champneys, .5 Mylne & C. 92, 103 ; post, 'i 101. 
 
 3 Elihank v. Moiitolieu, .'5 Ves. 7"7, 74S ; 1 White .ft T. Lead. Cas, 
 424, 62.3, 628 ; post, i l'J2. 
 
 4 Sturgis V. Champnevs, .5 Mylne <fc C. 92, 103 ; Wiles, o Jld. 1, •) ; 
 56 Am. Dec. 733 ; post, 'i 1U3. 
 
 5 Post, § 194. 
 
 6 Murray v. Elibank, 13 Ves. 1, 6 ; post, § 19.5. 
 
 7 Kenny v. Udall, 5 .Tohns. Ch. 4(M, 478, 471) ; post, ? 196. 
 
 8 Murray v. Elibank, 13 Ves. 1 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. .360. 
 
 9 Sturgis V. Champneys, .5 Mylne & C. 92, 105 ; Duvall v. Farmers, 
 4 Gill & J. 282, 291 ; 23 Am. Dec. 5.t8. 
 
 10 2 Story Eq. Jur. U WOH, 1414 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 333. 
 
 11 Andrews ?'. Jones, 10 Ala. 401, 423 ; Carleton .'. Banks, 7 Ala. .34 ; 
 Bradford r. Goldsboro, 1.5 Ala. 311; Guild, 16 Ala. 122; Aberiiethv, 8 
 FKi. 243 ; Bell, 1 Kelly, 6.37, 639, 640 ; Napier v, Howard, 3 Kelly, 193,
 
 271 wife's equity. § 191 
 
 204 ; Veldell v. Quarles, Dud. Eq. 55, 50 ; Corley, 22 Ga. 178 ; Pool v. 
 Morris, 2!) Ga. 374 ; Bennett v. Dillingham, 2 Dana, 436, 437 ; Thomas 
 V. Kennedy, 4 Men. B. 235, 2:?7; Havs v Blanks, 7 Mon B. 347, Crook 
 V. Turpln, 10 Mon. B. 243; Moore, 14 Mon. B. 259; Wright v. Arnold, 
 14 Mon. B. 642 ; Chase v. Palmer, 29 Me. 342, 34S ; Tucker v. Andrews, 
 13 Me. 124, 128: Thrasher v. Tuttle, 22 Me. 335; Wiles, 3 Md. 1,9; 
 56 Am. Dec. 733 ; Taggart ;>. Thayer 10 Md. 99 ; Norris v Lantz, 18 
 Md. 260; Kuhn v. Stansfield, 28 Md. 210; Oswald v Hoover, 43 Md, 
 367 ; McVey v. Praggs, 3 Md. Ch. 94 ; Jf)nes, 1 Bland, 459 ; 18 Am. Dec. 
 3-27 ; Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bland, .544, 676 ; 20 Am. Dec. 402 • Duvall 
 •i'. Farmers, 4 Gill & J. 2S2, 291 ; 23 Am. Dec. 55S ; Barrett v. Oliver, 
 7 Gill & J. 191 ; Groveniian v. Diffcnderfer, 11 Gill & J. 15, 22 ; Mann 
 V. Higgins, 7 Gill, 266 ; State v. Reigart, 1 Gill, 1 ; 39 Am. Dec. 628 ; 
 State V. Krehs, 6 Har. & J. 31 ; P.age v. Estes, 19 Pick. 269, 271 ; Sawyer 
 V. Baldwin, 20 Pick. 378; Gassett v. Grout, 4 Met. 4S6, 489; Davis r. 
 Newton, 6 Met. 537, 543 ; Carter, 14 Smedes & M. 59 ; Stevenson v. 
 Brown, 4 N. J. Eq. 503; Kenny v. ITdall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 473-476 ; 3 
 Cowen, 591, .599-609; Schuyler v Hovle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196; Glen v. 
 Fisher, 6 Johns. Ch. 33 ; 10 .\m. Dec. 310 ; Van Epps v. Van Deusen, 4 
 Paige, 64; 25 Am. Dec. 616; Smith v. Kane, 2 Paige, 303; Rees v. 
 Waters, 9 Watts, 90, !H ; Gray, 1 Pa. St. 329; Goochenanr, 23 Pa. St. 
 460 ; Durr v. Bowver, 2 MeCord Ch. 368, .372; Myers, 1 Bail. Eq. 24, 31 ; 
 Hill, 1 Strob. Eq. 2 24; Wilkes v. I-ltzpatrick, 1 Humph. 54, 58; 
 Phillips V. Hassell, 10 Humph. 197 ; Browning r. Headley, 2 Rob. 
 (Va.) 342, 371 ; 40 Am. Dec. 755; Poindoxter v. Jeflfries, 15 Gratt. 363; 
 Short V. Moore, 10 Vt. 446, 451 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 391-395. 
 
 12 Bryan, 1 Dev. Eq. 47 ; Lassiter v. Dawson, 2 Dev. Eq. 283. 
 
 13 Ante, i 165 ; 2 Perry Trusts, ? 645, note. 
 
 14 Wheeler v. Carj-1, Amb. 121, 122 ; ante, ? 105. 
 
 15 Havs V. Blanks, 7 Mon. B. 347, 34S ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 39.5. 
 Superior to right of set-off: Carr v. Taylor, 10 Ves. 574 ; O'Ferrall, 1 
 Gill & J. 347. 
 
 16 Macaulay v. Phillips, 4 Ves. 19 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 447, 
 640 ; Keiinv v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 47:1, 477. See also Jewson v. 
 Moulson 2 Atk. 417, 420 ; Burdon v. Dean, 2 Ves. Jr. 607 ; Pryor v. 
 Hill, 4 Bro. Ch. 138 ; Sturgis v. Champnevs, 5 Mvlne & C. 97 ; Andrew 
 1'. Jones, 10 Ala. 401 ; Bell, 1 Kelly, 637 ; Moore. 14 Mon. B. 2.59 ; Crook 
 V. Turpin, 10 Mon. B. 244 ; Norris v. Dantz, 18 Md. 260 ; Duvall r. Far- 
 mers, 4 Gill & J. 283 ; 23 Am. Dec. 558 ; Gassett v. Grout, 4 Met. 480 ; 
 Davis V. Newton, 6 Met. 537 ; Page v. Estes, 19 Pick. 269 ; Durr v 
 Bowver. 2 McCord Ch. 368 ; Heath, 2 Hill Ch. 100 ; Sherrard v. Carlisle, 
 1 Pat'. ,fe H. 12 ; Browning v. Headley, 2 Rob. (Va.) 342; 40 Am. Dec. 755. 
 
 2 191. By what courts wife's equity is enforced. — The 
 
 wife's right to a settlement out of her chases in action 
 originated in the chancery court.s of England, i and is 
 enforced only by courts of equity where such courts 
 exist,2 When there is no separate court of equity, as in 
 Penn.sylvania, it is enforced by courts of law.^ 
 
 1 Ante, ? 190. 
 
 2 Sturgis V. Champnevs, 5 Mylne <fe C. 92, 103; Blagden, 2 Rose, 
 251 ; Oswell v. Probert, 2 Ves. Jr. 680 ; cases ante, I 190, n. 11. 
 
 3 Bees V. Waters, 9 Watts, 90, 94.
 
 g§ 193-193 wife's equity. 272 
 
 § 192, On whose application wifo's equity is enforced. — 
 In cases where a fund is actually in court, and it 
 appears that it would be payable to a married woman 
 if she were not married, the court before distributing it 
 maj'^ inquire whether such married woman has had a 
 soV-lement, and if she has not may make one on her.i 
 Or if there is a trustee of such fund he may ask the 
 court to direct him to pay a share thereof to the wife.^ 
 So her husband may apply.' So she. maj' herself by 
 her next friend institute the proceedings and ask for a 
 settlement.^ But though children are usually included 
 within the benefit of the settlement,* they cannot apply 
 therefor,*' and the settlement must be made during the 
 wife's lifc.^ In cases where she does not herself apply 
 the Gourt may summon her for the purpose of consult- 
 ing her,8 but she may in open court waive her right.^ 
 
 1 See Britton, 9 Beav. 143 ; Murray v. Elibank, 13 Ves. 1 ; Wood- 
 ward, 8 Irish. Eq. 50; Duvall r. Farmers, 4 Gill & J. iJ2 ; 23 Am. Dec. 
 Ho-i ; Hullenbeck r. Bru(lt,2 Paige, 316; Mj'ers, Bail. Eq. 23; 1 Dan. 
 Ch. Pr. SH ; 2 Perry Trusts, ? 627. 
 
 2 See Swan, 2 Hem. <fc 51. 34 ; Elibank v. Montolieu, 5 Ves. 737, 
 743 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 424, 623, 628. 
 
 3 See Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 470, 473. 
 
 4 Elibank r. Montolieu, 3 Ves. 737, 743 ; 1 Whits A T. Lead. Cas. 
 424; Wallace v. Auldjo, 1 DeGe.x, J. & J. 613; Eedes, II Sim. .56i) ; 
 Sturgis )•. Champiieys, 5 Mylne it C. !I2, lOo ; Woodward, s Irish Eq. 
 50,52; Tobin i: Di.\on,2 Met. 422; Moore, 14 Mon. B. 2.') ) ; Iveiinv r. 
 rdall,5 Johns. Ch. 464, 470, 473 ; Van Epps r. Van Deusen.l I';iisf •. (i4, 
 74 ; 25 Am. Dec. 516 ; Hill, 1 Strob. Eq. 1 ; Dearin v. Fitzputi ick, Meigs, 
 551 ; Poiiidexter v. JelTiios, 15 Gratt. 36;i ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 3J1, 3U2. 
 
 5 Hay v. Blanks, 7 Mon. B. 347, 343 ; post, ? 195. 
 
 6 Scriver v. Taplev, 2 Eden, .337 ; Amb. .509 ; Llovd v. Williams, I 
 Madd. 450; Bell, 1 Kellv, 637; Martin c. Sherman, 2 Saud. Ch. 341 ; 
 Barker v. Woods, 1 Sand. Ch. 120. 
 
 7 Delagarde v. Lampriere, 6 Beav. 344. 
 
 8 2 Perry Trusts, ? 627, cases cited. 
 
 9 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 90 ; post, \ 194. 
 
 ^ 193. Out of what property wife's equity to a settlement 
 is enforced. — A court of equity may make a settlement 
 on the wife out of any fund of hers over wliich it has 
 jurisdiction,! if such fund has not been reduced to pos-
 
 273 -mFE's EQUITY. § 193 
 
 session by her husband.^ Thus, such a settlement 
 may be made out of any fund actually in court,^ or 
 held by trustees or guardians under the jurisdiction of 
 the court,* or, as in the case of legacies,^ etc., distrib- 
 utable in equity;^ and this is so though the fund is 
 composed of the proceeds,'' or rents and profits,^ of 
 land, and whether the same has been assigned or not.' 
 But, although a few cases hold that for the purpose of 
 making such a settlement eqviity will take jurisdiction 
 over legal choses in action or rights enforcible in courts 
 of law,'" the better established view is that equity must 
 have jurisdiction otherAvise over the fund or no settle- 
 ment can be made out of it." And no settlement can 
 be made when the husband has obtained complete and 
 absolute possessioii of tlie fund,^^ or where, as in the 
 case of a remainder,'^ tiie fund is not reducible to pos- 
 session.'* 
 
 1 Sturgis V. Champneys, 5 Mylne & C. 92, lOfi ; Wiles, 3 Mfl. 1. ; 
 56 Am. Dec. TM ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 424 ; infra, n. 11 ; cases ante, 
 i l'J(», 11. 11. 
 
 2 Murray v. Elibaiik, 10 Ves. 84, 88 ; Infra, n. 12. 
 
 3 Woorl ward, S Irish Eq. .50, .52 ; Brett r. Greenwell, 3 Yomigp <fe O. 
 230 ; Packer, 1 C'ollv. C. C. 02 ; Coster, n Sim. 597 ; Napier, 1 Dru. & W. 
 •107 ; Durr c. Bowyer, 2 McCord Eq. 368, .372. 
 
 4 Brown v. Elton. 3 P. Wms. 202 ; Blount v. Bestland, 5 Ves. 515 ; 
 T.lovd r. Mason, 5 Hare, 149 ; Bradford v. Goldsboro, 15 Ala. 311, 316 ; 
 Xapler )'. Howard, 3 Kellv. 192, 205 ; Havs x\ Blanks, 7 Mon. B. 347, 
 34S • Barrett ?'. Oliver, 7 Gill & J. 191 ; Sawver v. Baldwin, 20 Pick. 
 ;i7S. 3S7 ; Westbrook r. Gomstock, Walk. Ch. 314 ; Stevenson v. 
 Brown, 4 N. J. Eq. 503, .50.5; Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 484, 472: 
 Coppedge v. Threadgill. 3 Sneed, 577. 
 
 5 Woodward, 8 Irish Eq. .50, .52; Bradford v. Goldsboro. 15 Ala. 
 311, 316 : Sawver v. Baldwin, 20 Pick. .378, .387 ; Steven.son v. Brown, 4 
 N. J. Eq. .503, .505 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 394. 
 
 6 Wilos, 3 Md. 1, 9; 56 Am. Dec. 733. See also cases cited ante, 
 
 I !!», n. 11. 
 
 7 Hill, 1 Strob. Eq. 2, 16. 
 
 8 StUTKis V. Champnevs, 5 Mvlne & C. 92. 105 ; Puncomb v. Green- 
 ncre, 28 Beav. 472 ; 2 DeGex F. <fe J. 509 ; Smith r. Matthews, 3 De 
 Gex P. <t .1. 1-39 ; Hanson ?•. K'^atina, 4 Hare, 1 ; Freeman )•. F irily, 
 
 II Jur. 447 ; Smith v. f,ong, 1 Met. (Ky.) 486 ; Barron. 24 Vt. 375, 391. ' 
 
 9 Sturgis V. Champnevs, 5 Mvlne <fe C. 97, 10.5, 106 ; Jewson v. 
 Moulson. 2 Atk. 417, 419; Macaulav r. Phillips, 4 Ves. 9 ; 1 White & 
 T, Lead. Cas. 447, 610 ; Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 473, 477 ; ante, 
 i I'JO.
 
 § 194 wife's equity. 214. 
 
 10 "Winch V. Page, Bush. 86, 87 ; Oarley, 22 Oa. 178 ; Parson, 9 N. II. 
 309 ; Dearin v. Fitzpatrick, Meigs, 551 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 392 ; 1 Bish. 
 M. W. U 633, et seq. 
 
 11 Wiles, 3 Md. 1, 9 ; 56 Am. Dec. 733. See Guild, 16 Ala. 121 ; Sims 
 V. Spaulding 2 Duval, 121 ; Smith v. Peyton, 6 Mon. 263 ; Thrasher i'. 
 Tuttlc, 22 Mc-Sil^ ; State v. Kifbs.fi Ilar. & J. 31,37 ; Mann v. Higgius, 
 7 (Jill, 2(i') ; Hull, -1 M(l. fh. 'Js;! ; McW-y v. Boggs,3 Md. Ch. I>4 ; Carter, 
 
 14 Suii'dcs iV M. 5I» ; I'dall r. Kmiiv, 3 Cowen, 591, 599, 609; Haviland 
 r. Bloom, U Johns, t'h. 25, ITS; Myers, Bail. Eq. 23; Heath, 2 Hill 
 Ch. 100, 104 ; Dold V. Geiger, 2 Gratt. 98, 103, 104 ; Poindexter v. Jeflfries, 
 
 15 Gratt. ;«i. 
 
 12 Murray v. Elibank, 10 Ves. 84, 88 ; Pool v. Morris, 29 Ga. .374 ; 
 Hurdt V. Courtenav. , Met. ( ICv.) 1.39; Rees i\ Waters, 9 Watts, 90 ; 
 Thomas v. Sheppard, 2 McCord Ch. 36 ; 16 Am. Dec. 632 ; Mitchell v. 
 Sevier, 9 Humph. 14li ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 392 ; ante, §| 176-182. 
 
 13 Browning v. Headley, 2 Rob. (Va.) 340 ; 40 Am. Dec. 755. 
 
 14 See Socket v. Wray, 2 Atk. 6, n. ; Frazer r. Bailie, 1 Bro. Ch. .518 ; 
 Richards v. Chambers, 10 Ves. 580 ; Woollands r. Crowcher, 12 Ves. 
 175; Duherly v. Day, 16 Beav. 33; Sili> r. Sanndcrs, 24 Mis.s. 24; 
 57 Am. Dec. 157 ; Terry r. Brunson, 1 l!i h. Krj. 7s ; Reese v. Holmes, 
 
 5 Rich. Eq. 531 ; Goodwin v. Moore, 4 Humph. 221 ; Moore r. Thorn- 
 ton, 7 Gratt. 99. Contra, Jackson v. Sublett, 10 Mon. B. 469 ; Weeks, 
 
 6 Ired. Eq. Ill ; 47 Am. Dec. 358 ; Similie, 22 Pa. St. l;». 
 
 ? 194. Under what circumstances the wife's equity is 
 enforced. — Whether a settlement .shall bo made seems 
 to be determined by the practice of the particular court, 
 and to be within its discretion. ^ In cases where it 
 would grant to a wife maintenance,'^ or a divorce with 
 alimony,^ it would not hesitate to make her an allow- 
 ance out of her funds within its jurisdiction.* Her con- 
 duct and condition affect the amount of the settlement^ 
 rather than the right to it;^ she does not forfeit her 
 right by living separate from her husband,' though she 
 does, probably, by living in adultery .^ So Avhen the 
 amount of her fund has been determined,' and she is of 
 full age,^" she may waive her equity," though this 
 must be done in open court,!' qj. jj^ some equally formal 
 manner,!^ her mere joinder in her husband's assign- 
 ment not being sufficient." The smallness of the fund 
 is no bar to the settlement.'^ But the wife may be 
 barred as against assignees by her fraud.'* 
 
 1 Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 474. See Giacomettl v. Prod- 
 gers, Law R. 14 Eq. 253 ; Scott v. Spashett, 16 Jur. 157 ; Coster, 9 Sim. 
 597 ; Brett v. Greenwell, 3 Younge & C. 230.
 
 275 wife's equity. g 195 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D. 5 170. 
 
 3 Stewart M. &. D. ?? 353-399. 
 
 4 Eenvvick, 10 Paige, 421 ; Uaviland r. Mj'ers, 6 Johns. Ch. 25, 178 ; 
 Rees V. Waters, 9 Watts, 90. 
 
 5 Post, I 196. 
 
 G Carter, 14 Smedes & M. 59. Compare Stewart M. & D. ? 371. 
 
 7 Eedos, 11 Sim. 569 ; Greedy v. Lavender, 13 Beav. 62 ; Carter, 14 
 Smedes & M. 59. 
 
 8 Carr v. Estebroolce, 4 Ves. 146 ; Ball v. Montgomerj', 2 Ves. Jr. 
 191 ; Watkyns, 2 Atk. 97 ; Lewin, 20 Beav. 378. 
 
 9 Edmunds v. Townshend, 1 Anstr. 93 ; Jernegan r. Baxter, 6 
 Madd. 32 ; Sperling v. Rochfort, 8 Ves. 180 ; Packer, 1 Colly. C. C. 92 ; 
 Watson V. Marshall, 17Beav. 363 ; Bendyshe, 3 Jur. N. S. 727. 
 
 10 Shipway w BalJ, Law R. 16 Ch. I). 376 ; Stnbbs r. Targan, 2 Beav. 
 496 ; Abraham v. Neweombe, 12 Sim. .%6 ; Warfleld, 11 Gill & J. 23 ; 
 Udall 1'. Kennv, 3 Cowen,590; Cheatam r. Huff, 2 Tenn. Ch. 61H ; 
 Phillips V. Hesseil, 10 Humph. 197. 
 
 11 And see Smith v. Atwood, 14 C4a. 402 ; Wrightti. Arnold, 14 Mon. 
 B. 638 ; Geddes, 4 Rich. Eq. 301 ; ."i? Am. Dec. 730 ; Clark v. Smith, 13 
 S. C. 5.85. 
 
 12 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 95 ; Campbell v. Freach, 2 Ves. .321 ; May v. Roper, 
 4 Sim 360; Ward v. Amory, I Curt. 419; Coppedge v. ThreadgUl, 3 
 Sneed, 577. 
 
 13 Packer, 1 Colly. C. C. 92 ; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 95 ; cases supra, n. 12. 
 
 14 Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 4M, 470, 471 ; ante, § 181. 
 
 15 Klncaid, 17 Eng. L. & Eq. 396 ; 1 Drew. 326 , Cutler, 14 Beav. 224 ; 
 Roberts v. Collett, 6 Smale & G. 138. 
 
 16 Lush, Law R. 4 Ch. 591 ; Sharpe v. Foy, Law U. 4 Ch. 35. 
 
 § 195. For whose benefit wife's equity is enforced. — The 
 income is usually left with the husband when he is 
 living with and supporting his wife at the time 
 of the settlement,! but if they are living apart,^ or for 
 some other reason she needs the income for her daily 
 support,^ both principle and income are settled upon 
 her.* The settlement is made on her and her children,'^ 
 including children unborn ,8 and children of any future 
 husband.^ Still she may waive the settlement a.3 
 against the children,^ and is entitled thereto though the 
 children are provided for,^ and the children have not 
 by themselves any right to a settlement.'" After her 
 death they may enforce any settlement made during 
 her life.i! At what time their rights attach seems 
 doubtful — according to differing views this occurs on
 
 § 195 wife's equity. 27G 
 
 ins-titution of the suit,^^ on the making of an interloc- 
 utory order, 13 on agreement to refer to arbitration,^' 
 after reference to a master and before his report,'^ or 
 only on the rendition of the final decree,^^ or some 
 order equivalent thereto." Her waiver or death after 
 such time has no effect on the rights.'^ If tlie wife dies 
 witliout children, the husband,'^ or his next of kin -" 
 takes the settlement. 
 
 1 Watkvns, 2 Atk. 96, 98 ; Kenny v. XJdall 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 4S0 ; 
 Barron, 24 Vt, 375, 3S)5. 
 
 2 Oxenden, 2 Vern. 474 ; Eedes, 11 Sim. 569 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 3 Coster, 1 Keen, 200 ; Wright v. Morley, 11 Yes. 23 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 See ElUott v. Cardell, 5 Madd. 156; Jacobs v. Amvatt, 1 Madd. 
 376 ; Covsegame, 1 Atk. 192 ; Watkyns, 2 Atk. 96 : Bond v. Simnions, 
 3 Atk. 19 ; 81eech ?'. Thorington, 2 Ves. Sr. 562 : Wrisrht v. Morlev, 11 
 Ves. 23; Guy v. Perkes, 18 Ves. 196; Duncan, 19 Ves. 396; Ball v 
 Montgomery. 2 Ves. Jr. 191 ; Burden v. Dean, 2 Ves. Jr. 609 ; Brown v. 
 Clark, 3 Ves. 166 ; Lumb v. Milnes, 5 Ves. 517 ; Coster, 1 Keen, 200 ; 9 
 Sim. 600 ; Vaughan v. Buck, 13 Sim. 404 ; Eedes, U Sim. .569 ; Duflfey, 
 28 Beav. .386; Squires v. Ashford, 23 Beav. 132; Koeber ?r. Sturgis, 22 
 Beav. 588 ; Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, 16 Law J. Ch. :5S7 ; Montefiore 
 V. Behrens, Law R. 1 Eq. 171 ; Van Dugen, 6 Paige 366. 
 
 5 Murray v. Elibank, 13 Ves. 1,6; Johnson, 1 Jacob <fe W. 479 ; 
 Grosvenor v Lane, 2 Lane. 2 Ark. ISO ; Havs v. Blanks, 7 Mon. B. 347, 
 348 ; Beniiet v. Dillingham, 2 Dana, 436 ; Hall, 4 Md. Ch. 283 ; Mann ?•. 
 Higgins, 7 Gill, 265; Mumford v. Murjray, 1 Paige, 620; Kenny v. 
 XJdall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464. 
 
 6 Croxton v. May, Law R. 9 Eq. 404 ; cases supra, n. 6. 
 
 7 Cro-xton V. May.Law R. 9Eq.404. 
 
 8 Delagarde v. Lempriere, 6 Beav. 365 ; Baldwin, 5 DeGe.x <fc S. 310. 
 
 9 Pryor v. Hill, 4 Bro. C. C. 13S. 
 
 10 Scriver v. Taplev, Arab. 509; 2 Eden, 337 ; Greer v. Boone, 5 
 Mon. B. 554 ; ante, i 192. 
 
 11 Murray v. Elibank, 13 Ves. 1 ; 14 Ves. 496 ; 1 White & T. Lead. 
 Cas. 424. 
 
 12 Steinmetz v. Halthin, 1 Glyn (fe J. G4. Contra, Wallace v. 
 Auldjo, 1 DeGox J. & S. 643 ; 8 Hare, 10. 
 
 13 Gower v. Clarke, 1 Keen, 132 ; Grove v. Perkins, 6 Sim. 584. 
 
 14 Lloyd V. Mason, 5 Hare, 149 ; 14 Law J. N S. Ch. 257. 
 
 15 Murrav v. Elibank, 14 Ves. 496 ; Micaulev r. Phillips, 4 Ves. 15 ; 
 Baldwin, 5 DeGex & S. 319 ; 15 Eug. Law & Eq. 158 ; Hobgood v. 
 Martin, 31 Ga. 62. 
 
 16 Murray v. Elibank, 10 Ves. 84 ; Lloyd v. Williams, I Madd. 450 ; 
 Delagarde v. Lempriere, 6 Beav. -347 ; Greer v. Boone, 5 Mon. B. 554. 
 
 17 Murray v. Elibank, 18 Ves. 84 ; Gardner, 2 Ves. Sr. 671 ; Whittem 
 t\ Sawyer, 1 Beav. 593. 
 
 18 Barker v. Lea, Madd. <fe G. 330 ; supra, n. 17. 
 
 19 Walsh u. Mason, Law R. 8 Ch.4S2.
 
 277 wipe's equity. § 136 
 
 20 Carter v. Taggert, 1 DeGex :M. & G. 286 ; Bagshaw v. Winter, 5 
 DeGex & «. 466. 
 
 ^ 193. The amount of tli3 settlement to which wife's 
 equity entitles har. — The amount of t]ie settlement is 
 largely within the discretion of the court, ^ and depends 
 upon the circumstances of the particular case.'^ The 
 court considers the age and condition of the wife,^ the 
 ages and number of the children,* her pecuniary- 
 wants,'' and whether any previous settlement has been 
 made; 6 it will be more inclined to be liberal to the 
 wife as against her husband than as against his as- 
 signees for valued In some cases, as where the hus- 
 band is insolvent,* or is living separate from her by his 
 fault,^ or her needs are great, ^^ the wliole may be 
 awarded her ; '^ or at least the greater part.^^ One half 
 is an ordinarj- allowance.*^ Less will be awarded her 
 if she is in fault.'* 
 
 1 Kenny v. Udall, 5 /ohns. Ch. 464, 479. 
 
 2 Elibank v. Montolieu, .5 Ves. 7:i', 743; 1 White & T. Lead. Ca.s. 
 424; Jewson v. Moulson, 2 Atk. 42:5; Worrall v. Marhir, 1 Cox, 15.i; 
 Brown v. Clarke, ;{ Ves. 166 ; Cliassaing v. Parsonage, 5 Ves. 15 ; 
 Pearce v. Crutcbfleld, 14 Ves. 206 ; Dunkley, 2 DeGex, M. & G. 396 ; 
 Biigshaw V. Winter, .5 DeGex & S. 466 ; Coster. 9 8im. 597 ; Gardner 
 V. Marshall. 14 Sim. 575 ; fireen v. Otte, 1 Siusse & S. 2.50 ; Francis v. 
 Brooking, 19 Beav. 347 ; Marshall ?•. Fowler, 16 Beav. 249 ; Beeman r. 
 Cowser 22 Ark. 429; Napier v. Howard, :J Kellv, 205; Bowling v. 
 Winslow, 5 Mon. B. 31; Hall, 4 Md. Ch. 283, 286; SirVey v. Boggs, 3 
 Md. Ch. 94 ; Bennett v. Oliver, 7 (iill & J. 191 ; Helms v. Franeiscus, 2 
 Bland, 545 ; 20 Am. Dec. 402 ; Kennv v. Udall, 5 .lohns. Ch. 464, 
 478, 479 , White v. Gouldin, 27 Gratt. 491 ; Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 395. 
 
 3 Davis V. Newton, 6 Met. 537, 544. 
 
 4 Barron, U Vt. 375, 395. 
 
 5 Kenny v. Udall, 5 Johns. Ch. 464, 479. 
 
 6 Elibank v. Montolieu, 5 Ves. 737, 743 ; Dunklev, 2 DeGex, M. 
 <fe G. 390. 
 
 7 See cases cited supra, n. 2. 
 
 8 White V. Cordwell, Law R. 20 Eq. CAi \ Brett v. Greenwell, 3 
 Younge & C. 230. 
 
 9 Burrows 12 Eng. L. A Eq. 268. 
 
 10 Gent V. Harris, 10 Hare, 383 ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 11 Breit V. Greenwell, 3 Younge & C. 230 ; Renwick, 10 Paige, 421 ; 
 Rees (I. Waters, 9 Watts, 90 ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 12 Coster, 9 Sim. 597 ; Spirett v. Willows, Law R. 1 Ch. 520 ; Law R. 
 4 Ch. 407 
 
 13 Peachey Mar. Sett. 176, 177 ; 2 Bright. H. & W. 241 ; cases cited. 
 
 14 Compare Stewart M. & D. 5 371 ; o?i«e, J 194. 
 
 H. & W. — 24,
 
 2 197 wife's equitable estate. 278 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 wife's equitable separate estate. 
 
 i 197. Defined. 
 
 i 198. Creation of. 
 
 i 199. Settlor's intent to exclude husband. 
 
 i 200. Words which show such intent. 
 
 i 201. Present and future husbands. 
 
 I 202. Necessity of trustee — Husband as trustee. 
 
 ^ 203. Wife's control over. 
 
 g 201. Eestraints on alienation and anticipation. 
 
 § 20.5. Wife's power to dispose of inter vtros. 
 
 ? 206. Wife's power to contract concerning — Rules. 
 
 J 207. Wife's power to contract concerning— Decisions. 
 
 i 20S. Wife's power to will. 
 
 J 209. Wife's rights in increase — Rents, profits, etc. 
 
 I 210. Remedies of wife concerning. 
 
 I 211. Remedies against. 
 
 ? 212. Riglus of husband and liis creditors over. 
 
 I 213. How lost or extinguished. 
 
 g 214. Effect of death upon. 
 
 I 215. Effect of divorce upon. 
 
 { 216. Effect of modern statutes upon. 
 
 J 197. "Wife's equitable separate estate defined. — A mar- 
 ried woman's equitable separate pi-operty (also called 
 her "soZe and separate estate^^)^ is property which is so 
 settled 2 upon her that courts of equity" recognize it 
 during her coverture* as her own,» unatfected by her 
 husband's marital rights.* In her ordinary equitable 
 estates all the marital rights of her husband exist ; ' but 
 by the recognition of the wife's equity,* and of her sole 
 and separate estate,' courts of equity to some degree 
 diminished the harshness of the common-law rules." 
 This estate is still of importance, as married women 
 separate property acts have not destroyed it." 
 
 1 Clarke v. Windham, 12 Al.o, 7:)8, 800 ; 2 Perry Trusts. J ftlG. 
 
 2 As to creation of, see post, ? 11)8.
 
 279 wife's equitable estate. g 198 
 
 3 As to Jurisdiction of courts of law and of equity, see post, § 210. 
 
 4 As to effect of dissolution of marriage, see post, ?? 214, 215. 
 
 5 As to rights and powers of wife over, see post, ?§ 203-211. 
 
 6 As to rights of liusband and his creditors over, see post, ? 212. 
 
 7 Banks v. Green, 35 Arlc. 84, 8S ; ante, it 148, 157, 164, 101 ; post, 
 i I'JS), n. 
 
 8 White V. Gouldin, 27 Gratt. 491, 507 ; ante, ?? 190-196. 
 
 9 Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Bro. C. C. 16 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 481, 
 4th Am. ed. 679. 
 
 10 2 Perry Trusts, i 625. 
 
 11 Short V Battle, 52 Ala. 4-56, 466, 467 ; post, i 216. 
 
 § 198, Creation of wife's equitable separate estate. — A 
 wife's equitable separate estate is created by a settle- 
 ment to her sole and separate use.^ The settlement 
 may be antenuptial ^ or postnuptial,^ Avritten,* or in the 
 ease of personalty oral,* by deed,* or by will,' in trust,^ 
 or direct; 9 it may and generally does refer only to 
 property which it vests in her,'" but it may also as in 
 the case of an antenuptial agreement between her hus- 
 band and herself,'! refer to property otherwise,'^ or in 
 some special way,'^ acquired. The settlor may be a 
 stranger,'* her husband,'^ or herself.'* The settlee may 
 be unmarried and unengaged,'' unmarried but on the 
 eve of marriage,'^ or already married."* The sole 
 requisite is that the terms™ of the settlement show that 
 it was intended by the settlor,'^' that in tlie property in 
 question^ the husband in question''^ sliould have no 
 marriage rights.^* If the settlement is made by a 
 stranger and is accepted by the husband, both erro- 
 neously supposing that it creates an eqviitable separate 
 estate in the wife, it will be given this eflfect;* but 
 ordinarily the husband by treating the wife's realty as 
 her own does not create in her a separate estate there- 
 in ;2* and so of her personalty,^' unless his conduct 
 proves a gift from him to her.^^ 
 
 1 Darby, 3 Atlc. 3ii9 ; cases cited infra. 
 
 2 See " Antenuptial Settlements." discussed Stewaxt M. & D. 
 li 32-43.
 
 g 109 avife's equitable estate. 280 
 
 3 See Postnuptial Settlements, discussed ante, H 99-134; 
 " Deeds of Separation," disc'ussecl Stewart M. ife D. §§ 181-192. 
 
 4 Morrison v. Ttiistle. 67 Mo. o ,6, 509. 
 
 5 Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 419. S. P. Betts, 18 Ala. 787, 790 ; Gil- 
 lespie V. Burlinson, 28 Ala. SSI, 5fi4 ; WatBon v. Broaddus, 6 Bush, S28, 
 Xi) ; Chew v. Beall, r'- :M(1. ;M8, 360 : George v. Spencer, 2 Md. Ch. H5.'i, 
 3fi0; Jaok.son r. MrAlil.v. Spear Eq. 303, 307; 40 Am. Dec. 620 ; Pond 
 V. Skeen, 2Lea, ]2(;, i:iO, 131. 
 
 6 Paul V. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 595, 598. 
 
 7 Dee v. Prieau.t, 3 Bro. Ch. 381, 385. 
 
 8 Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 197 ; post, \ 202. 
 
 9 Wood, 83 N. Y. 575, 579 ; post, i 202. 
 
 10 Mounger v. Duke, .53 Gv,. 277, 231. 
 
 11 Stewart M. & D. ^ 32-4.3. 
 
 12 Klenke v. Koeltze, 75 Mo. 239, 243. 
 
 13 As in the case of her earnings, ante, ? 65. 
 
 14 Sledge V. Clopton, 6 Ala. 589, 59u ; Charles v. Coker, 2 S. C. (N. S.) 
 122, 129, i;«. 
 
 15 Williams, 68 Ala. 405, 406. 
 
 16 Dean v. Brown, 2 Car. <fe P. 62, 63 ; Arnold v. Woodhanes, T,aw 
 R. 16 Eq. 21). 33. Before marriage if not in evasion of marriage rights : 
 See Stewart M. & D. i 44. 
 
 17 Newlands v. Paynter, 4 Mylne <ft C. 408, 417, 418 ; Tullett r. Arm- 
 strong, 1 Beav. 1; 4 Mvlne <fe C. 377, 390 ; Metropolitan ?■. Tavlor, .'iS 
 Mo. 444, 4.il ; Shirley, 9 Paige, 363, 3W ; Beaufort r. Collier, (i liiiniph. 
 4S7, 4.11; 44 Am. Dec. 321. The rule was formerly otherwise: .See 
 Massey v. Parker, 2 Mvlne & K. 174; Lindsev ?'. Harrison, 2 Eng. 
 311 ; Gully r. Hall, 31 Miss. 20; Bridges v. Wiikins, 3 .Tones Eq. ;i42 ; 
 Muler ri. Bingham, 1 Ired. 423; Hiunersley >■. Smith, 4 Whart. 126. 
 So in Pa. now : Snyder, 92 Pa. St. 504, 50:). See further post, J 201. 
 
 IS Snyder, 92 Pa. St. 504, 509. 
 
 19 Mounger v. Duke, 53 Ga. 277, 281. 
 
 20 Paul V. Leavitt, 53 Mo. .595, .598 ; Pond v. Skeen, 2 Lea, 126, 130, 131. 
 
 21 Vail, 49 Conn. .52, .53 ; post, ? 199. 
 
 22 Klenke v. Koeltze, 7.5 Mo. 2.39, 243, 244 ; supra, notes 10-12. 
 
 23 Tullett V. Armstrong, 1 Beav. 1 ; 4 Mylne & C. 377, 390. 
 
 24 Bowen v. Lebree, 2 Bush, 112, 115 ; post, ? 199, n. 3. 
 
 25 Mounger v. Duke, 53 Ga. 277, 281. See Betts, 18 Ala. 787, 791. 
 
 26 Klenke v. Koeltze, 75 Mo. 239, 243. 
 
 27 Pond V. Skeen, 2 Lea, 126, 132. 
 
 28 Welch, 63 Mo. 51, 61 ; ante, I 127. 
 
 \ 199. The settlor's intent to exclude the husband's mar- 
 riage rights. — Tlie settlor's intent to exclude'^ the lius- 
 band's marriage rights in the property must clearly" 
 appear from the terms of the settlement, to create in 
 the wife an equitable separate estate therein.^ If no
 
 281 wife's EQTTITABLE ESTATE. § 199 
 
 such intent appears, there is created at best an ordinary- 
 trust for a married woman, in which the husband has 
 all marriage riglits,'* subject only to his wife's equity to 
 a settlement.^ Wlien it is a settlement of personalty 
 made orally,® tlie settlor's intent may be proved by 
 his declarations, etc., made at the time.^ But in the 
 case of a written settlement, while the court will search 
 the four corners of the document and be satisfied if the 
 intent apjiears in any part thereof,^ and while it will 
 allow an ordinary deed to be controlled by an ante- 
 nuptial settlement.^ it will not allow an ordinary deed 
 to be changed by parol into a deed to the wife's sole 
 and separate use,'" applying rigorously the rule that 
 the terms of a document may not be altered by oral 
 evidence." In the case of a settlement by the husband 
 of personalty his intent to exclude bis rights will be 
 presumed,'^ otherwise the settlement would have no 
 effect at all ;^^ but if it is of realty the instrument must 
 show his intent or he will take the rents and profits,^* 
 as he does of her other realty.'^ Still the intent to give 
 the wife the sole enjoyment of her property will be 
 more readily proved in a settlem.ent from her husband 
 than in one from a stranger.'^ The technical words to 
 show this intent are properly inserted in tire haben- 
 dum.,^'' and arc, "to have and to hold to her sole and 
 separate use";'^ but no technical words are neccs- 
 sary,i9and many other phrases have been held equally 
 conclusive.^" 
 
 1 Bowen v. Lebree, 2 Bush, n2, 115; Paul v. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 505, 
 5i)8; Beaufort v. Collier, C JIumpli. 4S7, 430; 44 Am. Dec. :i21 ; infra, 
 u. 3. 
 
 2 Vail, 49 Conn. 52, .5".; Buck r. Wroten, 24 Gr;itt. 2:^, Z'tS, 255; 
 infra, n. i. 
 
 3 Hulme V. Tenant, 1 Bro. C. C. ir> ; 1 White & T. Leai. Cm. 4S1, 
 4th Am. ed. 679 ; Ray, 1 Madd. 199, 207 ; Prout v. Ilohy, 15 Wall. 471, 
 474; Hale v. Stone, 14 Ala. 80:!, citing cases; Cook v. Kennerly, 12 
 Ala. 42, 46 ; Jenkins v. McConico, 20 Ala. 213, 238 ; Gaines r. Poor, 3 
 M'n. CKv.) 503, 50S ; Bowen ?-. Lebree, 2 Bush, 112. 115; Watson v. 
 Broaddus, 6 Bush, .328, .329 ; Brant v. Miokle, 23 Md. 4::6, «J ; Carroll v.
 
 § 200 wife's equitable estate. 282 
 
 Lee, 3 GUI & J. 505, 508 ; 22 Am. Dec. 330 ; Williams v. Claiborne, 7 
 Smedes & M. 48H, 495 ; Hunt v. Booth, 1 Freem. 215, 218 ; Paul v. 
 Leavitt, 53 Mo. 5'J5, 598 ; Metropolitan v. Taylor, 5.'* Mo. 444, 4.50 ; 
 Ascroft V. Little, 4 Irert. Eq. 2:?fi, 2:iS ; Kndisell v. Watson, 2 Dev. Eq. 
 4.30, 432 ; Pond v. Skeen, 2 Lea, 126, 131 ; Buck v. Wroten, 24 Gratt. 250, 
 253 ; infra, n. 19. 
 
 4 Rich V. Cockell, 9 Ves. 3T0, 377 ; Lumb v. Milnes, 5 Ves. 517 ; 
 Brown V. Clark, 3 Ves. Ifi6 ; Spirett v. Willows, 11 Jur. N. S. 70; Wil- 
 liams V. Maull,20 Ala. 721, 727 ; Lenoir ?'. Binney, 15 Ala. 667; Banks 
 V. (Jreen, 35 Ark. 84, 88; Vail, 49 Conn. 52, .54; Taylor v. Stone, 13 
 8mertes <fe M. 653 ; Hunt )'. Booth, 1 Freem. 215, 218 ; Evans v. Knorr, 
 4 Rawle, 66 ; Graham, Riley, 142 ; Mayberry v. Neely, 5 Humph. 337, 
 339 ; ante, U 148, 160, 164. 
 
 5 White V. Gouldin, 27 Gratt. 491, 507 ; ante, ?? 190-196. 
 
 6 Chew V. BealL 13 Md. U9,, 360 ; ante, ? 108. 
 
 7 Watson v. Broaddus, 6 Bush, ;J28, 329 ; Pond v. Skeen, 2 Lea, 126^ 
 130. 131 ; Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 419. 
 
 8 Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 596, .599. 
 
 9 Klenke v. Koeltze, 75 Mo. 239, 243, 244. 
 
 10 Paul V. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 595, 538. 
 
 11 Stephens' Digest, art. 90 ; Paul v. Leavitt, 5S Mo. 595, 598. 
 
 12 Deming v. Wi'liams, 26 Conn. 226, 2".l. See Whitten, 3 Cush. 194, 
 199; Wells V. Treadwell, 2.S Miss. 717, 72;j; Steel, 1 Ired. Eq. 452, 455; 
 Benedict v. Montgomerv, 7 Watts <fe 8. 238, 242 ; 42 Am. Dec. 230 ; 
 Powell, 9 Humph. 477, 486. 
 
 13 Personalty would vest in him again at once at common law : 
 Ante, ''( 170. Perhaps under statutes a statutory separate estate would 
 be created if no apparent intent: Williams, 68 Ala. 40.5, 40R. 
 
 14 Hovt V. Parks. •'^9 Conn. 3.^9, 360 ; Plumb v. Joes, 39 Conn. 120, 123 ; 
 Hutchinson v. Mitchell, .39 Tex. 487, 492. 
 
 15 Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 373 ; ante, ?? 146-150. 
 
 16 Mounger v. Duke, .53 Ga. 277, 281. Presumed in case of deed of 
 separation : Gaines v. Poor, 3 Met. (Ky.) 503, 508. 
 
 17 Not necessarily : Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 596, 599, 
 
 IS Darby, 3 Atk. 399 ; Williams v. Maull, 20 Ala. 721, 728, 729 ; Clarke 
 V. Windham, 12 .\la. 798, 800. 
 
 19 Stanton v. Hall, 2 Russ. <fe M. 175, 180 ; Prichard v. Ames, Turn. 
 & R. 222, 223; Prout v. Robv, 15 Wall. 471,474; Hale v. Stone, 14 Ala. 
 803 ; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 198 ; Brant v. Mickle, 28 Md. 436, 449 ; 
 Morrison r\ Thi.stle, 67 Mo. 5!»i, 599; Street v. Kissam, 2 Barh. 494, 
 496 ; Davis v. Cain, 1 Ired. Eq. .305, 307 ; Heathraan r. Hall, 3 Ired. Eq. 
 414, 420 ; Charles v. Coker, 2 S. C. (N. S.) 122, 133 ; Hamilton v. Bishop, 
 8 Yerg. 33. 40 ; Beaufort i'. Collier. 6 Humph. 487, 491 ; 44 Am. Pec. :«1 ; 
 Nixon V. Rosa, 12 Gratt. 425, 42S ; Porter v. Bank 19 Vt. 410, 419 ; jwst, 
 §200. 
 
 20 Metropolitan v. Taylor, .53 Mo. 444, 450 ; post, ? 200. 
 
 g 200. Words in settlement on married woman which 
 show intent to exclude husband's rights. — No technical 
 words are necessary to create an equitable .separate 
 estate In a married woman, ' but tlie terms of the settle-
 
 283 wife's equitable estate. § 200 
 
 ment must show the settlor's intent to secure the prop- 
 erty to her free from marital rights.^ 
 
 1. The following phrases by themselves have this 
 effect: "For her sole and separate use."^ "For her 
 sole use."* "As her separate estate."^ "Only as and 
 for her own separate estate, free from the control of her 
 husband." 8 "For her tull and sole use and benefit." ^ 
 "For her own sole use and benefit." * "For her sole 
 use and benefit." ^ " To her exclusive use, benefit, and 
 behoof."^" "For her exclusive use and benefit." " 
 "For her exclusively." ^^ " For her sole and absolute 
 use." ^ " For her own use and at her own disiwsal." " 
 "For her sole use, benefit, and disposition." ^^ " To be 
 at her own disposal, and to do therewith as she shall 
 think fit." 18 "To be hers and hers only." " For her 
 without any hindrance or molestation Avhatever." ^^ 
 *' For her own use and benefit independent of any 
 other person." ^^ " For her own use independent of 
 any husband."^ "Not subjected to the control of her 
 husband." 21 "Her husband to have no control." 22 
 " Not to be sold, bartered, or traded by the husband." ^ 
 " For her livelihood." 2* " As an allowance for her pin- 
 money."''^ And perhaps such i^rovisions as "her 
 receipt to be a sufficient discharge," ^^ "to her free 
 from her husband's debts," 2' "to her to receive the 
 rents while she lives whether married or single." ^^ 
 
 2. The following phrases by themselves have not 
 this effect: "To A's wife."'-^ "In trust for her." so- 
 "For her use."^i "For her own use."'^ "For her 
 proper use."^ "In trust for her for life to pay the 
 same to her and her assigns." ^i To her and her chil- 
 dren." ^^ " To enjoy as she sees fit.'"* " For joint use 
 of herself and her husband." ^^ And perhaps^ "to be 
 free from her husband's debts." ^s 
 
 3. Where the words are in themselves ambiguous,
 
 g 200 wife's equitable estate. 284 
 
 the court looks all through the settlement to explain 
 them and find the iutGnt,^^ and so in one case the settle- 
 ment was held to create a separate estate because it was 
 made "for fear she might marry some improvident 
 man";^" it will liliewise consider tlie circumstances 
 under which it was made," and the fact tliat the woman 
 is married or about to marry is important.*^ On the 
 other hand words ordinary sufficient may be so used 
 as not to create a separate estate,^ as where a man 
 devised property "to the sole use and benefit" of his 
 widow, and it was held he did not contemplate a future 
 marriage or thereby create a separate estate.^^ 
 
 4. Words whicli exclude one iiusband do not neces- 
 sarily exclude all,^^ and words which exclude a hus- 
 band's rights during coverture do not necessarily 
 exclude liis rights as widower.*^ 
 
 1 Brant v. Mickle, 2S Md. 436, 449 ; ante, ? VJ'X 
 
 2 Wood 1'. Polk, 12 Heisk. 220, 223, 224 ; ante, ? 109. 
 
 3 Parker v. Brooke, 9 Ves. 5S3, 5S7 ; Adamson v. Armitncro, 10 
 Ves. 415; Darbv, 3 Atk. 3!)0 ; Archer ?•. Korke, 7 IrLsli K(|. 47.'^, 4S1 ; 
 Williams v. Maull,20 Ala. 721, 728, 723; Clarke r. Wi)idhain, 12 Ala. 
 7:)S, 800; Robinson r. O'Neal, 56 Ala. .■)41 ; Swain v. Duane, 48 fal. 
 353 ; Townshend v. Matthews, 10 Md. 251, 255. 
 
 4 Lindsell v. Thaeker, 12 Sim. 178, 184; Eav, 1 Madd. 190, 207; 
 Archer v. Rorke, 7 Irish. Eq. 478, 481 ; Fears «\ Brooks, 13 Ga. 195, 198 ; 
 Ouishaber v. Hairmau, 2 Bush, 320, 321 ; Steel, 1 Ired. Eq. 452 ; East- 
 wick, 13Phila. 3.50. 
 
 5 Fox V. Tlawks, Law R. 13 Ch. D. 822, 832 ; Swoin v. I»uaiie, 48 
 Cal. 358, 3G0 ; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 198. 
 
 6 Wood, 83 N. Y. 575, 579. 
 
 7 Arthur, 11 Irish Eq. 511, 51.3. 
 
 8 Killick, 3 Mont. D. <£; D. 480, 487; Inglefield v. CoghUui. 2 Collv. 
 C. C. 247 ; Heathman v. Hall, 3 Ired. Eq. 414. 
 
 9 Lyne, Younge, 562. 
 
 10 Williams r. Avery, 38 Ala. 115, 117. 
 
 U Hutchins 1'. Ilixon, 11 Md. 29, 37. 
 
 12 (iould V. HUl, 18 Ala. 84, 86. 
 
 13 Davis r. Prout, 7 Beav. 288 ; Short v. Battle, 52 Al.a. 4.56. 
 
 14 Prichard v. Ames, Turn. <& R. 222, 223. 
 
 15 Ray, 1 JIadd. 19!), 203, 204, 207. 
 
 16 Kirk r. Paulin, 9 Yin. Abr. 96, pi. 43. But see infra, n. &5. 
 
 17 Ellis V. Y\'oods, 9 Rich. Eq. 19 ; Ogley v. Ikelheimer, 26 Ala. Sn, 
 33G.
 
 285 wife's kquitabls estate. § 200 
 
 18 Newman i'. James, 12 Ala. 29, 31 ; Clarke v. Winciham, 12 Ala. 
 738, 800. 
 
 19 MargPtts V. Barlnser, 7 Sim. 4S2 ; Williams v. Maull, 20 Ala. 721; 
 Brown v. Johnson, 17 Ala. 2.32, 2:i3 ; Asbcroft r. Little, 4 Ired Eq. 236. 
 
 20 AVagstafif v. Smith, 9 Ves. 520, .523. See post, I 201. 
 
 21 Bai-i V. Lescher, 11 Sim. 317, 401. 
 
 22 Edwards v. Jones, 14 Week. R. 31.5. 
 
 23 Woodrum v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Swan, 218. 
 
 24 Darby, 3 Atk. 399 ; Ray, 1 JIadd. 199, 208. 
 
 25 Herbert. Free. Ch. 44 ; Miller v. Wikes, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 66. See 
 ante, U 188, 18a 
 
 26 Charles v. Coker, 2 S. C. (N. S.) 122, 129, 133. See Lee v. Pireaux, 
 3 Bro. Ch. 3-:|, 3S5 ; Lunib v. Millies, 6 Ves. 517; Stanton v. Hall, 2 
 Russ. & M. 173, 18.8 ; Blacklors v. Laws, 2 Hare, 40, 43. 
 
 27 Young, 3 Jones Eq. 216, 219. But see !?i/ra, n. S7. 
 
 28 Goulder v. Camm, 1 De Gex, F. & J. 146, 151 
 
 29 Moore r. Jones, 13 Ala. 2:)6 ; Fitch v. Ayer, 2 Conn. 143, 146. 
 
 30 Vail, 49 Conn. 52, 54 ; ante, i 199, n. 4. 
 
 31 Guishaber ?•. Hairman,2 Bush, 320, 321. See Jacobs r. Amyatt, 1 
 Madd. 37G, n. ; Wills v. Sayers, 4 Madd. 4U ; Roberts ?'. Spicer, 5 
 Madd. 491 ; Prout )'. Robv, 15 Wall. 474 : Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 
 19.5, 1!I8 ; Merrill r. Bullock, 105 Mass. 486 ; Rndisell ?'. Watson, 2 Dev. 
 Eq. 430, 432; Torbet r. Twinincr, 1 Yeates, 432 ; Clevestine, 15 Pa. St. 
 499 ; Tennent v. .Stoney, 1 Kich. Eq. 222 ; +4 .Am. Dec. 213 ; McDonald 
 V. Crockett, 2 McCord Ch. 130. But see Steel, 1 Ired. Eq. 452; Good 
 V. Harris, 2 Ired. Eq. 638; Hamilton v. Bishop, 8 Yerg. 33 ; 29 Am. 
 Dec. lOL 
 
 32 Tvler V. Lake, 2 Russ. .% M. 183, 187; Johnes v. Lockhart, 3 Bro. C. 
 O. :J83, 11.; Turton, 6 Md. 375,;i*4 ; Brant i'. Mickle, 28 Md. 436, 449. But 
 see Griffith, 5 Mon. B. 113 ; Heck v. Clippeii;;;-r, 5 Pa. St. 3S5. 
 
 33 Tvler V. Lake, 2 Russ. <fe M. 183, 1S7 ; Blacklors v. Law.s, 2 
 Hare, 4y. 
 
 . 34 Dakins v. Berisford, 1 Ch. Ca.s. 194. 
 25 Dunn v. Bank, 2 Ala. 1.52. 
 .36 Wood V. Polk, 12 Heisk. 220, 223. 
 
 37 Gould V. Hill, 18 Ala. 84, 80 ; Goycr i-. Broach. 21 Ala. 414. 
 
 38 Pollard v. Merrill, 15 Ala. 16), 171 ; Gillespie v. Burlinson,28 Ala. 
 5.51, .5W ; Lewis v. El rod, .38 Ala. 17, IJ ; Harris v. Harbeson, 9 Busli, 
 397, 403. But see supra, n. 27. 
 
 39 Prichard v. Ames, Turn. & R. 222, 223 ; Morrison v. Thistle, 67 
 Mo. 590, 599. 
 
 40 Beaufort r. Collier, C Humph. 437, 431 ; 40 Am. Dec. 32L 
 
 41 But not to vary the terms : Paul i'. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 595, 5"8 ; 
 ante, ? 199. 
 
 42 Gilbert v. Lewis, 1 DeGex, J. & S. 38, 48. 
 
 43 See Wurdle v, Claxton, 9 .Sim. 624 , Lewis v. Matthews, Law R. 
 2 Y.(\. 177 ; Hackabee r. Andrnws, 34 Ala. fill!, 651 ; Vail, 49 Conn. .5!, .54; 
 Brvan v. Duncan, 11 Ga. 67 ; Clevestine, 15 Pa. St. 499 ; Foster v. Kerr, 
 4 Rich. Eq. 390. 
 
 44 Gilbert v. Lewis, 1 DeGex, J. <fe S. 38, 48. 
 
 45 Moore v. Morris, 4. Drew. 33, 37 ; pijst, I 201. 
 
 46 Considered, Stewart M. & D. ? 4fif. ; post, i 214.
 
 § 201 wife's equitable estate. 286 
 
 § 201. When rights of present and future husbands are 
 excluded. — In tiae early history of equitable separate 
 estates it was doubtful Avhether such estates could be 
 created in unmarried wonien,i and even now in Penn- 
 sylvania the woman must at least be contemplating 
 marriage,^ but it is generally well settled at present 
 that whether the woman is married or single makes no 
 differenee,^ except in ascertaining tlie settlor's purpose 
 and intent.^ Still restraints on alienation have no effect 
 except during coverture.* Where a settlement is made 
 without reference to any particular husband, the sepa- 
 rate estate exists against any and all husbands tlio 
 woman may have.^ And even when the settlement 
 does refer expressly to a particular husband, if it con- 
 tains sufficient words independently of this reference 
 to create an equitable separate estate, the presence of 
 such reference will not limit the estate, or prevent its 
 existing against other husbands also.'' But if the only 
 clause rendering the estate separate refers to a particu- 
 lar husband, the estate will exist against no other,^ as 
 the settlor may have objected not to all husbands, but 
 to the individual named,^ and to exclude a husbaiul's 
 rights the intent must be clear.*" Whether a particular 
 husband is, or all husbands are excluded, is, after all, 
 only a question of intent." 
 
 1 Massey v. Parker, 2 Mylne & K. 174, overruled 4 Mvlne <fe C. 
 377, 390. 
 
 2 Snyder, 92 Pa. St. 5(M, 50!). 
 
 3 Newlands r. Paviiter, 4 Mvlne & C. 40S, 417, 418 ; Fears v. Brooks, 
 12 Ga. 195, 198 ; ante, i 198, n. IG. 
 
 4 Gilbert v. Lewis, 1 DeGox, J. & S. 38, 48 ; ante, ?? 199, 200. 
 
 5 Tullett V. Armstrong, 1 Boav. 1 ; 4 Mylne & C. 377, 394 ; jxist, ? 204. 
 
 6 Tullett tK Armstrong, 1 Beav. 1 ; 4 Mvlne & C. 377, ».)0, 405 ; 
 Molyneux, fi I. K. Eq. 411, 416; Gaffee, 1 Macn. & G. 541 ; Shafto r. 
 Butler, 40 Law J. Ch. .'iOS ; Phillips v. Grayson, 23 Ark. 769, 770 ; Rob- 
 erts V. West, 15 Ga. 123 ; Shirlev, 9 Paige, 364 ; Beaufort v. Collier, 6 
 Humph. 487, 491 ; 44 Am. Dec. 321. 
 
 7 Hawkes r. Hubback, 11 Law B. Eq. 5, 7 ; Molyneux, 6 I. R. Eq. 
 411, 416 ; Phillips V. Grayson, 23 Ark. 769, 770.
 
 287 wife's equitable estate. ^ 202 
 
 8 Moore v Morris, 4 Drew 33, 37 ; Benson, 6 Sim. 126, 135. 
 
 9 Moore v. Morris, 4 Drew. 33, 37. 
 
 )0 Wood 1'. Polk, 12 Heisk. 220, 222 ; ante, J 199. 
 11 2 Perry Trusts, U 652, 653. 
 
 ^ 202. Necessity of trustee of equitable separate estate — 
 Husband as trustee. — It was in the early history of equi- 
 table separate estates deemed necessary to create such 
 an estate to setttle the property on a trustee,^ but it 
 was soon held unnecessarj' to name a trustee or even 
 to make the .settlement in the form of a trust.^ A 
 trustee may be named,* but if not, the husband is 
 deemed to have a bare legal title, and to hold in trust 
 for his wife,* and be accountable to her as any other 
 trustee.^ In this way gifts from him to her were sus- 
 tained.^ Even when trustees are named, their concur- 
 rence with the wife in her dealings Avith the property 
 is unnecessary ,7 unless required by the settlement.^ 
 In some States statutes authorize tlie removal of the 
 husband from his trust;' they also authorize an ap- 
 pointment of a trustee for the wife,'** and in making 
 such appointment the courts have held the husband 
 an unfit person." Any one who takes property with 
 knowledge of the wife's rights holds only as her 
 trustee.'^ 
 
 1 Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 197. 
 
 2 Wood, 83 N. Y. 575, .579. S. P. Moore v. Freeman, Busb. 205; 
 WallinKsford v. Allen, 10 Peters, 5»3, 5li4 ; Sledge v. Cloptoii, 6 Ala. 
 589, 599 ; Riley, 25 Conn. 154, 161 ; Trenton v. Woodrufif, 2 M. J. Eq. 117, 
 126 ; Shirley, 9 Paige, 363, ;H64 ; McKennan v. Phillips, 6 Whart. 571 ; 
 37 Am. Dec. 438 ; Thompson v. McKusick, 3 Humph. 631 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 3 Eadford v. CarwUe, 13 W. Va. 573, 578. 
 
 4 Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wms. 316 ; Izod v. Lamb, 1 Cromp. & J. 3.5, 
 44 ; Wallingsford v. Allen, 10 Peters, .5h3, 594 ; Pepper v. Lee, 53 Ala. 
 33 ; Wilkinson t;. Cheatham, 45 Ala. 3;n ; Sadler v. Bean, 9 Ark. 202 ; 
 Rilev, 25 Conn. 1.54, 161; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 197; Gover r. 
 Owings, 16 Md. 91, 99 ; Richardson v. Stodder, 100 Mass. .528 ; Holthaus 
 r. Hornbostle, 60 Mo. 439 ; Trenton v. Woodruff, 2 N. J. Eq. 117, 126 ; 
 Wood, 83 N. Y. 575, 579 ; O'Brien, 11 R. I. 419; Boykin v. Ciples, 2 Hill 
 Ch. 2U0 ; Hamilton v. Bishop, 8 Yerg. 33 ; 29 Am. Dec. 101 ; Porter i'. 
 Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 420 ; ante, U 42, 102. 
 
 5 Gover ti. Owings, 16 Md. 91, 99 ; Green v. Brooks, 25 Ark. 318, 324.
 
 § 203 WIFK's KCiUITABLJi; ESTATE. 288 
 
 6 WalDngsforcl v. Allen, 10 Peters, 583, 594 ; Burdeno v. Amperse, 
 14 Mich. 'JO, 1)6 ; Crawford, 61 Pa. St. 55 ; ante, H 42, 125, 127, 132. 
 
 7 Esspx V. Atkins, 14 Ves. 542, .547 ; Knowles, SO 111. 1, 11 ; Jaqiips 
 J'. IMethotlist, 17 Johns. Ch. .548 ; Corgell r. Duiiton, 7 Pa. St. 530, 5:{2 ; 
 Burnett v. Hawpe, 25 Gralt. 481, 487 ; RadXord v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 
 573, 578. 
 
 8 Essex V. Atkins, 14 Ves. 542, 547 : Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 200 ; 
 Gelston v. Frazier, 26 Md. 32!), 344 ; Burnett v. Hawpe, 25 Gratt. 481, 
 487. . . .^. - . - - • 
 
 9 Fisk V. Stubbs, iio Ala. 333 ; ante, i 150. 
 
 10 ' Johnson v. Snow, 5 R. I. 72, 78. ' 
 
 11 Ely V. Burgess, U R. I. 115, 116. See Drew. 57 N. II. 182. 
 
 12 Sledge V. CloptOnv(! Ala. '.583;'.5M'; FH', 7' Paige, 461, 463 ; Jackson 
 V. McAliley, Spear Eq. 302, .iOS. Consult ante, H 4.5, 1:32. 
 
 § 203. Wife's dominion and control over her equitable 
 
 separate estate generally. — With reference to the wife's 
 powers ovtn- lier etiuiiable separiit-e estate two views 
 have prevailed ;! (1) That she has all the powers of a 
 femme sole save those denied her by tlie terms of the 
 settlement ; ^ {2) that she < has no powers save those 
 given her by the terms of the settlement.^ Under the 
 first.rule which prevails.. in England,' Alabama,^ Ar- 
 kansas,* California,^ Coiinocticnt,* Illinois,'' Kentucky,'*' 
 Marj^and,'' Missouri,'- New Jersey,'^ New York," Ton- 
 nessee,'3 Texas,'* Virginia,'' West Virginia,'^ Wiscon- 
 sin, '^ and elsewhere,'^" unless the settlement restrains 
 her,2' she may convey -^ and will'^ her equitable sepa- 
 rate property and charge it with her contracts 2* — 
 except perhajjs the corpus of. the realty ■'5 — as a femme 
 sole; but among the States which have adopted this 
 rule there is a great difference of view as to what pro- 
 visions in a settlement constitute a restraint, 2* and as to 
 what contracts of a married woman constitute a charge 
 on this property.^' The second rule, Avhlch i^revails in 
 Florida,-* Mississippi,-' North Carolina,^'' Pennsyl- 
 vania,3i Rhode Island,^'' and South Carolina,^^ and 
 has had its advocates elsewhere,^* has the merit of 
 simplicity, for the wife can convey ,^^ will,^* or charge 
 the property 3' only if so empowered, and it is liable for
 
 289 wife's equitable estate. § 20S 
 
 her debts only if the settlement so jirovides.^^ "What- 
 ever powers the wife can exercise as a fe.nme sole, she 
 can exercise in favor of her husband,^' from whom in 
 equity she is a distinct person.^" 
 
 1 Bisousserl in Hulme v. Tenant, 1 White & T. Load. Cas. 481, 4th 
 Am. ed. 679 ; 16 Cent. Law J. 24i ; 17 Cent. Law J. 1 ; Swift v. (Ja,stle, 23 
 111. 2(X), 2il\ Jaques r. Methodist, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 113, overruled 17 
 Johns. Ch. .'HS, .57S, .^S'. ; H Am. Dec. 447; Yale v. Dederer, W N. Y. 
 265, overruled 22 N. Y. 4.50 ; 68 N. Y. 329 ; Ewing v. Smith, 3 Desaus. 
 417, 462 ; Young, 7 Cold. 461, 467 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 578- 
 63-5. 
 
 2 Elaborately maintained in Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 
 578-685. 
 
 3 Elaborately maintained in Ewing v. Smith, 3 De.3aus. 417, 462, 
 et seq. 
 
 4 Hulme V. Tenant, 1 Brown Ch. 16 ; 2 Dick. 560 ; 1 White & T. 
 Lead. Cas. 481, notes ; Pyons v. Smith, 3 Brown Ch. 346 ; Fettiplace v. 
 Gorges, 3 Brown Ch. 9; Barford i'. Street, 16 VeS. 145; Towney v. 
 Ward, 1 Beav. 563 ; L9chm'-re r. Brotheridge, 32 Bekv. 3t)(l ; Noble 
 V. Willock, Law R. 8 Ch. App. "78 ; Pride v. Bubb, Law R. 7 Ch. 61 ; 
 Adams r. Gamble, 12 Jr. Ch. 102 ; 11 Jr. Ch. 269 ; Crofts v. Middle- 
 ton, 8 DeGe.x, M. & G. 192; Taylor v. Meads, 4 DeGex, J. <fe S. 597; 
 Moore v. Morris, 4 I)revv. 38. 
 
 5 Wilburn ?i. McCalley, 63 Ala. 436. 447 ; Gunter v. Williams, 40 
 Ala. .561 ; PaUlk v. Wolfe, 34 Ala. 541 ; Booker, :Q Ala. 473 ; Caldwell v. 
 Sawver, :» Ala. 283; Baker v. Gregory, 28 Ala. .544; Wells r. Brans- 
 ford, 28 Ala. 200 ; Jenkins v. McConice, 26 Ala. 213 ; Ozley v. Ikelheimer, 
 26 Ala. 3;i2, 3.36 ; McCrone v. Pope, 17 Ala. 612 ; Bradford v. Greenway, 
 17 Ala. 797, 805 ; 52 Am. Dec. 203 ; Puryear v. Beard, 14 Ala. 122, 134 ; 
 Puryear, 16Ala. 486. 
 
 6 Oswalt V. Moore, 19 Ark. 2.57, 261 ; Collins v. Underwood, 33 Ark. 
 266 ; Henry v. Blackburn, 32 Ark. 445 ; Dobbin v. Hubbard, 17 Ark. 189. 
 
 7 Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. 5.^ ; Smith v. Greer, 31 Cal. 476, 473. 
 
 8 Imlay v. Huntington, 20 Conn. 149, 175. 
 
 9 Swift V. Costle, 23 111. 200, 222 ; Pomeroy v. Manhattan, 40 111. 398. 
 402. 
 
 10 Lillard v. Turner, 16 Mon. B. 374, 376 ; Burch v. Breckenridge. 
 IR Mon. B. 482 ; Sweeny v. Smith, 15 Mon. B. 32.5 ; Bell v. Kellar 13 
 Mon. B. 381 ; Coleman i'. Wooley, 10 Mon. B. 320 ; Jarman v. Wilker- 
 son, 7 Mon. B. 293 ; Kelly, 5 Mon. B. 3G9. 
 
 11 Armstrong v. Kerns, Md. L. Rec. Mar. 22, '84 ; Hall v. Eceleston. 
 37 Md. 510, 519 ; Schull v. Murray, ;« Md. 9, 15, 16 ; Koontz v. Nabb, 16 
 Md. 549, .5;55 ; Chew v. Beall, 13 Md. 348, 360 ; Cooke v. Husbands, 11 
 Md. 492, 501, 505. 
 
 12 Coates v. Robinson, 10 Mo. 757, 760 ; Schafroth, 46 Mo. 114, 116 ; 
 Miller c. Brown, 47 Mo. 504, .508 ; 4 Am. Rep. 345 ; Davis v. Smith, 75 
 Mo. 219, 225 ; Boatmen v. Collinson, 75 Mo. 2»0, 281. 
 
 13 Armstrong v. Ross, 20 N. J. Eq. 109, 113 ; Leaycraft v. Hedden, 4 
 N.J. Eq.512. 
 
 14 Jaques v. Methodist, 17 Johns. Ch. 548, 578, .585, overruling 3 
 Johns. Ch. 77, 113 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 4.50, 4.59 ; 
 68 N. Y. 329, overruUng 18 N. Y. 265 ; Yale v. Dederer, 17 How. P;. 46 ; 
 
 H. & W. — 25.
 
 § 203 wife's equitable estate. 290 
 
 20 How. Pr. 342 ; 21 Barb. 286 ; 31 Barb. 525 ; Dyatt v. Nbrrn, 20 Wend. 
 570, 573; Powell r. Murray, 2 Edw. fi3fi, 643 ; Cruger, 5 Barb. 227,268. 
 Now partially regulated by 3K. S. 1882, p. 2182, i 63 ; I/Amoureux v. 
 Van Renselaer, 1 Barb. Ch. 34, 37 ; Rogers v. Ludlow, 3 Sand. 104, 108, 
 109. 
 
 15 Lightfort V. Boss, 8 Lea, a51, 354 ; Young, Cold. 461, 467, et seq., 
 citing other eases. The older cases seem to recognize the other rule : 
 Marshall v. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159, 173 ; 47 Am. Dec. 601 ; Morgan v. 
 Elam,4 Yerg. 375. 
 
 16 Hall V. Dotson, 55 Tex. 520, 524. 
 
 17 Burnett r. Hawpe. 25 Gratt. 4sl, 486 ; Muller v. Bailey, 21 Gratt. 
 528 ; Penn t'. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503 ; Nixon v. Bose, 12 Gratt. 425. 
 
 18 Radford v. CarwUe, 13 W. Va. 57-'!) 573, 682 (1879), citing all the 
 cases. 
 
 19 Todd V. Lee, 15 Wis. 3&5, 369 ! tpyfis. 480, 483. 
 
 20 See cases cited infra, notes 28-33. 
 
 21 "Wilburn v. McCallev, 63 Ala. 436, 447 ; Hall v. Eccleston, 37 Md. 
 510, .519 ; Jiiques v. Methodist, 17 Johns. Ch. 548, 600 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; 
 Burnett v. Hiiwpe, 25 Gratt. 481, 486 ; Radford v. Carwilt, 13 W. Va. 373, 
 578 ; post, i 204. 
 
 22 Chew 1'. Beall, 13 Md. 348, 360 ; post. ? 205. 
 
 23 Schull !'. Murray, 32 Md. 9, 15, 16 ; poxt, § 208. 
 
 21 Shattock, Law R. 2 Eq. 182, 187 ; post, U 206, 207. 
 
 25 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 663, 669. See Armstrong v. 
 Ross, 20 X. J. Eq. 109, 117 : Lee v. Bank, 9 Leigh, 20J, 206 ; McChesney 
 V. Brown, 25 Gratt. 393, 404 ; post, H 206-208. 
 
 26 Nixon v. Rose, 12 Gratt. 425, 431, 432 ; post, ? 204. 
 
 27 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 581, 602, 608, ftS2 : post, U 206, 207. 
 
 28 Staloy v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 296 ; Dollner v. Snow, K! Fla. 86. 
 
 29 Dotey v. Mitchell, 9 Smedes <S^ M. 435, 447 ; Montgomery v. 
 Agricultural, 10 Smedes & M. 567, 576." 
 
 30 Hardy v. Holly, 84 N. C. 661, 668 ; Knox v. Jordan, 5 Jones Eq. 
 175. 
 
 31 Maurer, 86 Pa. St. 380, 385; Wright v. Brown, 44 Pa. St. 224, 238 ; 
 Wells v. McCall, 64 Pa. St. 207 ; Rogers ?'. Smith 4 Pa. St. 93, 98 ; Lyne 
 V. Crouse, 1 Pa. St. Ill ; Dominie v. Scott, 3 Whart. 30!), 316 ; Thomas 
 V. Folwell, 2 Whart. 11, 16 ; Wallace v. Caston, 9 Watts, 137, 138 ; Lan- 
 caster V. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231,248 ; 18 Am. Dec. 625. 
 
 32 Metcalf v. Cook, 2 R. I. 3i)5, 363. 
 
 33 Creighton v. Clifford, 6 S. C. 188, 198 ; Ewing r. Smith, 3 De.saus. 
 417, 462 ; 5 Am. Dec. 557 ; Reed v. Lamar, 1 Strob. Eq. 27, 37 ; Rochell 
 r. Tompkins, IStrob. Eq. 114,121 ; Robinson r. Dart, Dud. Eq. 128. 131; 
 Magwood V. Johnston, 1 Hill Ch, 228, 230 ; Trustees ii. Center, 1 McCord 
 Ch. 270, 275. 
 
 34 See Methodist v. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 113 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 : 
 Morgan v. Elam,4 Yerg. 375, 450 ; Graj' i>. Robb, 4 Heisk. 74, 77 ; Wil- 
 liamson I'. Beckham, 8 Leigh, 20, 27. 
 
 35 Reed v. Lamar, 1 Strob. Eq. 27, 37 ; post, I 205. 
 
 36 West, 3 Rand. 173 ; post, ? 208. 
 
 37 Creighton v. Clifford, 6 S. C. 188, 198 ; post, ? 206, 207. 
 
 38 Clark r. Makenna, Cheves Eq. 16.3. This is not quite accurate : 
 Seepo«<, ^2 206,207.
 
 291 wife's kquitable estate. g 204 
 
 39 Scarborough v. Wiitkins. 9 Men. B. MO, 547 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; 
 Methodist v. Janues, ;i Johns. Ch. 77. 86-114 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447. See 
 Norman, 6 Bush, 4!».i ; Alljin v. Lord, 39 N. K. 196; ante A i'^ i post, 
 
 I'm. 
 
 40 Barron, 24' Vt. 375, 398 ; ante, §? 38, 42. 
 
 I 294. Bsstraints oil alienation and anticipation. — The 
 power to di.siiose of property ^ and the liability thereof 
 for debts - belong to ownership, and clauses In convey- 
 ances of ownership providing otlierwise are void.^ But 
 such clauses in settlements to the separate use of mar- 
 ried women, so long as they do not infringe on the rule 
 against perpetuities,* are valid,^ though this was at one 
 tijne denied,*^ and are enforced in equity^ as an addi- 
 tional protection to tlie wife,* althougli she be thus as- 
 sisted in committing a fraud.^ The settlor may limit 
 her powers, or altogether take them away.^" It is not 
 neces.sary that the settlement contain technical words,ii 
 but only that the settlor's intent to prevent anticipation 
 or alienation clearly apjiear^^ somewhere in the set- 
 tlement.^3 A more provision that the property shall be 
 for her sole and sepai^ate use,^* or paid to her from time 
 to time^'^ on her receipt i^ or personal appearance,'^ or 
 exempt from her husband's debts,!^ are not restraints 
 upon her i^owers of dominion and control. '^ But it is 
 a valid restraint if her powers are to be exercised " so 
 as in no way to deprive herself of the benefit thereof 
 by way of anticipation," "• or " without power of an- 
 ticipation," ^i or "she shall not sell, mortgage, charge, 
 or encumber,"^ or "inalienable,"'^ or "unassign- 
 able " ; ^' so the restraint may be implied,^ as when 
 powers inconsistent with her power to alienate are 
 given to her trustees,^^ or the property is settled on her 
 "for a home,""' or she is to receive the rents, etc., 
 " only as they become due," ^^ or the property is to be 
 for her special use and remain in her possession dur- 
 ing her life and on her death to go to her children* and
 
 I 204 wife's equitable estate, 292 
 
 for " no other use whatever." 29 Whether an enumera- 
 tion of certain i^owers is impliedly a denial of all 
 others and is so far a restraint is much disputed.^o On 
 the one hand it is said that it is,^^ on the jirinciple ex- 
 pressio'unius est 6xcllisio altcrius,^^ and therefore that a 
 power to will excludes a power to convey,'^ and vice 
 versa,^* .md. that a power to will in a certain mode ex- 
 cludes a power to will in any other ; ^^ though it is ad- 
 mitted that a poM'er to dispose of alasolutely includes a 
 power to encumber or charge.^^ On the other hand, 
 while it \.i admitted that if the settlement carries only 
 a life estate with a certain power, as, for example, to 
 will,^' other powers, for cxamiile, to deed,^* do not 
 exist,^ yet it hi maintained that when an absolute es- 
 tate is granted, the cnumeratic^n of powers simply en- 
 larges and does not limit the grant.^" The restraint is 
 valid whether annexed to a settlement of realty or of 
 personalty,*! of an absolute or of a life estate ;*"'^ and it 
 apiilies generally though annexed to a power.** It 
 cannoL be discharged during coverture** even for the 
 wife's benefit.** But it cannot exist apart from a sepa- 
 rate estate,*^ and while it is Aalid though made on 
 an unmarried womap,*® it takes effect only on her 
 marriage,*^ before which time she may exei'cise the 
 powers of a femme sole;*^ so it ceases on her hus- 
 band's death ;»" but it revives on a second marriage,*' 
 Unless clearly confined to a particular coverture.*-* 
 Property which she cannot alienate is not liable for 
 her debts.** When there is a provision that she shall 
 not liib'rtgage her mortgage is void.** But a restraint 
 on anticipating income does not affect her right to dis- 
 pose of principal subject to the payment of said in- 
 come.** Nor does a restraint on disposition prevent 
 her enlarging her estate from a fee tail to a fee.*^ A 
 restraint on anticiiiation does not affect her rights over
 
 293 wife's equitable estate. § 204 
 
 accrued income,^^ but it must be actually due before 
 she can assign it, etc. ; '^ nor if her husband lias collected 
 it will he be liable^* otherwise than in other cases ;^° 
 nor does it j)revenc her giving an order for future in- 
 come revocable at pleasure ;^i nor does it prevent her 
 adjustment of tlie amount of tlie principal witli trust- 
 ees ; ^'^ nor does not prevent an advantageous lease ; ^ 
 but compensation for a breach of trust cannot be en- 
 forced against a fund limited by the same instrument 
 to her separate use without power of anticipation.^' It 
 seems that there will be no implication of restraint 
 against the exercise by the wife of powers which she 
 has over her ordinary jiroperty by the common law,*^ 
 or by statute.^^ 
 
 1 Jackson v. Methodist, 17 Johns. Ch. 548, 578, 535 ; ante, | 203. 
 
 2 Curnett v. Hawpe, 25 Gratt. 4S1, 436 ; j'ost, U 206, 207. 
 
 3 De Ppyster v. Jlichael, 6 X. Y. 407, 4')3. See McCleary v. Ellis, 
 51 Iowa, 311 ; 37 Am. Kep. 205 ; Maudlebaum v. McDonnell, 2J Mich. 
 -.i ; 18 Am. Rep. 61. 
 
 4 Buckton v. Hay, 27 Week. R. 527, 528 ; Fry v. Capper, Kay, 163 ; 
 Annitage ?'. Coates, ;;5 Boav. 1; Cunyngham, L,aw R. 11 Eq. 324; 
 Teagues, Law R. 10 Eq. 504 ; 4 Kent Com. 267 ; Peachy Mar. Sett. 123. 
 
 5 Tullett 1'. Armstrong, 1 Beav. 1 ; 4 Mylne & C. 377, 303 ; Hulme 
 %). Tenant, 1 Bro. Ch. 10 ; I'vbus v. Smith, 3 Bro. Ch. 340, 346 ; Bagget 
 V. Meux, 1 Colly. C. C. IW, 147, 148 ; Field v. Evans, 15 Sim. 372 ; Rovvlev 
 v. Unwin, 2Kay & J. 138, 142; Brettle,2 DeGex, J. & S. 79, 82 ; Kenrick 
 V. Wood, Law R. 9 Eq. :«3, 337 ; Arnolds v. Woodhams, Law R. 16 Eq. 
 2!), 33 ; Wilton v. Hill, 25 N. J. Eq. 156, 15S ; Cooper v. Macdonald, Law 
 R. 7 Ch. D. 2S8, 2;)4 ; Buckton v. Hav, 27 Week. R. 527, 558 ; Pike v. 
 Fitzgibbon, 29 Week. R. .551, 552; Molyneu.x, 6 I. R. Eq. 411, 410; 
 Hooks, 62 Ala. 258, 261; Wilburn v. McCalley, 63 Ala. 4:*, 417; \\i\- 
 liams V. Maul, 20 Ala. 721, TZi ; Fears %'. Brooks, 12 Ga. 11)5. 200 ; Free- 
 man V. Flood, 16 Ga. 528. 534 ; Parker v. Converse, 5 Gray, 336, 338 ; 
 Gully V. Hull, 31 Miss. 20, 30; Jaques v. Methodist, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 
 113, 114 ; 8 Am. Doc. 447 ; Wells v. McCall, 64 Pa. St. 207, 213 ; Witscll 
 V. Charleston, 7 S. C. 88, 104 ; Greensboro v. Chambers, .30 Gratt. 202, 
 209 ; Burnett v. Hawpi', 25 Gratt. 431, 486 ; Nixon v. Rose, 12 Gratt. 431 ; 
 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 572, 577, 682. 
 
 6 Jackson v. Hobhouse, 2 Mer. 482. 487 ; Wells v. MeCall, 64 Pa. St. 
 207, 213, 214. 
 
 7 Buckton v. Hay, 27 Week. R. .527 ; post, § 210. 
 
 8 Jodrell, 9 Beav. 45, 5;i; Tullett t'. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 377, 393. 
 
 9 Arnolds v. Woodhams, Law R. 10 Eq. 29, 33. See post, ? 424. 
 
 10 Tullett V. Armstrong, 1 Beav. 1, .14. 
 
 11 Ross, 1 Sim. N R 196, 199 ; Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 200, 201 ; 
 Greensboro i'. Chambers, 30 Gratt. 202, 210.
 
 § 204 wife's equitable estate. 294 
 
 12 Pvbus V. Smith, a Bro. Ch. »40, 34R ; Moore, 1 Colly. C. C. 54, fl7 ; 
 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Ir. Ch. N. 8. 340, 349-351 ; Freeman v. Flood, 16 Ga. 
 523, 534. 
 
 13 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Ir. Ch. N. S. 340, 34R ; Fears v. Brooks, 12 
 Ga. 195, 201. 
 
 14 Pvbus V. Smith, 3 Bro. Ch. 340, 346 ; 1 Ves. Jr. 189 ; Hulme v. 
 Tenant, 1 Liro. Ch. 16. 
 
 15 Cooke V. Husbands, 11 Mrt. 492, 50S. 
 
 10 Ellis )'. Atkinson, 3 Bro. Ch. 565, 568 ; Browne v. Like, 14 Ves. 
 
 302 ; Sturgis v. Corp, 13 Ves. 190 ; Scott v. Davis, 4 M.vlne & C. 87. 
 
 17 Ross, 1 Sim. N. R. 196, 199. 
 
 18 Witsell V. Chai;«ston, 7 S. C. 88, 104. 
 
 19 Parker v. White, 11 Ves. 222 ; ante, i 203. 
 
 20 Cooper v. Macdonald, Law R. 7 Ch. D. 233, 294 ; Peachy Mar. 
 Sett. 867, 868. 
 
 21 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Jr. Ch. N. S. 340. 349 ; Brown v. Bamford, 11 
 Sim. 131. 
 
 22 Bagget v. Meux, 1 Colly. C. C. 138, 147, 148. 
 
 23 D'Oechsner v. Scott, 24 Beav. 239 ; Spring v. Pride, 10 Jur. N. S. 
 876. 
 
 24 Rennie v. Ritchie, 12 Clark & F. 204. 
 
 25 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Ir. Ch. N. S. 340, 349-351 ; Parker v. Con- 
 verse, 5 Gray, 336, 338. 
 
 26 Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 196, 201 ; Gully v. Hull, 31 Miss. 20, 30. 
 
 27 Greensboro v. Chambers, 30 Gratt. 202, 209. 
 
 28 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Ir. Ch. N. S. 340, 350 ; Field v. Evans, 15 
 Sim. 375 ; Baker v. Bradley, 7 DeGex M. & G. 697 ; Jaques v. Method 
 ist, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 113, 114 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447. 
 
 29 Freeman v. Flood, 16 Ga. 528, 534. 
 
 30 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 577, 530, 597, G53, GTA, 682. 
 
 31 Cooke r. Husbands, 11 Md. 492, 503. S. P. Worsnop v. Benassl, 
 21 Week. R. 634, 636; Whistler r. Newman, 4 Vos. 129, 138 ; Weeks v. 
 Sego, 9 Ga. 199. 203; Swift v. Castle, 2:! Ill 2(w, 21«, 222 ; Armstrong v. 
 Kerns, 12 Md. L. Rec. 28, March 22, ls»4 ; IMilh-r v. Williamson, 5 Md. 
 219, 235; Bcnesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 477,5114; Lowrv v. Williamson, 2 
 Har. efe G. 34, 40 ; Leavcraft v. Redden, 4 N. J. Kq. 512, o-V) ; Methodist 
 V. Jaqnes, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 113; 8 Am. Dec. 447; Hardv v. Hollv, 84 
 N. C. bUl, 666 ; Lightfoot v. Boss, 8 Lea, 3.50, 351, .^52 ; Morgan v. Elam, 
 8 Yerg. 375 ; Williamson v. Beckham, 8 Leigh, 20, 27 ; Nixon v. Rose, 
 12 Gratt. 425,431,432 ; all cases which limit authority to power given, 
 cited ante, ? 203. 
 
 32 Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199, 203, 204. 
 
 33 Lowry v. Williamson, 2 liar. & G. 34, 40 ; Benesch v. Clark, 49 
 Md. 497, 504 ; post, i 20.5. 
 
 34 Methodist v. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. 77, 113 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; post, 
 ? 208. 
 
 35 Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199, 203 ; post, ? 208. 
 
 36 Jackson v. West, 22 Md. 71, 83 ; Hall v. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510,520. 
 
 37 See Leigh v. Bank, 9 Leigh, 203, 203, 209, 213 ; post, i 208. 
 
 38 Williamson v. Beckham, 8 Leigh, 20, 25 ; post, J 205.
 
 295 wife's equitable estate. § 204 
 
 39 Bradley v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445; Anderson it. Dawson, 15 Ves. 
 532 ; Archibald v. Wright, 7 Law J. Ch. 121 ; Doe v. Thorlev, 10 East, 
 438 ; Sockett V. Way, 4 Bro. Ch. 4S3; JVloore, 1 Colly. C. C. 84; Holloway 
 V. Clarksoii, 2 Hare, 5J1 ; Harrup v. Howard, 3 Hare, 624 ; Medley v. 
 Horton, 14 Sim. 222. 
 
 40 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va.'577, 590, .5)7, 682. S. P. Taylor v. 
 Meads, :i4 Law J. Ch. 2ii3 ; Hooks v. Brown, 02 Ala. 2.58. 261 ; Barford 
 ?'. Street, 16 Ves. 135; Ilixon v. Oliver, 13 Ves. 108; Kiinm r. Weip- 
 pert. 46 Mo. 532, 536 ; 2 Am. Rep. 541 ; Methodist v. Jaques, 17 Johns. 
 Ch. 548, 580, 585 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; Lee v. Bank, 9 Leigh, 203, 208. 
 
 41 Bagget v. Meux, 1 Phill. Ch. 627, 628 ; 1 Colly. C. C. 138. 
 
 42 Gaffee, 14 Jur. 277 ; Bagget v. Meux, 1 Phill. Ch. 627. 628. 
 
 43 Moore, 1 Colly. C. C. 51, .58 ; Harrup v. Howard, 3 Hare, 624 ; Har- 
 nett V. McDougall, 8 Beav. 127 ; Field v. Evans, 15 Sim. 375; Baker v. 
 Bradley, 7 DeGex. M. & G. 5U7; Loring v. Salisbury, 125 Mass. 138; 
 Kent V. Plumb, 57 Ga. 207. 
 
 44 Robinson v. W^heelwright, 21 Beav. 214 c ; Keane, 12 Law R. Eq. 
 115 ; Wilton v. Hill, 25 Law J. Ch. 156 ; Derbishire v. Home, 3 De 
 Gex, M. & G. 113. 
 
 45 Robinson v. Wheelwright, 6 DeGex, M. & G. 535 ; 21 Beav. 214. 
 
 46 Tullett V. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 377, 304 ; Jones v. Salter, 2 
 Russ. & M. 208. 
 
 47 Molyneux, 6 Ir. R. Eq. 411, 416; Fe.-.rs v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, 
 200. But see Wells v. McCall, 64 Pa. St. 207, 213. Consult ante, M 198, 
 201. 
 
 48 Molyneux, 6 Ir. R. Eq. 411, 416. 
 
 49 Tullett V. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 377, 391. 
 
 50 Molyneux, 6 Ir. R. Eq. 4U, 416; Tullett v. Armstrong, 4 
 Mylne & C. 377, 395 ; Jones v. Salter, 2 Kuss. & M. 208, 210 ; Massey v. 
 Parker, 2 Mylne & K. 189 ; post, i 314. 
 
 51 Tullett V. Armstrong, 4 Mylne & C. 387, 399, 405 ; Strathmore v. 
 Bowers, 1 Ves. Jr. 27 ; Clayton v. Gresham, 10 Ves. 287; Sanger, Law 
 R. 11 Eq. 470 ; Anderson, 2 Mylne & K. 427 ; Ellis, Law R. 17 Eq. 409. 
 Contra, Wells v. McCall, 64 Pa. St. 207, 214. 
 
 52 Knight, 6 Sim. 121 ; Benson, 6 Sim. 120. 
 
 53 Pike V. Fltzgibbon, 29 Week. R. 551, 552 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 
 W. Va. 573,662, et seq. .• post, U 200, 207. 
 
 .51 Bagget V. Meux, 1 Colles, 138, 147, 148. 
 
 55 Cooper v. Macdonald, Law R. 7 Ch. D. 288, 293, 234. 
 
 56 Cooper V. Macdonald, Law R. 7 Ch. D. 288, 294. 
 
 57 Rowley ?>. XJnwin, 2 Kay & J. 138, 142. 
 
 58 Brettle, 2 DeGex, J. <fe S. 79, 82 ; JoUands v. Burdett, 10 Jur. 
 N. S. 349. 
 
 59 Rowley v. Unwin, 2 Kay & J. 138, 142 ; jiost, ?? 209, 212. 
 
 60 That is, if he collects it onlv as agent or trustee he is liable: 
 Ante, a 42, 84-83, 202 ; post, H 20J, 212. 
 
 61 Moore, 1 Colly. C. C. 54, 57. 
 
 62 Wilton V. Hill, 25<Law J. Eq. 166, 158 ; Derbishire v. Home, 5 De 
 Gex, M. & G. 113. 
 
 63 Vandervoort v. Gould, 36 N. Y. 639. 
 
 64 Clive V. Carew, 1 Johns. & H. 199; Sheriff r. Butler, 12 Jur. N. S. 
 32J ; Davis v. Hodgson, 25 Beav, 186.
 
 § 205 wife's equitable estate. 296 
 
 65 YounsT, 7 Cold. 461, 477, 480, 4S2 ; Lightfoot v. Boss, 8 Lea, 350, 351. 
 Contra, Wright v. Brown, 44 Pa. St. 224, 241 ; Gray v. Eobb, 4 Heisk. 
 74, 77. 
 
 66 Young, 7 Cold. 461, 479 ; post, i 216. 
 
 § 205. Wife's conveyances of hor equitable separate 
 estate. — The right of disposition — Jusdisponendi — is an 
 ordinary incident of ownership,^ of property real,^ as 
 well a.s personal,* and most of the States have applied 
 this rule to a married woman's equitable sepai-ate estate 
 when the settlement does not restrain her powers of 
 disposition;* still, other States have denied the wife's 
 right of disposition unless and excejit so far as given 
 by the settlement.^ When she can convey there is in 
 general* no need of the joinder of her husband,' or 
 trustee,* or of complying with married women acts;'' 
 she can convey to her husband as Avell as to a stranger,'" 
 and by way of mortgage, '^ or absolutely ; '■' and the 
 consideration may go to her hu.sband or to herself.'* 
 
 1. What is a o-estraint or alienation. Her right of 
 disposition may be restrained by express words or by 
 implication,'^ tlie main dispute being as to whether the 
 enumeration of certain powers excludes all others'^ — 
 whether, for example, giving her the power to will 
 denies her the power to deed.'* 
 
 2. Conveyances under powers. In some States a mar- 
 ried woman can dispose of her equitable separate estate 
 only under a power ; " she merely executes a delegated 
 authority, '8 and her grantee takes under the original 
 settlement.'" A general power to "dispose" includes 
 all modes of alienation, ^o and a power to convey in- 
 cludes a power to mortgage.''' In executing her power 
 she acts as a femme sole.'^ No joinder of husband ^^ or 
 trustee, 2^ and no privy examination, ^^s necessarj-. Still 
 the joinder of the husband Avill do no harm,2B unless it 
 appears that she was not acting under the powerj^? and
 
 297 wife's equitable estate. ^ 235 
 
 the power inaj' be so given as to require privy examin- 
 ation. ^^ If tlie act is witliin the scope of the power, it is 
 a good execution, though there be no reference to the 
 power.^ Still, in general, the power should be referred 
 to,*" or the intent to execute it should otherwise ap- 
 pear,^' and this intent will be presumed only if the act 
 Avould otherwise be meaningless,*^ and no other sup- 
 posed authority is referred to.** Substantial compliance 
 with the terms of the power is sufficient,** and an im- 
 perfect execution maybe rectified in equity, *5 — private 
 or conventional powers thus dllTering from statutory 
 powers.*^ The rules apply to botli realty and person- 
 alty,*' and private powers may exist alongside of stat- 
 utory ones.*^ 
 
 3. Conveyances wider natural Jus disponendi. Though 
 the right to dispose of it is peculiarly an incident of 
 ownership of personalty,*^ this right may bo restrained 
 by the settlement;*" otherwise the wife may convey ii 
 away as if unmarried.'^ This applies equally to accu- 
 mulations,*^ to personalty in possession or in rever- 
 sion,** and to the rents and profits of real estate." But 
 it is in some States held that the wife's right of disposi- 
 tion does not apply to the corpus of her realty, *5 and 
 that she can dispose of that only as a married woman, ^^ 
 by fine and recovery as at common law,*' or under 
 statutes allowing her to convey her general real es- 
 tate,*8 or under a power.*" Still, the general rule is 
 that she can dispose of the corpus of her realty as well 
 as of the rents and i^rofits, unless restrained by the 
 settlement ;^" and her husband need not johi.^i 
 
 1 Amorican v. \Vadharas, 10 Barb. 557, fiOl ; Lee v. Baiilv, !) Leigh, 
 203, 206 ; ante, J 203. 
 
 2 Taylor v. Meads, 4 DeGex, J. * S. 517, 607 ; Jaqu?.s r. Mf thoclist, 
 17 Johns. Ch. 548, 578, 585 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; infra, n. 45. 
 
 3 Fettiplace v. Gorges, 3 Bro. Ch. 8 ; 1 Ves. Jr. 4fi ; .\aierican r\ 
 Wadhams, 10 Barb. 5;i7, 601 ; infra, n. 39.
 
 § 205 wife's equitable estate. 298 
 
 4 Taylor v. Mead, 4 DeGex, J. & S. 597, 607 ; Chew v. Beall, 13 Md. 
 »48, 360 ; Finch v. Marks, 76 Va. 207, 209 ; ante, U 203, 204. 
 
 5 Keed v. Lamar, 1 Strob. Eq. 27, 37 ; ante, i 203. 
 
 fi Aliter in particular cases, such as Richardson v. Pulver, 63 Barb. 
 67, 72. 
 
 7 Thompson v. Murray, 2 Hill Ch. 204, 211 ; 29 Am. Dec. 68 ; infra, 
 notes 23, 51 ; post, I 212. 
 
 8 Trippe v. John, 15 Ala. 117, 124 ; infra, n. 24 ; ante, 5 202. 
 
 9 Sherman v. Turpin. 7 Cold. 382, 384. See post, H 394-408. 
 
 10 Booker. 32 Ala. 473, 478. See Hearle v. Greenbank, 1 Ves. Sr. 
 298 ; Pavvlet v. Delaval, 2 Ves. Sr. 173 ; Sperling v. Roehford, 8 Ves. 
 164, 183 ; Essex v. A'kiris, 14 Ves. .M2 ; Wood, Law R. 10 Eq. 220 : ante, 
 Hi 
 
 11 Jones V. Reese, 65 Ala. 134, 141 ; Price i'. Big-ham, 7 Har. <fe J. 296, 
 318 ; Jackson r. AVest, 22 Md. 71, 83 ; Hall v. Ecclestoii, 37 Md. 510, 520 ; 
 American v. Wadhams, 10 Barb. .')97, fiOJ ; Maurer, S6 Pa. St. 380, 385 ; 
 Porcher v. Daniel, 12 Rich. Eq. 319, 359 ; Bain v. Buff, 70 Va. 371, 374. 
 
 12 Porcher ?>. Daniel, 12 Rich. Eq. 349, 359 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 
 W. Va. 573, 669. 
 
 13 Ferdon v. Miller, 31 N. J. Eq. 10, notes ; ante, ? 134. 
 
 14 Doolan v. Blake, 3 Ir. Ch. N. S. 310, 349 ; ante, J 204. 
 
 15 Pro. Cooke v. Husbands, 11 Md. 492, 503. Contra, Radford v. 
 Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 590, 597, 632. Discussed ante, I 204. 
 
 16 Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497, 504 ; ante, i 204 
 
 17 Lyne v. Crouse, 1 Pa. St. Ill, 115 ; ante, I 203. 
 
 18 Porcher v. Daniel, 12 Rich. Eq. 349, 357. 
 
 19 Leigh V. Smith, 3 Ired. Eq. 442, 446 ; 42 Am. Dec. 182. 
 
 20 American v. Wadhams, 10 Barb. 597, 604 ; Porcher v. Daniel, 12 
 Rich. Eq. .319, 357. 
 
 21 Price v. Bigham, 7 Har. & J. 296, 318 ; supra, n. 11. 
 
 22 Armstrong v. Kerns, Md. L. Rec. Mar. 22, 1884, Ct. App. Oct. '83. 
 See Vanghan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 185 ; Heath v. Withington, 
 6 Cush. 497, 50C ; 1 Sugden Pow. 181, Vt-i. 
 
 23 Thompson v. Murray, 2 Hill Ch. 204, 211 ; 4 Kent Com. 324 ; 2 
 Bish. M. \V. H89 ; 1 Sugden Pow. 181, 1S.3. 
 
 24 Burnett v. Hawpe, 25 Gratt. 481, 487 ; 2 Story Eq. Juris, i 1390 ; 2 
 Bish. M. W. I \M ; ante, § 202. e . 
 
 25 .Sherman v. Turpin, 7 Cold. 382, 384. 
 
 26 Witts V. Dawkins, 12 Ves. 501, 502. 
 
 27 Myers v. McBride, 13 Rich. 178, 190. 
 23 Richardson v. Pulver, 63 Barb. 67, 72. 
 
 29 Coryell v. Dunton, 7 Pa. St. 530, 532 ; 49 Am. Dec. 489. 
 
 30 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 189 ; infra, n. 31. 
 
 31 Da\is V. Vincent, 1 Houst. 416, 426 ; White v. Hicks, .33 N Y 383, 
 ^'' ' ■l^.^^l^ ";„?chwartz, 47 Pa. St. 503, 508 ; Porcher v. Daniel, 12 Rich. 
 Eq. 349, .368 ; Thorndike v. Reynolds, 22 Gratt. 21, 32. 
 
 -J'' of^^S-""."***^' "• I'ilJben, 9 Sim. 447, note ; Porcher v. Daniel, 12 Rich. 
 Eq. 349, .i51. 
 
 33 See Myers v. McBride, 13 Rich. 178, 190. 
 
 i
 
 299 wife's equitable estate. I 205 
 
 »1 Eovve V. Beckett, 30 Ind. 154, 163 
 
 35 Wright J'. Englefleld, Arab. 46S, 473 ; EUet v. Wade, 47 Ala. 45fi, 
 464 ; Clayton v. Frazier, 33 Tex. 91, 100. 
 
 36 Trustee r. Bavlson, 65 111. 124, 126 ; Lindley v. Smith, 46 111. 523 ; 
 Heaton v. Trybergtr, 38 Iowh, 1S5, I'M; O'Ferrall r. Simplot, 4 Greene, 
 162 ; 4 Iowa, .iSl ; Wills v. Gattman, 53 Mi.ss. 711, 73.' ; Sillimaii v. Cuni- 
 mings, 13 Ohio, 116. 118. Compare Kilbouni i\ Furv, 26 Ohio St. 153, 
 160; Clayton v. Frazier, 33 Tex. 1)1, 100. See poet, U 404, 407. 
 
 37 Guise v. Small, 1 Anstr. 277, 27S ; Warren v. Postelthwaite, 2 
 Colly. C. C. lOS, lis ; Newburyport v. Stoue, 13 Pick. 420, 42J ; Ameri- 
 can V. Wadhams, 10 Barb. 5J7, 606. 
 
 .38 Armstrong w Kerns, Md. L. Bee. Mar. 22, iaS4, 63 Jld. ^ ; post, 
 J216. 
 
 31 Navlor v. Field, 20 N. J. L. 237, 2S.S. But see Moore v. Cornell, 78 
 Pa. St. 320. 
 
 40 Fettiplace v. Gorges, 3 Bro. Ch. 9, 10 ; cases infra, n. 41 ; ante, i 204. 
 
 41 Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1 Ve.s. Jr. 4S ; 3 Bro. Ch. fl, 10 ; Bank v. 
 Lempriere, Luw J. 4 P. C. 572 ; Pride v. Bobb. Law R. 7 Ch. App. 64 ; 
 Noble v. Whillock, Law R. 8 Ch. App. 778 ; Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Bro. 
 Ch. 16; Hanchet I'. Briscoe, 22 Beav. 436 ; Bestall >: Beraberry, 13 Ir. 
 Ch. 549 ; Hearle 1'. Greenbank,3Atk. 70); 1 Vcs, Sr. 2(8, :«« ; Pomeroy 
 V. Manhattan, 40 111. 3;)8; Harding >: Cobb, 47 Mi.ss. 5)'.), (id:! ; Dibnell v. 
 Carlisle, 48 Miss. 6i)l ; Naylor v. Field, 2u N. J. L. 2i7, 288 ; Green it. 
 Ballas. 13 N. J. Eq. 267 ; Lee v. Bank, Lee, 2U5, 207 ; Penn v. White- 
 head, 17 Gratt. 503. 
 
 42 Gold V. Rutland, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. .346 ; Gore v. Knight, 2 Vern. 5.%'i ; 
 Newland v. Paynter, 10 Sim. 377 ; Humphrey r. Richards, 2 Jur. N. 
 S. 432. 
 
 43 Sturgis v. Corp, 13 Ves. 190 ; Ponne v. Hart, 2 Russ. <& M. 355, 
 360 ; Headen v. Rasher, McClel. & Y. 8J. 
 
 44 Ch^ever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108, 119; McChesnev r. Brown, 25 
 Gratt. 393, 404. See Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Bro. Ch. 16 ; 1 White & T. 
 Lead. Cas. 481, 4th Am. ed. 679 ; post, i 209. 
 
 45 Radford v. Carwile. 13 W. Va. 573, 661. S. P. Armstrong v. Ross, 
 2) N. J. Eq. 10), 117 ; Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. 287, 289 ; McChesney 
 V. Brown, 2.j Gratt. 393, 404; Hawley t'. Troyman, 29 Gratt. 728, 729. 
 So formerly in England: Peacock r. Monk, 2 Ves. Jr. 190; Doe v. 
 Scott, 4 Bing. 505 ; Moore v. Morris, 4 Brew. 38 ; Harris r. Mott, 14 
 Beav. 169 ; Churchill v. Debben, 2 Keny. (II. Pt.) 63, 84. Soe 1 Bish. 
 M. W. 5 851, note. 
 
 46 Young, 7 Cold. 461, 477 ; tnfra, notes 47-49 ; post, U 334-103. 
 
 47 Dillon V. Grace, 2 Schoales & L. 456, 462-464 ; Wright r. Cadogan, 
 2 Eden, 239, 257-259. 
 
 48 Taylor v. Meads, 4 DeGex, J. A S. 597, 607 ; Young, 7 Cold. 461, 
 479 ; Lightfoot v. Bess, 8 Lea, 3.50, 351 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va, 
 573, 669. 
 
 43 McChesney v. Brown, 25 Gratt. 393, 404 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 
 W. Va. 573, 670 ; sujyra, notes 17-38. 
 
 50 Appleton v. Rawlev, Law R. 8 Eq. 139, 142 ; Taylor v. Meads, 34 
 Law J. N. S. Ch. 203, 207 ; Trontbeck v. Boughev, Law R. 3 Eq. .534, 
 537; Hodsden v. Staple, 2 Term R. 6S4, 695 ; Parkes v. White, 11 Ves. 
 209, 220 ; Chew v. Beall, 13 Md. 348, 360 ; Bradish v. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 
 523, 539-541. 
 
 51 Moore v. Webster, Law R. 3 Eq. 267, 369 ; American v. Wadhams. 
 10 Barb. 697, 602 ; su2}ra, n. 9.
 
 § 208 wife's equitable estate. 300 
 
 \ 2D6. Wife's contracts concerning her equitable separate 
 estato. — Independently of statute, a married woman 
 has generally no capacity to make a contract ; ' her 
 promises, deeds, etc., are absolutely void,^ even in 
 courts of equity.^ But her contracts relating to her 
 estate may be so made as to be sustainable in equity 
 against her equitable separate estate* (and her statu- 
 tory separate estate as Avell") in a proceeding in rem.^ 
 Thus, her contrivct to sell her equitable seijarate es- 
 tate is valid,^ and even if not enforcible against her 
 specifically, if she has received the purchase money 
 the property is liable for its repayment ; ^ and a con- 
 tract, in consideration of a loan, to pay it back, and to 
 give a mortgage for it on her equitable separate es- 
 tate, may be enforced as an equitable mortgage.^ That 
 13 to say, any contract charging her equitable separate 
 property for the payment of money .may be enforced 
 against such property, and such contracts may be 
 made through any one,^" including her husband, as 
 her agent.ii Though a married woman's capacity to 
 contract witli reference to her equitable separate prop- 
 erty has always been recognized to some extent,^^ tlie 
 reasons for and limits of this capacity are not clearly 
 dotermined,^^ and different rules relating thereto have 
 prevailed at different times and in different places.^* 
 One theory has been that her contracts are enforcible 
 against her projierty as equitable appointments, mort- 
 gages, or conveyances thereof,'^ on the ground that her 
 power to dispose includes a power to encumber,!^ and 
 that private i^owers need not be strictly executed to 
 create valid ai5j>ointments.'^ Under this theory only 
 express charges would be enforcible, '^ and no oral 
 charge would liave any effect as to real estate. ^^ Since, 
 as to these matters, the Aveight of the law is otherwise, 
 and for other reasons, this theory has of late met with
 
 301 wife's equitable estate. § 206 
 
 mucla disfavor,™ though it is the only one possible 
 where, although the wife has only such powers over 
 her estate as are expressly given her, such estate is 
 held liable for contracts which are not expressly au- 
 thorized, '-^i Another more satisfactory theory has been 
 accepted in States where a married woman is, as to her 
 equitable separate estate, a fcmmesole;-^ namely, that 
 it is an incident of ownership that property should be 
 liable for its owner's debts,^^ or at all events an inci- 
 dent of the Jus disponendi,'^^ and that the liability of 
 equitable separate property for her debts is a conse- 
 quence of the fact that the married woman is in equity 
 absolute owner thereof.-^ There are some rules as to 
 tlie liability aforesaid upon wliich tliore seems to be 
 some general agreement. 
 
 1. It is not liable unless the wife has the jus dis- 
 ponendi.^^ Thus, wlien slie has only a life estate the 
 reversion is not liable ; ^^ when she cannot dispose of 
 tlie corpus of her land, only the rents and profits are 
 liable ;'^ and when she cannot dispose of it at all,'^ it is 
 not liable at all.^" 
 
 2. It is not liable when no credit is given to it,^^ as 
 when the credit is given to the husband,"^ and in the 
 case of household expenses the credit is presumed to 
 have been given to the liusband.^^ 
 
 3. It is not liable wlien there is no consideration; 
 the wife is not estopped in equity by her seal.^* Still, 
 usually, the consideration need not benefit her.^s 
 
 4. It is liable if expressly cliargod,^^ as to this all 
 agree,^' and the intention need not be expressed in the 
 contract,^^ or in writing.'^ 
 
 5. It is liable if impliedly charged.*" The intent to 
 charge may, except in Nortli Carolina,*^ be proved by 
 circumstantial evidence.*'^ In many courts, to prevent 
 the implication of a fraudulent intent in the married 
 
 H. & W. — 26.
 
 I 206 wipe's EQUITABtiE ESTATE. 302 
 
 woman at the time she contracted her debts not to pay 
 them, the law raises a presumption that she intended 
 to pay them in the only way possible, namely, out of 
 her separate property ; ^ and such courts hold her 
 property prima facie liable on all her contracts, on the 
 doctrine of implied intent.*' This presumption may 
 bo rebutted by showing that neither j^arty had in mind 
 payment out ol her estate.*^ Very rarely, however, is 
 this liability said to be independent of express or im- 
 plied intent to charge,*^ as it is in Virginia. *' Some 
 courts which recognize implied charges refuse to raise 
 the implication from the mere fact of coverture.*^ 
 
 6. It is liable for a debt incurred for its preservation, 
 or for some purpose connected necessarily with its full 
 enjoyment.*^ Other courts have extended this prin- 
 ciple, and hold the estate liable whenever the contract 
 benefits it or the married woman,^ on the ground, it 
 seems, of implied intent.si Others, on the other hand, 
 do not hold it liable even for improvements on it, if 
 there is no express or implied charge.^^ A few courts 
 refuse to hold it liable for a debt not for its benefit, 
 even on a charge.^^ 
 
 7. It is liable on contracts in relation to it,^' or on the 
 faith and credit of it.^ 
 
 But the only satisfactojy way of determining the law 
 in each particular State is to examine the decisions 
 therein.58 
 
 1 Discussed fnWy, post, Coxtbacts of Married Womkn, {{ :«3, 
 et seq. 
 
 2 Gebb v. Eose, 40 Md. .W, 393 ; post, 5 357. 
 
 3- Vaughan v. Vaiuierstegen, 2 Drew. 16.'), 18-1 ; Miller v. Newton, 
 23 Cal. 5.->4, 564 ; Davis v. Smith, 75 Mo. 219, 224 ; imst, 5 359. 
 
 4 Hulme v. Tenant, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 481, notes. 
 
 5 Hall II. Ecoleston, 37 Md. 510, 520 ; Radford v. Carwlle, 13 W. Va, 
 573, 661 ; post, J 2:54. 
 
 6 Vaughan v. Vanderstcgen, 2 Drew. 165, 184; Smith v. Gooch, 86 
 
 N. C. 276. 
 
 7 &tead v. Nelson, 2 Beav. 245, 248 ; post, I 407.
 
 303 wife's equitable estate. g 208 
 
 S Girault v Adams, 61 Md. 1, V2, 13 ; Sliuydi-r v. >'oble, 94 Pa. St. 
 236, 28;» ; post, § 407. 
 
 9 Stead i'. Nelson. 2 Beav. 245, 24S ; Waiiiwright v. Hardistv, 2 
 Beav. 36:{ 365; Hall ?'. Eccleston, a? Md. .")]0, 5-0 ; Cooke i'. Husbands, 
 U Md. 492, .508. 
 
 10 Garland, 1 Mackey, 436; Taylor r. Shclton, 30 Conn. 122, 128; 
 Wells I'. Thorman, 37 Conn. 318 ; Crickniore r. llreckenridge, 51 Ind. 
 2'.H, 2:17 ; Girault v. Adams, 61 Md. 1, U, 12 ; MerrUl !'. Parker, 112 Mass. 
 250 ; ante, U 84-88. But see Jones v. .Etna, 14 Conn. r-Ol, 509. 
 
 11 Crickmore v. Breckenridge, 51 Ind. 294, 297 ; post, 1} 364, 406. 
 
 12 Hulme v. Tenant. 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 481, notes. 
 
 13 Compare Yale v. Dederer, IS N. Y. 205, and S. C. 22 N. Y. 4.50. 
 
 14 Compare Clark v. Miller, 2 Atk. 379, 380, and Murray v. Barlee, 3 
 Myliie & K. 209, 223; Wilson r. Jones, 48 Md. ;W9, 358, and Henry v. 
 Blackburn, 32 Ark. 145, 451 ; Orange v. Traver, 7 Sawy. 210, 216, and 
 Hodson I'. Davis, 43 Ind. 258, 264. See post, i> 207. 
 
 15 Stuart i\ Kirkwall, 3 Mod. 387,389; Vaughan f. Vanderstegen, 
 
 2 Drew. 165, 181 ; McHenry v. Davies, Law R. 10 Eq. 88, 92 ; Bolton v. 
 Williams, 2 Ves. Jr. 138, 142; Whistler c. Newman, 4 Ves. 129, 145; 
 Hulme V. Tenant, 1 Bro. Ch. 16 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 481, notes. 
 
 16 American v. Wadhams, 10 Barb. 597, 006; ante, I 205. 
 
 17 Ellet V. Wade, 47 Ala. 456, 464 ; Hall v. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, 520 ; 
 ante, I 205 ; post, I 407. 
 
 18 Knox V. Jordan, 5 Jones Eq. 175, 176. Nearly every where 
 intent to charge may be implied : Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. .554, 561 ; 
 Yale V. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451, 459. 
 
 19 Clark V. Miller, 2 Atk. 379, 380 ; Burch v. Breckenridge, 16 Men. 
 B. 482. 487. Writing generally held not neces.sarv : Murray v. Barlee, 
 
 3 Myine & K. 209, 223 ; London v. Lempriere, Law K. 4 P. C. 672, 591 ; 
 Matthewson, Law R. 3 Eq. 781,787; Shattuck, Law R. 2 Eq. 182,187; 
 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 1S3 ; Ozley v. Ikelheimer, 26 
 Ala. 332; Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. 564, 566 ; Girault v. Adams, fil Md. 
 1, 13; Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 504, 510; 4 Am. Dec. ;M6 ; Radford v. 
 Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 6;?.5. 
 
 20 Vaughan r. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 181. 
 
 21 Knox 1'. Jordan, 5 Jones Eq. 175, 176 ; Creighton v. Clifford, 6 
 S. C. 188, 198. See ante, ? 204. 
 
 22 Dallas v. Heard, 32 Ga. 604, 607 ; ante, ? 204. 
 
 23 Owens ?'. Dickinson, 1 Craig & P. 48 ; Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 
 2 Drew. 165, 183; Dallas v. Heard, :{2 Ga. 604, 607. 
 
 24 Bain v. Buff, 76 Va. 371, 374. 
 
 25 Vaughan )'. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 182, 183, 185; Shattock, 
 Law R. 2 Eq. 182, 189 ; ante, i 204. 
 
 26 Aylett )'. Ashton, 1 Mylne & C. 105, 111 ; Shattock, Law R. 2 Eq. 
 182, 189 ; Buckner v. Davis, 29 Ark. 447 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 
 573. 674. 
 
 27 Shattock, Law R. 2 Eq. 182, 189, 190. 
 
 28 McChesney v. Brown, 25 Gratt. 393, 401 ; ante, ? 20.5. 
 
 29 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 674, 680 ; post, | 211. 
 
 30 Clark r. Makenna, Cheves Eq. 163 ; ante, H 204, 205. 
 
 !» MattUewman, Law R. 3 Eq. 7SI, 787 ; Staley v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 
 275, 297.
 
 g 2J6 wife's equitable estate. 304 
 
 32 Matthewmaii.Law E. 3 Eq. 781, 787. 
 
 33 Powers v. Bussell, 26 Mich. 179, 184 ; post, i -187 ; ante, § 94. 
 
 34 Radford v. Carwilc, 13 W. Va. 573, 683. 
 
 3.5 Ante, I 134. Contra, Perkins v. Elliott, 23 X. J. Eq. 526, 53.5. 
 
 .36 A charge is an equitable mortgage : First v. Haire, 36 Iowa, 443, 
 446 ; Harrison v. Stewart. 18 N. J. Eq. 451. See ante, i 205. 
 
 37 Yale v. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 265, 283. 
 
 .38 Miller p. Newton, 23 Cal. 551. .564 ; Koontz v. Nobb, 16 Md. 549, 
 554 ; Wilson r. Jones, 46 Md. 34'J, 357 ; Girault v. Adams, 61 Md. 1, 13 ; 
 Bank v. MUler, 63 N. Y. 639. 
 
 39 Murray v. Barlee, 3 Mylne & K. 203, 223 ; supra, n. 19. 
 
 40 Greatlv v. NoUe, 3 Mod. 77, 94 ; Shattock, Law R. 2 Eq. 182, 193 ; 
 Miller ". Newton, 23 Cal. .5.>4, 564 ; Patton v. Kinsman, 17 Iowa, 42S, 
 433 ; Pond V. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 4W, 432 ; Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 
 451, 4.59 ; Finch v. Marks, 76 Va. 207, 210. 
 
 41 Knox V. Jordan, 5 Jones Eq. 175, 176. 
 
 42 Miller v. Nowton,23 Cal. 564, 564 ; West v. Jackson, 22 Md. 71, 
 76, 84. 
 
 43 Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. 554, .564 ; Jones v. JEtna, 14 Conn. .=«l, 
 .509 ; Bell V. Killar, 13 Mon. B. 443, 446 : Boatman v. Collins, 75 Mo. 280, 
 281 ; Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262 265 ; Phillips v. Graves, 20 
 Ohio St, 371, 390 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; Orange v. Traver, 7 Sawy. 210, 215, 
 216. 
 
 44 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 390 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675. 
 
 45 Kimm v. Weippert, 46 Mo. .532 ; 2 Am. Rep. 541. 
 
 40 Even in England the doctrine seems to require some fact from 
 which intent may be implied : London v. Lempriere, Law R. 4 P. C 
 .572, 593; Johnson v. Gallagher, 2 DeGex F. & J. 494, 514; Jones v. 
 Harris, 9 Ves. 485, 497, 498. 
 
 47 Burnett v. Hawpe, 25 Gratt. 481, 486; Radford v. CarwUe, 13 
 W. Va. 573, 581, 602, 608. 
 
 48 See Jones v. Harris, 9 Ves. 485, 497, 498 ; Staler v. Hamilton, 19 
 Fla. 275. 297 ; Shannon v. Bartholemew. 53 Ind. .54, .56 ; Patton v. Kins- 
 man, 17 Iowa, 428, 433 ; Jack.son v. West, 22 Md. 71, 76, 84 • Wilson ?i. 
 Jones, 46 Md. .349, 3.57, 3.5S ; Devries v. Conklin, 22 Mich. 2.55, 2,59 ; Pond 
 ?'. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 432 ; Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 
 104; Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451, 459; 68 N. Y. 329; Partridge v. 
 Stocker, 36 Vt. 108, 117. 
 
 49 London v. Lempriere, Law R. 4 P. C. 572, .5>4 ; Crickmore v. 
 Breckciiridge, ,51 Ind. 294, 299; Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 
 266 ; Mont!?(jni<Tv v. Eveleigh, 1 McCord Ch. 267, 203 ; Magwood v. 
 Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. 228, 230, 231, 
 
 50 Collins V. Underwood, Xi Ark. 265, 266; Staleyv. Hamilton, 19 
 Fla. 27.5, 298: Williams r. Hugunin,69 HI. 214,217; 18 Am. Rep. 607; 
 WiUardn. Eastham, 15 Grav,.328, 3;i5 ; Batchelder ?>. Sargent, 47 N. H. 
 262,266 ; McVey r. CaiitrcU, 7(1 X. Y. 295, 298; 26 .\m. Rep. 605 ; Yale 
 V. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 4.M, -I'll), 46(i; Frazier v. Brownslow, 3 Ired. Eq. 
 237; 42 Am. Dec. 165 ; I'artriils^t- i: Stocker, 36 Vt. 108, 117; Radford 
 jr. Carwile, 13 V. Va. 573, Oil ; 1 Bish. JI. W. i 875. 
 
 .51 Orange v. Traver, 7 Sawy. 210, 216 ; Henry v. Blackburn, 32 Ark. 
 445, 451. 
 
 52 Shannon v. Bartholemew. ,53 Ind. &1, 56 ; W'ilson v. Jones, 46 Md. 
 349, 357, 358. Contra, Henry i'. Blackburn, 32 Ark. 445, 451.
 
 305 wife's equitable estate. g 207 
 
 53 Williams r. Huguiiin, 65 III. 214, 217 ; 18 Am. Rep. GOT ; Perkins 
 r. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. o^i, 535 ; ante, i VM. 
 
 54 Lonflon v. Lemprlere, L'lw R. 4 P. C. 572, .534 ; Collins v. Under- 
 wood, 33 Ark. 265, 266 ; post, i 373. 
 
 .55 Staler v. Hamilton, Ifi Fla. 275, 208 ; Williams v. Hugunln, 60 111. 
 214, 217 ; 18 .\m. Rep. 607 ; Orange v. Travcr, 7 Sawy. 210, 216 ; Bryan, 
 18 Tex. 461, 465, 467 ; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wis. 305, 36) ; 16 Wis. 480, 483. 
 
 .56 Stnart v. Kirkwall, 3 Mod. 387, 38:i ; MoHenrv v. Davies, Law R. 
 10 Eq. 88, 'j2 ; Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 104 ; pr««, § 207. 
 
 ? 207. Wife's power to contract concorning hor equitable 
 separate estate — Decisions. — The decisions as to the wife's 
 contracts concerning her equitable separate estate are 
 inharmonious — both those in the different States and 
 tliose in the same State.' Broadly, it may be said, that 
 it is liable on all conti-acts in which the credit was not 
 given to the husband, ^ in the following States : Eng- 
 land,^ Alabama,* Arkansas,^ Caiifornia,^ Connecticut,^ 
 Georgia,^ Kansas,^ Iventucky,'" Mississippi," Missouri,"* 
 New Hampshire, '3 Ohio,i* Oregon, '^ Texas, '^ Virginia," 
 West Virginia,^^ and Wisconsin '^ In the following 
 States there must be soine reference to the said estate — 
 some express pledge of it or some circumstances beside 
 the fact of coverture from which an intent to jiledge it 
 may be inferred : Florida.^o Illinois, ^i Indiana,'^^ Iowa,'"'' 
 jMaryland,"''* Massachusetts, ^^ Michicjan,^^ r^Ihinesota,^^ 
 New Jersey,^^ New York,® and Vermont.^" In the fol- 
 lowing States, though it may be liable for expenses 
 necessarily attached to it,^' it is not liable for the wife's 
 contracts unless they come within the scope of the 
 powers given her hy the settlement : North Carolina,^^ 
 Pennsylvania,^^ Rhode Island,^* and South Carolina.^^ 
 riorida,^^ Mississippi,^^ and Tennessee,^^ which also 
 once held the South Carolina rule ^^ seem in this con- 
 nection to have abandoned it,*" In California a statute 
 formeiiy required the contracts to be in writing.*' 
 
 1 Hulme V. Tenant, 1 White & T. Lead Cas. 4SI, and notes ; ante, 
 §207. 
 
 2 5Iatthewni.i;i, Law R. 3 Eq. 781, 787 ; ante, ? 207.
 
 § 207 wife's eqvitable estate. 306 
 
 3 London v. Lempriere, Law R. 4 P. C. 5T2, 5fM (1875) ; Butler !•. 
 Cumpston, Law R. 7 Eq. Ifi, 20, 21 ; Matthewman, Law R. 3 Eq. 7S1, 
 7H7 ; Shattock, Law R. 2 Eq. 1S2, 187 ; Picard v. Hine, Law R. 5 Ch. 
 App. 274 : Johnson v. Gallagher, 3 DeGex. F. & J. 4<W, 51-1 ; Murray 
 V. Barlee. 3 Mvlne & K. 209, 223 ; Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 
 165, ISO ; Hulme r. Tenant, 1 Bro. Ch. 16 ; 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 48, 
 4th Am. Ed. 679, collecting cases. 
 
 4 WUburn v. McCallev, 63 Ala. 436, 447 ; McKenna v. Rowlett, 68 
 Ala. Is6 ; Braune r. McGee, 50 Ala. 3.5:). 363 ; .Short i: Battle, 52 Ala. 
 4.36; Cowles i: Pollard. 51 Ala. 445 ; Xunn v. Givhan, 45 Ala. 375 ; Wil- 
 kinson r. Cheatham, 45 .\la. 341 ; Cowles !•. Morgan, .34 Ahu a-Vi ; Paulk 
 V. Wolfe, 34 Ala. 511 ; Gunter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 521 ; Baker v. Greg- 
 orv, 28 Ala. 544 ; Ozlev v. Ikelheimer, 26 Ala. 3:2, a38 ; Collins v. 
 Rudolf, 19 Ala. 616 ; Puryear, 16 Ala. 4.S6. 
 
 5 Collins V. Underwood. 33 Ark. 265, 266; Henrv r. Blackburn, 32 
 Ark. 445. 4.>1 ; Palmer v. Rankin, 30 Ark. 771 ; Buckner i: Davis, 2'J 
 Ark. 447 ; StlUwell v. Adams, 29 Ark. .346; Oswalt v. Moore, 19 Ark. 
 257 ; Dobbin v. Hubbard, 17 Ark. 189, 196. 
 
 6 Miller ?'. Xewton, 23 Cal. 5.>4,. 564. Must be in writing : Maclay r. 
 Love, 25 Cal. 367, 381 ; Boolev i-. Furguson, 30 Cal. 511 ; Smith v. Greer, 
 31 Cal. 476, 479. 
 
 7 Jones v. ^tna, 14 Conn. 501, 509 ; Taylor v. &helton, 30 Conn. 122, 
 127; Leavitt v. Beirne, 21 Conn. 1; Imlav i\ Huntington, 20 Conn. 
 146, 173 ; Piatt V. Hawkir.s, 43 Conn. 143 ; Wells v. Thorman, 37 Conn. 
 318 ; Buckingham v. Moss, 40 Conn. 461. 
 
 8 Fears v. Brooks, 12 Ga. 105, 200 ; Carmlchael r. Walters, 33 Ga. .316, 
 328 ; Dallas v. Heard, 32 Ga. 601, (W ; Morrison v. Solomon, 52 Ga. 206 ; 
 Seabrook v. Bradv, 47 Ga. 6.J0 ; V.n Arsdale f. Joiner, 44 Ga. 41 ; Huff 
 V. Wright, 31 Ga. 41 ; Roberts v. West, 15 Ga. 123; Wylly v. Collins, 9 
 Ga. 223 ; Weeks v. Sego, 4 Ga, 201. 
 
 9 Wicks !•. Mitchf 11, 9 Kan. 80, 87, S3 ; Deering v. Boyle, 8 Kan. 529: 
 Knaggs V. Mastou, 9 Kan. 532. 
 
 10 Burch V. Breckenridge, 16 Mon. B. 4-S2, 4.87; Bell v. Kellar, 13 
 Mon. B. 381, 383, :i.85 ; Lillard v. Turner, 16 Mon. B. 374, 375 ; Coleman 
 J'. Wooley, 10 Mon. B. 320; Jarmen r. Wilkeson, 7 Mon. B. 293; 
 Sweeney v. Smith, 15 Mon. B. 325 ; Long v. White, 5 Marsh. J. J. 226. 
 
 11 Musson V. Trigg, 51 Miss. 172,185,186. See Davis »>. Wilkerson, 
 40 Miss. 5S5 ; Witcher r. Wilson, 47 Miss. 603 ; Pollen v. James, 45 Miss. 
 129 : Dunbar v. Meyer, 43 Miss. 679 ; Armstrong v. .Stoval, 26 Mis.s. 275; 
 Robertson v. Bruner, 24 Miss. 242 ; Boarman v. Graves, 23 Miss. 283 ; 
 Dolev V. Mitchell, 9 Smedes <fe M. 435 ; Montgomery v. Bank, 10 
 Smedes & M. 567. 
 
 12 Davisi'. Smith,75Mo. 219, 2i5 ; Boatmen r. Collins, 75 Mo. 280,281 ; 
 Whiteley v. Stewart, 6:5 Mo. 3<i3 ; Gage v. Gates, 62 Mo. 417 ; Sharpe r. 
 McPike. 62 Mo. 307 ; Bank v. Tavlor, 62 Mo. 3.3S ; Lincoln r. Rowe. 57 
 Mo. 571 ; Kimm v. Wieppert, 46 Mo. .5.32 ; 2 Am. Rep. 541 ; Miller i . 
 Brown, 47 Mo. .504, 508 : 4 Am. Rep. 345 ; Schapath v. .\mbs. 46 Mo. 114, 
 116 ; Clatiin v. Van Wagoner, 32 Mo. 252 ; Whitesides v. Cannon, 2:{ Mo. 
 4.b7; Segond I'. Garland 23 Mo. 547; Coatps t». Robinson, 10 Mo. 7.57, 760. 
 
 13 Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 266 ; Xims v. Bigelow, 4."> 
 X^H. 343 ; Hutchins !•. Colby, 43 >'. H. 159 ; Vogt v. Tichnor, 48 N. H. 
 
 14 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio, St. 371, 390 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675; Urm- 
 ston I'. Williams, 35 Ohio St. 296 ; Hardy v. Van Harllnger, 7 Ohio St. 
 208. 
 
 15 Orange v. Traver, 7 Sawy. 210, 215. 216.
 
 307 wife's equitable estate. g 207 
 
 16 Bryan, 18 Tex. 461, 405, 467; Milburn )•. Walker, 11 Tex. 329: 
 Hollls V. Francois, 5 Tex. 20J ; 51 Am. Dec. 760. 
 
 17 Burnett v. Hawpe, 2.5 Gratt. 4SI, 486 ; Justes v. English, 3n Gratt. 
 56.5; Bank v. Chambers, 30 Gratt. 202, 209; Bain v. Buff, 76 Va. 371, 
 374 ; Finch v. Marks, 76 Va. 207, 210; Darnall v. Smith, 26 Gratt. 878 ; 
 MuUer v. Bailey, 21 Gratt. 528 ; Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. .503 ; 
 Nixon V. Rose, 12 Gratt. 431 ; Wootison v. Perkins, 5 Gratt. 345 ; Whit- 
 ing V Rust 1 Gratt. 483 ; West, 3 Rand. 373. 
 
 18 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573. .581-as2, collecting cases ; 
 Dages V. Lee. 20 W. Va. 584 ; Hughes v. HamUton, 19 W. Va. 306. 
 
 19 Todd V. Lee, 15 Wis. 365, 369 ; 16 Wis. 480, 483 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, 
 51 Wis. -201, 214. 
 
 20 Stalev v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 297 ; Thrasher ?>. Geiger, 18 Fla. 
 809 ; Caulk v. Fox, 13 Fla. 148 ; Alston v. Rowles, 13 Fla. 117 ; Aber- 
 nathv, 8 Fla. 243 ; Sanderson v. Jones. 6 Fla. 4:iO ; Maiben v. Bobe. 6 
 Fla. 381 ; Lewis v. Yale, 4 Fla. 418 ; Smith v. Paythress, 2 Fla. 92. 
 
 21 Williams v. Hugunin, 69 111. 214, 217 ; 18 Am. Rep. 607 ; Fiirness 
 V. McGovern, 78 111. 337, 3:8 ; Carpenter v. Jlitchell, 50 111. 470,474 ; 
 Bchmidt v. Postel, 63 111. 58 ; Pomeroy v. Insurance, 40 111. 378. 
 
 22 Shannon v. Bartholemew, 53 Ind. 54, 56 ; Crickmore v. Breck- 
 enridge, 51 Ind. 294, 2;)7 ; Hodson ?'. Davis, 43 Ind. 2.58 ; Hasheagan ?•. 
 Specker, 36 Ind. 414; Katrowitz, 31 Ind. 10.5; Abdil, 26 Ind. 287; Cox 
 1'. Wood, 20 Ind. .54 ; Reese v. Cochran, 10 Ind. 19.5. 
 
 23 First v. Haire, 36 Iowa, .443, 446 ; Patton v. Kinsman, 17 Iowa, 
 428, 433 ; Ureenough v. Wiggington, 2 Greene. 4."^. 
 
 24 Girault v. Adams, 61 Md. 1, 13 ; Wilson v. Jones, 46 Md. 349, 357, 
 a5S ; Hall >: Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, 520; Jackson v. West, 22 Md. 71, 
 84 ; Kooutz V. Xabb, 16 Md. 549, 5.54. 
 
 25 Willard v. Eastham, 15 Gray, 328, V>o ; Rogers v. Ward, 8 Allen, 
 387 ; Tracy i\ Keith, U Allen, 214 ; Allen v. Fuller, 118 Mass. 402 ; WU- 
 der V. Richie, 117 Mass. 382, 384. 
 
 26 Davies r. Conklin,22 Mich. 2-5.5, 259. See Powers ?•. Russell. 26 
 Mich. 179 ; Rankin i<. West, 25 Mich. 255 ; Deuison v. Gibson, 24 Mich. 
 187. 
 
 27 Pond ?'. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 432 ; Leonard r. Carpenter, 5 
 Minn. 156 ; Flynn v. Messenger, 28 Minn. 208 ; 41 Am. Rep. 27 J. 
 
 28 Perkins r. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 5-35 ; Armstrong v. Ross, 20 
 N. J. Eq. 10:j 119 ; Johnson r. Cummiiigs, 16 X. J. Eq. 97, 104; Oakley 
 V. Pound, 14 X. J. Eq. 178 ; Pcntz )'. Simonson, 13 N. J. Eq. 232, 235 ; 
 Leaycraft i: Heddeu, 4 X. J. Eq. 5.52. 
 
 29 Yale v. Dederer, 68 X. Y. 329 ; 22 X'. Y. 450 ; 18 X. Y. 265 ; 31 Barb. 
 525 ; 21 Barb. 286 ; 20 How. Pr. 242 ; 19 How. Pr. 14(j ; 17 How. Pr. Vi-i ; 
 Jaques v. Methodist, 17 Johns. Ch. 548 ; 3 Johns. Ch. :J7 ; 1 Johns. Ch. 
 450 ; 8 Am. Dec. 447 ; Saratoga v. Pruvn, 90 X. Y. 2.50, 254 ; McVey v. 
 Cantrell, 70 X. Y. 29.5, 297 ; 26 Am. Rep. 605; Conlm v. Cantrell, 64 
 N. Y. 217 ; Bank v. Miller, 63 X'. Y. 6.39 ; Manhattan v. Thompson, 58 
 N. Y. 80, 84 ; Insurance v. Babcock, 42 X. Y. 613; Scott v. Otis, 25 
 Hun, .33; Speck )•. Gurnee, 25 Hun, 644 ; Gardner, 7 Paige, 112, 116; 
 Knowles v. McCanily, 10 Paige, 343, 346 ; Cook v. Brook, 21 Barb. 516, 
 551. See Xew York cases cited and discussed : Radford v. Carwile, 
 13 W. Va. 573, 611. 
 
 30 Partridge v. Stocker, 36 Vt. 108, 117 ; Sargeant v. French, 54 Vt. 
 384, 391 ; Dale i> Robinson, 51 Vt. 20 ; 31 Am. Rep. 669 ; Priest v. Cone, 
 51 Vt. 499 ; 31 Am. Rep. 695.
 
 g 208 wife's equitable estate. 308 
 
 31 Montgomerv v. Evoleigh, 1 McCord I'h. 2r,7. 2fiT ; TJagwood v. 
 Johnson, 1 Hill Eq. 228, 230 ; Cater v. Everleigh, 4 Desaus. 19 ; Frazier 
 IK Brovvnslow, -i Ired. Eq. 237 ; 42 Am. Dec. 105. 
 
 32 Knox V. Jordan, .5 Jones Eq. 175, 176; Harris, 7 Ired. Eq. 311 ; 
 .53 Am. Den. 3!)3 ; Frazier )•. Brownslow, 3 Ired. Eq. 2:;7 ; 42 Am. Dec. 
 l(;r> ; Xcwlin v. Freeman, 4 Ired. Eq. 312 ; Leierh ?•. SmUh, 3 Ired. Eq. 
 442; F -Iton V. Reid, 7 Jones, 261) ; Rogers v. Hintoi), Phill. Eq. 101 ; 
 Pippen r. Wesson, 74 N. C. 442 ; Atkinson v. Richardson, 74 N. C. 458 ; 
 Hardy v. Holly, 64 N. C. 661. 
 
 33 Lyne v. Grouse, 1 Pa. St. HI; Rogers v. Smith, 4 Pa. St. 93; 
 CorvoU V. I)untoii,7 Pa. 8t. 5::0, 531 ; 4J Am. Dec. 48'); Chessman i\ 
 Wagon "r, n Pa. St. 473; Mahon r. Gormlev, 24 Pa. St. 80; Keeney ?•. 
 Good, 21 Pa. St. 340 ; Housrh v. Jones, 32 Pa. St. 432 ; Pa. r. Foster, 35 
 Pa. St. VM ; Murray v. Kevcs, 35 Pa. St. 384 ; Parke r. Kleeber, 37 
 Pa. St. 251 ; Stiininan v. Ewiiig, 43 Pa. St. 63 ; Remfelt v. Clemens, 46 
 P.i. St. 405; M'risht r. Brown, 44 P.i. St. 244; Wcinian r. .A.nderson, 
 42 Pa. St. 311 ; Hiiiney r. Phillips. 50 Pa. St. :iS2 ; Hartnian r Ogborn, 
 54 Pa. St. i:o ; Walker v. Coovor, 65 Pa. St. 430 ; JIcMnllen v. Beatty, 
 fif. Pa. St. 35.') ; Wells v. MoCall, 74 Pa. St. 207 ; Moore r Cornell, 78 
 Pa. St. 320; Shuvdor v. Noble, M Pa. St. 236, 28!) ; Lancaster v. Dolan, 
 1 Rawl-, 2:!1 ; 18 Am. Dec. 625 ; Wallace v. Coston, 9 Watts, 137 ; Dor- 
 ranee v. Scott, 3 Whart. 306 ; 31 Am. Dec. 509 ; Johnson, 1 Grant, 468. 
 
 34 Metealf v. Cook, 2 R. I. 355, 363. 
 
 .35 CreiKhton r. Clifford, 6 S. C. 188, 198 ; Clark v. Mnkenna. Cheves 
 Eq. 163; Reid v. Lamar, 1 Strob. Eq. 27; Adams ?'. Mackey, 6 Rich. 
 Eq. 75 ; James v. Mayrant, 4 Desaus. 5!il ; 6 Am. Dec. 6:;0 ; cases supra, 
 n. 31. 
 
 36 Staley v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 297 ; supra, n. 20 ; ante, ? 203. 
 
 37 Musson v. Trigg, 57 Miss 172, 185, ISO ; supra, n. 11 ; ante, ? 203. 
 
 35 Yoimg, 7 Cold. 461, 462. See Kirbv v. Miller, 4 Cold. 4 ; Cherrv i-. 
 Clements, 10 Hnnipli. 5.52, 572; Litton v. Baldwin, 8 Humph. 20<) ; 
 47 Am. Dec. 605; Marshall 7\ Stephens, 8 Humph. 1.59; 47 Am. Dec. 
 601 ; Morgan v. Elam, 4 Yerg. 375 ; Ware v. Sharp, 1 Swan, 489. 
 
 39 See ante,i 203. 
 
 40 See also Pippen v. Wesson, 74 N. C. 442 ; supra, n. 32. 
 
 41 Maclay v. Lovo, 25 Cal. .367, 381 ; supra, n. 6. 
 
 g 203. Wife's power to will hor equitable separate estate. 
 — A married Avoman has at common law no capacity to 
 inako a will,' except in tlie exercise of a power.^ But 
 hor will of her equitable .separate estate may be valid 
 in equity.^ A.'? in the ca.se of her conveyances,* there 
 are two rules : (1) That she cannot will this estate un- 
 less empowered by the settlement ;° (2) that she can 
 A\ill this e.state unless restrained by the settlement.^ 
 The same principles fjovern in determining Avhat con- 
 stitutes a restraint ;' and the same difference of opinion 
 exists as to Avhether she can will only* her personalty,
 
 309 wife's equitable estate. § 209 
 
 rents, and profits,^ etc., or the cori^us of her realty as 
 well.^" A power to will she executes as a femme sole,^^ 
 and when she can will indeiDendenlly of a power her 
 husband need not consent. i'-" And the fact that a statute 
 enables her to will ^^ does not restrict her capacity to 
 will under a power,'* or in equity a^ a fevfime sole, her 
 equitable separate estate ; '5 still a will wiU not be held 
 an execution of a power if it does not refer to such 
 power and is valid witliout it.'^ 
 
 1 Harris v. Harberson, 9 Bush, 397, 402, 404 ; post, W a40-3.54. 
 
 2 Schlov ?-. McCenev, 36 Md. 2G7, 275; Heath v. Withington, 6 
 Cush. 497, 500 ; pout, i 342. 
 
 3 Loigh V. .Smith. 3 Ired. Eq. 445, 446. See Tavlor v. Meads, 4 
 DeGex J. & S. 5J7, C07 ; Pride v. Bubb, Law R. 7 C"h. (U; Cooper v. 
 Macdonald, Law R. 7 Ch. 28S ; Wells v. Bradford, 28 Ala. 200, 212; 
 8chiill V. Murray, .-ia Md. 9, 15, IG; Morv v. Michael, 13 Md. 227, 241; 
 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 579, 663, 667. 
 
 4 Swift V. Castle, 23 111. 200, 220 ; ante, U 203, 205. 
 
 5 Wilkinson v. Wright, 6 Mon. B. 576, 577 ; West, 3 Band. 373, 377 ; 
 ante, 203. 
 
 6 Schull V. Miirraj', 32 Md. 9, 10, 16 ; ante, U 203, 204. 
 
 7 Lyne v. Crouso, 1 Pa. St. Ill, 115 ; ante, I 204. 
 
 8 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 579, 663. Consult ante, ? 20i>. 
 
 9 Fottiplaoe v. Gorges, 1 Ves. Jr. 46, 48 : 3 Bro. Ch. 8, 10 ; Rich v. 
 CockPll, 9 Ves. 36 I ; Parker r. Brooke, 9 Ves. 58! ; Brooke, 25 Beav. 
 346 ; C:ito'i 7'. Ri lout, 1 Macn. & G. 539 ; Rowe, 2 DeGex G. & S. 2,i4 ; 
 West, 3 Rand. .373, 377. 
 
 10 Tavlor v. Meads, 4 DeGex J. & S. 5i7, 607 ; Bagget v. Meux, 1 
 PhilI.Ch.62S; H ill)'. Waterhouse, 11 Jur. N. S. 361 ; Schull t). Murray, 
 ;i2 Xvld. 9, 12, 16 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 667. 
 
 11 Schley v. McCeney, 36 Md. 267, 275. 
 
 12 Wells V. Bradford. 28 Ala. 200, 212. 
 
 13 Taylor v. Meads, 4 DeGex J. <fe S. 597, 607 ; pout, U M5, »46. 
 n Taylor v. Meads, 4 DeGex J. & S. 637, 607 ; post, ? 216. 
 
 15 Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 1,7; post, ? 216. 
 
 16 Mory v. Michael, 18 Md. 227, 241 ; ante, ? 205. 
 
 § 239. Wife's rights in tha increaso — rents, profits, in- 
 come, etc. — of her equitable separate property. — The sprout 
 savors of tlie root and goes the same waj',! and there- 
 fore the increase of a wife's equitable separate estate is 
 also equitable separate estate,^ and is subject to the 
 same incidents as the original estate,^ a rule which ap-
 
 g 310 wife's equitable estate. 310 
 
 plies to all of a Avife's separate property.* Thus, her 
 savings are hers whether invested or not ;^ so is furni- 
 ture bought with Iier separate money;* and so prop- 
 erty bought Avitli an inalienable fund is inalienable.' 
 The rents and profits of her realty are hers absolutely,^ 
 even Avhere lier right to dispose of the corpus of the 
 realty is denied.^ Still, if she is living with her hus- 
 band, and allows him to collect and use her income for 
 his own purposes, a gift of it to him is presumed,"* and 
 it may even be taken by his creditors;" only when 
 he appropriates it wrongfully,^^ or as her agent," or 
 trustee, " or on promise to repay hcr,'^ does she retain 
 her rights. 
 
 1 Gore V. Knight, 2 Vern. 535 ; Prec. Ch. 255. 
 
 2 Hout V. Sorrell, 11 Ala. SB6, 339, 401. 
 
 3 Rowley v. rnwin, 2 Kay <fe J. 138, 141. 
 
 4 Stout V. Perry, 70 Ind. 501, 504. Discussed /)o«<, J 227 
 
 5 Hout V. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 386, 399. 
 
 6 Duncan v. Cashier, Law R. 10 C. P. 5.54, 557. 
 
 7 Rowley v. Unwin, 2 Kaj' & J. 138, 141. 
 
 8 Cheevor v. Wilson, Wall. lOS, 119 ; Roper, 29 Ala. 247, 252. 
 
 9 McOhesnev v. Brown, 25 Gratt. .393, 404 ; Radford t'. Carwlle, 13 
 W. Va. .573, 670 ; ante, U '-05, 20S. 
 
 10 Andrews v. Huckahee, .30 .\Ia. 143. 1",2. S. P. Square v. Dean, 4 
 Rro. Ch. 326; Dixon, Law R. 9 Ch. D. 5h7 ; Roper, 29 Ala. 247, 253; 
 Humphries v. Hanison, 30 Ark. 79; MeGill, 19 Fla. .311, .^55 ; Kuhn v. 
 Stansfiekl, 28 Md. 210, 216 ; Cogley, 13 Phila. 308 ; ante, f ? 42, 86. 
 
 11 Nelson r. Hollins, Baxt. 553, 5-54. 
 
 12 Gover v. Owings, 16 Jld. 91, 99 ; ante, ? 42. 
 
 13 Buckley v. Wells, 33 N. Y. 5is, .521 ; ante, U S6, 87. 
 
 14 Gover v. Owings. 16 Md. 91, 99 ; ante, U 42, 86-88, 202. 
 
 15 Kuhn )'. Stansfleld, 28 Md. 210, 216 ; ante, ? 42. 
 
 ? 213. Eomodioa of wife concerning her equitable separ- 
 ate estate. — A married woman may bring suit in equity 
 respecting her equitable separate property, * even it 
 seems alone ; ^ but usually lier trustee or husband 
 should join.3 Slie may have an injunction to prevent 
 her husband's interference with her riglits,* or to pre- 
 vent his creditors from seizing her property for his
 
 311 wife's equitable estati:. J 211 
 
 debts.* She may have her conveyance if fraudulently 
 obtained set aside. ^ She and her second husband may 
 at law recover her property from her first husband's 
 estate.^ She has all legal remedies through her hus- 
 band or trustee.^ 
 
 1 2 Perry Trusts, § 654 ; Jackson v. Haworth, I Sausse & S. 161. 
 
 2 Crump, 34 Beav. 570. 
 
 3 See Brent v. Magruder, 6 Md. 58 ; post, H 439, 440. 
 
 4 Anderson, 2 Mylne & K. 427. 
 
 5 Shirley, 9 Paige, 363, 364. Compare Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 1. 
 
 6 Fargo v. Goodspeed, 87 III. 290, 296. 
 
 7 Thomas v. Harkness, 13 Bush, 23, 30. 
 
 8 See Suits of Married Women, pr«<, ?? 428-463. 
 
 § 211. Remedies against equitable separate property of 
 married women. — A wife, of course, takes her property 
 subject to all its liabilities,^ so that wlien the settlement 
 is by will tlie property settled may be subjected in 
 equity to tlie testator's debts.'-' But it is not liable to 
 any greater extent than her ordinary propei'ty,^ ex-. 
 cept on her contracts wliich bind it in equity.* Thus, 
 it is not peculiarly liable for her antenuptial obliga- 
 tions,* or for her torts committed during coverture.^ 
 On her contracts which bind it she is not personally 
 liable,' and it is liable only in equity* in a proceeding 
 in rem? The bill of complaint must show that the 
 property sought to be charged is his separate prop- 
 erty ,1'' as she cannot at common law render her gen- 
 eral property liable ; '^ and her husband, '^ or her 
 trustee '^ must be made a party. The contract sued on 
 may be enforced as an equitable mortgage,'* or a spe- 
 cific lien if a particular piece of property has been 
 charged in writing ; '* but ordinarily there is no spe- 
 cific lien, I'' and not only can property in the hands of 
 bona fide purchasers not be touched, i' but all separate 
 property owned at the time of the hearing,'^ or even 
 such as is acquired after the decree,'^ may be held
 
 § 211 wife's equitable estate. 312 
 
 responsible ; it need not have been owned at the time 
 of the contract.-'" Income which cannot be antici- 
 pated,'^ or the corpus of realty which cannot be dis- 
 posed of,'''' cannot be subjected to the payment of the 
 wife's debts ; but generally principal and income are 
 liable, ^^ and the court may enforce tlie debt by order- 
 ing the wife to pay on penalty of sale,'* or by decreeing 
 a sale,^ or by appointing a receiver ; '6 the corpus of 
 the realty will usually be resorted to only in case of 
 necessity ;'^' the personalty, then the rents and profits, 
 and then the realtj^ will be exhausted. '^ This is the 
 meaning of tlie rule that a married woman may bo 
 sued with respect to her equitable separate property ; '^ 
 she is in fact not sued as one sui juris, •^'^ the proceed- 
 ing being in rem she may by permission of the court 
 be summoned outside of its jurisdiction ;2i slie may 
 answer separately ,^2 and she is bound by her answer,^^ 
 or by her settlement of accounts ; ^* her declarations 
 are evidence against her ;^* and she may be guilty of 
 contempt of court.'^ 
 
 1 Winston v. McAlpine, 65 Ala. 377 ; C'owton r. Wickersham, 54 
 Pa. St. 302. 
 
 2 Cowton V. Wickersham, 54 Pa. St. 302. 
 
 3 See Chubb v. Stretch, Law R. 9 Eq. oo5, 560 ; Crocker v. Clem- 
 ents, 23 Ala. 2!)6, 304. 
 
 4 Vanderheyden v. Mallorj-, I Corost. 452, 462, 463 ; ante, U 206, 207. 
 
 5 Haysrood v. Harris, 10 Ala. 271, 292 ; Vanderheyrlen r. Jfallorv, 
 1 Comst. 452, 402, 403. Compare Crocker v. Clement's, 23 Ala. 296, 304. 
 
 6 See 2 Perry on Trusts, § 6.59. 
 
 7 Vnughan v. V.'inderste^en, 2 Drew. 165, 184 ; Miller v. Newton, 
 23 Cal. 554, 564 ; Davis v. Smith, 75 Mo. 219, 225. 
 
 8 Hay2;ood v. Harris, 10 Ala. 291, 292; Miller r. Newton, 23 Cal- 
 .554, .564 ; Hull )■. Eecleston, .37 Md. 510, .521, .522 ; Gage v. Gates, 62 Mo. 
 412, 417 ; Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 662. 
 
 9 Vanshan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 16.5, 184 ; Challar ?'. Temple, 
 39 Ark. 238, 242 ; Smith i<. Gooch, 86 N. C. 276, 280 ; post, i 4.^3. 
 
 10 Palmer v. Rankins, .30 Ark. 771, 773 ; post, 431. 
 
 11 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 165, 184 ; Buchner v. Davis, 
 29 Ark. 444, 447. 
 
 12 See Grout v. Van Schoonoven, 9 Paige, 2-55 ; Sherman v. Burn- 
 ham, 6 Barb. 403 ; Wilso:i, (> Ired. Eq. 236 ; Bra.Uey v. Emerson, 7 Vt.
 
 313 wife's equitable estate, § 213 
 
 13 Vaughan i\ Vandprstegen, 2 Drew. 105, ih4 ; Palmer r. Ranki:is, 
 30 Ark. 771. 77-1 ; ante, I 202. 
 
 14 See Tiernan v. Poor, 1 Gill <fe J. 216, 223 ; 10 ^m. Dec. 225 ; ante, 
 il 205, 207. 
 
 13 Maxon v. Scott, 5.5 N. Y. 247, 251. 
 
 16 Davis V. Smith, 75 Mo. 219, 224 ; Todd v. Ames, 60 Barb. 454, 46^ ; 
 Miixon V. Scott, 55 N. Y. 247, 251 ; Rourk v. Murphy, 12 Abb. N. C. 
 402 ; Todd v. Lee, 16 Wis. 484, 4^5. 
 
 17 Rourk V. Murphy, 12 Abb. N. C. 402. 
 
 18 Todd V. Ames, 60 Barb. 4.54, 463. 
 
 19 See Taggart v. Muse, 60 Miss. S70, 872. 
 
 20 Todd V. Lee, 16 Wis. 484, 435. 
 
 21 Pike V. Fitzgibbon, 20 Week. R. 531, 552 ; ante, ?? 204, 206. 
 
 22 Avlett V. Ashton, 1 Mvlne & O. 10.5, 111 ; Radford v. Carwile, 1.3 
 W. Va. 57a, 674, 680 ; ante, li 205, 206, 208. 
 
 2S Ohallar v. Temple, 3!) Ark. 2'!<?, 247 ; Whit^sides v. Cannon, 23 
 Mu. 457, 474 ; Phillips v. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 390 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675. 
 
 24 Girault v. Adams, 61 Md. 1, 13. 
 
 25 White-sides v. Cannon, 23 Mo. 4.57, 474 ; supra, n. 24. 
 
 ' 26 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 3'X3 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675. 
 
 27 Wilburn v. Walker, 11 Tex. .329, 344. 
 
 28 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 300 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675. 
 
 29 2 Perry Trusts, ? 6.54 ; Jackson v. Haworth, 1 Sausse & S. 161 ; 
 Thompson v. Beasele.v, Kq. R. .59. 
 
 30 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 16.5, 184. 
 
 31 Copperthwaite v. Tuite, 13 Ir. Eq. 68. 
 
 32 Kerchner v. Kempton, 47 Md. 568, 5.S0, .590 ; post, ? 461. 
 
 33 Clerk v. Miller, 2 Atk. 379 ; Callow v. Howie. 1 DeGex <fe S. .531 ; 
 B"eching r. Morphew, 8 Hare, 120 ; Clive v. Carew, 1 Johns. & H. 
 207 ; Kerchner v. Kempton, 47 Md. 56S, 589. 
 
 34 Wilton 11. Hill, 25 Law J. Ch. 156. 
 
 35 Peacock )'. Monk, 2 Ves. 193 ; Vansilttart, 4 Kav <fc J. 70; Harris 
 V. Mott, 14 Beav. 169. 
 
 .36 Graham v. Fitch, 2 DeGex & S. 246; Taylor, 12 Beav. 271; 
 Home V. Patrick, 30 Beav. 405 ; Ottway (>. Wing, 12 Sim. 90. 
 
 § 212. Rights of husband or his creditors over wife's 
 equitable separate estate. — It is an iu.separable incident 
 of equitable separate property that the liusband has no 
 marital control or dominion over it/ though he may 
 have certain bare legal rights as trustee.'^ He cannot 
 release an executor for her separate legacy,^ and if a 
 bank pays her separate money to him, it must pay 
 over again to her,* unless he has acted as her agent in 
 fact.^ He cannot sue her lessees in trespass for entor- 
 H. & w. -27.
 
 ^ 213 wife's equitable estate. 314 
 
 Ing upon the land leased.* Nor can his creditors make 
 tliis property of hers liable in any way for his debts.' 
 
 1 Pollard V. Merrill, 15 Ala. 169, 173 ; ante, Vi 197, 198. 
 
 2 Fears r Brooks, 12 Ga. 195, l:i7 ; Jackson v. McAliley, .Spear Eq. 
 303, 30S ; 40 Ana. Dec. 620 ; antt, | 202. 
 
 3 Windsor t'. Bell, 61 Ga. 671, 674 ; ante, \ 85. 
 
 4 fniversity v. Bell, 65 GiX. 528, 530 ; ante, I 85. 
 
 5 See Agency of Htsband for Wife, ante, \l 8-1-88. 
 
 6 Allen v. W.ilker, Law R. 5 Ex. 187, 190. 
 
 7 Izod V. Lamb, 1 Cromp. &J. 35, 43; Archer v. Rorke, 7 Ir. Eq« 
 478, 481 ; Nelson v. Hollins, 9 Baxt. 5.53, 5.54. 
 
 \ 213. How the wife may lose or extinguish her equitable 
 separate estate. — If tlie wife joins witli lier trustee in a 
 breach of trust slie cannot afterwards hold him respon- 
 sible tlierefor.i So she may lose her separate estate by 
 not keeping it separate,^ or by allowing her husband to 
 collect and appropriate it,^ or by i^ermitting the price 
 of it to be paid in his hands without any understand- 
 ing that he shall repay it;* but her consent that her 
 husband shall have the income does not take away her 
 remedy against him for the conversion of the princii^al.^ 
 She does not lose her rights by standhig silently by 
 while the husband sells it ; being under his coercion 
 she is not estopped.* A legacy from her husband to 
 her does not affect her rights against his estate for con- 
 verting her property.' She canno* lose it by consent if 
 she is a lunatic.^ And if her husband obtains her con- 
 veyance by fraud, equity will set it aside. ^ On his 
 death,!" or on divorce,'^ the separate estate ceases. 
 
 1 Hugrhes I'. Wells, 9 Hare, 740, 773. See Montford v. Cadogan, 19 
 Ves. 635, 640. 
 
 2 Buck V. Ashbrook, ,59 Mo. 200, 203 ; Shirley, 9 Paige, 363, 365. 
 
 3 Andrews, 30 Ala. 144, 157 ; ante, \ 209. 
 
 4 Chester v. Greer, 5 Humph. 26, 34 ; ante, \ 209. 
 
 5 Dixon, Law R. 9 Ch. D. 587, .593. 
 
 6 Carpenter, 27 N. J. Eq. .502, 504 ; poit, I 417. 
 
 7 Taylor, 4 Jur. N. S. 1218, 1220. 
 
 8 Rawloy v. L'nwin, 2 Kay & J. 139, 142.
 
 315 avife's equitablk estate. § 214 
 
 9 Fargo v. Goodspeed, 87 111. 290, 296 ; post, i 405. 
 
 10 Pooley V. Webb, 3 Cold. .599, 602, 603 ; post, 5 214. 
 
 11 O'Kill V. CampbeU, 4 N. J. Eq. 13, 15 ; post, I 215. 
 
 ? 214. Effect of death on the wife's equitable separate 
 property. — Death dj.stroy.s the iiiarriage status and re- 
 moves the reason for the existence of separate property 
 of married women.' 
 
 1, Death of htisband. On the death of the husband 
 the wife's disabilities cease,^ and the existence of the 
 equitable separate estate is suspended ^ or destroyed ; * 
 the trust determines and she takes tlie legal title,^ un- 
 less there are trustees named with active duties ; ^ re- 
 straints on her powers of alienation are of no force 
 while she is discovert,' and she may deal with the 
 property as if never married ; ^ if she marries again 
 witliout having disposed of the property, the equitable 
 separate estate and the re.straints revive;^ nor can she 
 after her husband's death have a trust providing 
 against any husband set aside, i** because she may 
 marry again." If she has power given her to convey 
 with her husband's consent, after his deatli slie may 
 convey alone.^'- 
 
 2. Death of wife. On the wife's death her equitable 
 separate estate ceases, i'' the title of Iier trustees is at an 
 end,'^ and her husband lias tlie same rights as he has 
 in lier general proportj^ ; '^ her personalty he takes as 
 administrator, next of Icin, or survivor ; '^ in her realty 
 he has curtesy. •' But tlie settlement may expressly 
 continue the e.state beyond the wife's life,^* and tlius 
 exclude the husband's rights as widower.'^ A trust 
 for her "forever" does not exclude such rights;'-** but 
 one for her and her heirs forever does,-^' or to lier and 
 after her death to her legal heirs, '^^ the husband not 
 being an " heir," ^ or to her and her heii's and repre- 
 sentatives as if she had never been married.^' Of
 
 \ 215 -wife's equitable estate. 316 
 
 course he has no rights in property she has disposed of 
 within the scope of her powers,'* and his rights are 
 subject to the debts imposed by lier on the pioperty.^6 
 
 1 Discussed in Stewart M. & D. \\ ■4o2-l75. 
 
 2 Wilson V. McCarty, 55 Md. 277, 2'i:! ; Stewart M. <fe D ? 452. 
 
 3 Proley v. Webb, 3 Cold. 509, 60:i ; Beaufort v. ColUer, 6 Humph 
 487, 492 ; 44 Am. Dec. ;S1. 
 
 4 Hemersly v. Smith, 4 Whart 120, 123 ; Smith v. Starr, 3 Wliart. 
 62,66. 
 
 5 Thomas v. Harkness, 13 Bush, 23, 29. 
 
 6 O'Kill V. Campbell, 4 N. J. Eq. 13. 15. 
 
 7 Prolev r. Webb, 3 Cold. 539, 603 ; Radford i-. CarwUe, 13 W. Va. 
 573, 672 ; aiite, \ 2CM. 
 
 8 Kadford v. CarwIIe. 13 W. Va. .573, 672. 
 
 9 Tullett V. .Armstrong, 1 Beav. 1 ; 4 Mylne & C. 377, 395 ; Proley 
 V. Wfbb, 'A Cold. .i'.K), 6():i ; Radford r. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 672. 
 Contra, Hamersly r. Smith, 4 Whart. 126, 12!). See anU, \ 204. 
 
 10 O'Kill V. Campbell, 4 X. J. Eq. 13, 15. 
 
 11 O'Kill V. Campbell, 4 N. J. Eq. 13, 15 ; ante, 5 201. 
 
 12 Proley v. Webb, 3 Cold. .51)9, 602. 
 
 13 Cooney v. Woodburn, .33 Md. 320, 327 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 46fi. 
 
 14 B-^TCV r. Lavretta, 63 Ala. 374, 3S0 ; Wilkinson v. Wright, 6 Mon. 
 B. 576, 577 ; ante, 'i 202. 
 
 15 Cases collected in Stewart M. <fc D. ? 466. 
 
 16 Ward v. Thompson, 3 Gill * .1. 349, .^57 ; Good r. Harris. 2 Ired. 
 Ej. 630, 632. See Malonv v. Kennedy, 10 SIni. 2.54; Proudley v. 
 1-ielder, 2 Mylne .fe K. 57 ; 'Stewart M. & D. ^'i 464, 465. 
 
 17 Ward v. Thompson, 6 Gill & J. 349, 3-57 ; Richardson v. Stodder, 
 100 ilass. .i2S, .5:50 ; ante, l 157. 
 
 18 Johnstone ■;•. Lumb, 15 .Sim. 308; Cooney »>. Woodburn, 3.} Md. 
 320, 327 ; Spann v. Jennings, 1 Hill Ch. 324, J^ ; Stewart M. & D. I 4(i(i. 
 
 19 Brown, 6 Humph. 127, 130 ; auirra, n. 18. 
 
 20 Brown, 6 Humph. 127, 130. 
 
 21 Ward v. Thompson, 6 Gill <fe J. :M9, 3.57 ; Waters v. Tagewell, 9 
 Md. 291, 3(>» ; Gardenliire v. Hinds, 1 Head, 402, 405,406. 
 
 22 Waters v. Tagewell, 9 Md. 291, 304. 
 
 23 Waters v. Tagewell, 9 Md. 291, .3a5 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 4.57. 
 
 24 Brown v. Johnson, 13 Ala. 232, 233 ; Hutchins, 11 Md. 29, 37, 39. 
 
 25 Cooney v. Woodburn, 33 Md. 320, 327 ; ante, \\ 203-208. 
 20 McKay v. Allen, 6 Verg. 44, 49. 
 
 \ 215. Effoct of divorce on wife's equitable separate es- 
 tate. — A divorce a inensa et thoro does not, generally 
 speaking, destroy the disabilities of coverture, or make 
 the wife a femme sole,^ and the reason for equitable
 
 317 wife's equitable estate. § 216 
 
 separate property not being removed the estate con- 
 tinues ; 2 but an absolute divorce has the same efiect as 
 the husband's death.^ The effect is the same whether 
 the husband or tlie wife be the guilty party.* No 
 divorce affects tlie rights of a wife under a marriage 
 settlement,^ unless a provision in such settlement so 
 provides.^ 
 
 1 Barber, 21 How. 582, 601 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 431. 
 
 2 Smoot V. Lecatt, 1 Stewt. 590, 602 ; Clark, 6 Watts & S. 85, 88 ; 
 Stewart M. & D. H 443, 444. 
 
 3 O'Kill tT. Campbell, 4 N. J. Eq. 13, 15 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 430, 
 11.16. 
 
 4 See Harvard v. Head, 111 Mass. 209, 212 ; Stewart M. <fe D. ? 430. 
 
 5 Harris v. McElroy, 45 Pa. St. 216, 220 ; Stewart M. & D. J 440. 
 
 6 See Charlesworth, Law R. 9 Ex. 33, 40 ; Stewart M. & D. §§ 191, 
 440. 
 
 § 216. Effect of modarn statutas on oqiiita'ole separate 
 estates of married woman. — Of course no statute can dis- 
 turb the rights of a woman depending on a settlement 
 executed before its passage.^ And statutes creating 
 statutory separate estates do not prevent the creation 
 and existence of equitable separate estates,' or curtail 
 the jurisdiction of equity tliereover ; ^ even in Alabama, 
 where the statutory separate estate is an equitable one,* 
 the equitable separate estate exists side by side with it.» 
 Such statutes liavo been passed to enlarge and not to 
 diminish the wife's rights,^ and though she may have 
 a legal estate where she had an equitable one before,^ 
 and unless restrained bj'' the settlement ^ may deal with 
 her equitable separate estate under a statute as a mar- 
 ried woineii,^ yet the fact that slie may by sucli statute 
 convey,^" will," contract, i- or sue" does not prevent 
 her conveying,!* willing,i^ charging her propertj^'* or 
 suing, ^^ as an unmarried ivoman in equity as before ; '^ 
 she may elect to exercise her powers under the statute 
 or under the settlement. '^ Her right to deal with licr 
 equitable separate proxjcrty, as far as the common law
 
 § 216 wife's equitable estate. 318 
 
 or statutes allowed, has always been admitted,^" even 
 in those States which denied her any powers not con- 
 tained in the settlement ^i — as in North Carolina" and 
 South Carolina's — excepting Pennsylvania.-' And so 
 generally modern statutes enlarge but do not diminish 
 tlie powers of Avives over their equitable separate es- 
 • tate.^' Still the statute in California requiring her con- 
 tracts to be in writing,-^ and that in New York requiring 
 her husband's consent to her contracts,^ were held ap- 
 plicable to her charges of her equitable separate estate.'* 
 How far she has equitable rights over her statutory 
 separate estate is of course a different question.^ 
 
 1 Willis V. Carlenheacl. 28 Ala. 472, 474 ; Mnsson v. Trigg, .51 Miss. 
 172, 182 ; ante, U 13-23. 
 
 2 Short t'. Battle, .52 Ala. 456, 467 ; Huckabee v. Andrews, :i4 Ala. 
 646, 647; Cannon v. Turner, HI Ala. 4S:i, 486; Sniltli, 30 Ala. 64->, 644; 
 Pickens v. Oliver, 21 Ala. 528, .5S1 ; Blevins v. Burk, 26 .Via. 2it2, 2!)8 ; 
 Snyder v. Webb, 3 f al. 83 ; Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. .5.54, .5fiP ; Pomeroy 
 V. Manhattan, 40 III. 3;iS, 402 ; Armstrong v. Kerns, 12 Md. Law Rec. 
 29, 2!1 ; 62 M(l. 000 ; Eiphar<ls()n >■. Stodder, 100 Ma.ss. .528. o;«) : Devries v. 
 Conklin, 22 Mich. 2.5.5, 2iiO: Miisscm i-. Trigg, .57 Miss. 172, ISJ, 183; 
 Pippeii V. AVesson, 74 X. ( '. -i'.rj, 442 ; Phillips v. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 
 3!10, 3!U ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; Insuranoe ?•. Foster, 3.5 Pa. St. 134, )3«, But 
 see Jlaclav t\ Love, 2.5 Oal, Ml ; Davis v. Fov, 7 Smedes & M. 64, 
 67 ; f'olvin 1'. Currier, 22 Barb. 371, 382 ; Wood,"83 N. Y. 575, 5711 ; Yale 
 V. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451. 460. 
 
 3 Phillips 1'. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 3T0, .301 ; 5 Am. Rep. 67.5. 
 See Abraham v. Tappe, RO Md. 317, .•!23; Ilerzberg v. S;iehso, 60 Md. 
 426 ; Mitchell v. Otey, 26 Miss. 236, 239. 
 
 4 Short V. Battle, 52 Ala. 4.58, 467 ; ante, J 1.50. 
 
 Huckabee v. Andrews, 34 Ala. 464, 467 ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 6 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 390, 391 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; Wit- 
 sell V. Charleston, 7 S. C. 88, 101, 102. 
 
 7 Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 2.5.5, 2.59, 2W); 12 Am. Rep. 302 ; Col- 
 vin 71. Currier. 22 Barb. .371, 382; Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451,460; 
 AVood, 83 N. Y. .575, 579. 
 
 8 Young, 7 Cold. 461, 480 ; ante, ? 204. 
 
 9 Dillon V. Grace, 2 Schoales & L. 456. 462-464 ; Wright v. C.adogan, 
 2 Eden, 239, 2.57-2.59; Phillips ?'. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 3ii0, 391 ; 5 .\m. 
 Rep. 675 ; Cla.\ ton v. Rose, 84 N. C. 106, 101 ; Witte v. Clarke. 17 S. C. 
 313,327; Young, 7 Cold. 461,480; Lightfoot i>. Boss,8 Lea,3oO,351 ; Ilaw- 
 ley V. Troyman, 29 Gratt. 728, 730. 
 
 10 See Deeds op Married WoifEX,po«<, J? .394-^08. 
 
 11 See Wills of Married Women*, pr,st. ?? .340-354. 
 
 12 See Con-tracts of Married Women-, po*?, J^ 3.5.5-39.3. 
 
 13 See S01TS OF Married Women-, jjosr, 5? 42S-46.3.
 
 319 wifk's kquitable estate. I 216 
 
 14 Miller v. Newton, 23 Cal. 5.54, 566 ; Potneroy v. Manhattan, 40 111. 
 3;)8, 402; Armstrong v. Kerns, 12 Md. Law Kec. 2ei. 2y; 62 Md. OUO ; 
 PhilJips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. :171, 3h0. .i91 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; ante, J 20.5. 
 In Stiites wtiere she hii.s only such powers as are given (ante, i 20.<) 
 she can convey only under statute or under power : Clayton v. Kose, 
 87 N. C. 106. 101). 
 
 15 Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 1, .5-7 ; ante, I 208. 
 
 16 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 390, 331 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; <x,::.te, 
 li 206, 207. 
 
 17 Abraham v. Tappe, 60 Md. 317, 323 ; Herzberg v. Sachse, 60 Mil. 
 426; Mitchell v. Otey, 23 Miss. 2;{6, 2;59 ; Phillips v. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 
 371, 3y0; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; ante, i 210. 
 
 JS Discussed ante, H 20:J-210. 
 
 13 Blevins v. Buck, 20 Ala. 292, 298. 
 
 20 Dillon V. Grace, 2 Schoales & L. 456, 462 ; Young, 7 Cold. 461, 482 ; 
 sitpra, n. 9. 
 
 21 States enumerated : Ante, ?? 203, 205 ; Gray v. Eobb, 4 Helsk. 74, 
 77, is overruled by Lightfoot v. Boss, 8 Lee, 350, 351. 
 
 22 Clayton v. Rose, 87 N. C. 106, 109. 
 
 23 Witte V. Clarke, 17 S. C. 313, 327 ; Witsell v. Charleston, 7 S. C. 88, 
 101, 102. 
 
 24 Twining, 97 Pa, St. 36, 41 ; Brown v. Wright, 44 Pa. St. 224, 241 ; 
 Insurance v. Foster, 35 Pa. St. 134, 136. 
 
 25 Inference from above cited cases. 
 
 26 Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 367, 381. 
 
 27 Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451, 400. 
 2S Ante, U 206, 207. 
 
 29 Pippeu V. Wesson, 74 N. C. 437, 442, 443 ; post, U 217, et seq.
 
 ^ 217 wife's statutory skparate estate. 320 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 wife's statutory separate estate. ^ 
 
 Art. I. In General, §§ 217-219. 
 II. Sources of, g? 220-231. 
 III. Incidents of, §§ 232-243. 
 
 Art. I. — Wife's Statutory Separate Estate in 
 Generaii. 
 
 I 217. Statutory separate estate defined. 
 
 J 218. The statutes described. 
 
 i 219. "Property," '•personal rights," etc., defined. 
 
 § 217. Statutory separate estate defined. — In all the 
 States statutes have been passed destroying more or 
 less the husband's coninion-law rights in his wife's 
 property or in portions thereof, and securing such 
 property to a greater or less extent to her own use and 
 enjoyinent.i Property held by a married Avoman 
 under such a statute is called her statutm-y separate 
 estate, and must be distinguished from her equitable 
 separate estate which is the creature of equity,'^ and 
 may exist side by side >\"ith it.' 
 
 1 Dow 17. Gould. .31 CaL 631, 637-ftl6 ; ante, i 9. 
 
 2 See Equit.\ble Separatk Estate, ante, 5? 197-216. 
 
 3 Musson V. Trigg, 51 Miss. 172, 1S2, 183 ; ante, i 216. 
 
 I 218. The statutes creating separate estates described. — 
 Each State has its own married women's separate 
 property act,' and tlie dilferent acts difler indetiniteh'. 
 Some merely secure the wife's property from her hus- 
 band's creditors,- others make her the legal owner of 
 it,' others give her full capacity to deal Avith it as if 
 unmarried.* The determination of the effect and 
 meaning of these acts involves great difficulties." In 
 many States the constitution creates a separate estate
 
 321 wife's statutory separate estate. g 219 
 
 for married women ; ^ and where the constitution says 
 '■a wife's property shall be protected from tlie debts of 
 her husband," it is protected whether the legislature 
 passes a proper act or not ; ' and an act of the legisla- 
 ture must not conflict with the constitutional provision,* 
 but is not in conflici if it simply gives more protection." 
 
 1 4c and 4G Vict. c. 75 (Married Women's Property Act, 1882); Ala. 
 Code, 1876, i^ 270.5, etseq. ; Ark. Dig. 1874, H 4193, 4194 ; Cal. Civ. Code, 
 1881, M 157, et neq.; Colo. G. L. 1877, '<> 1747 ; Conn. G. L. 1875, p. 186; 
 Del. R. C. 1874, p. 479; Fla. Dig. 1881, pp. 754-756; Ga. R. C. 1878, \ 1754; 
 111. R. a liSO, p. mi; Ind. R. S. 1881, ^? 5117, 5118, 5130; Iowa R. C. 
 1880, J 2202 ; Kan. C. L. 18SI, Vt. 3136, 3137; Kj-. R. S. 1881, p. 531 ; Me. R. 
 S. 1871, pp. 4M1, 4'J2 ; Md. U. C. 1878, pp. 481, 482 ; Mass. P. S. 1882, 818 ; 
 Mich. K. S. 1882, \ 6205 ; Minn. St. 1878, p. 76!) ; Miss. R. S. 1880, \ 1167; 
 Mo. R. S. 1879, ?» 3292, 329.5, .3296; Neb. C. S. 1881, p. »43 ; Nev. C. L. 
 1873, II 152. 153 ; N. H. G. I>. 1H78, p. 4-34 ; N. J. Rev. 1877. p. fi.36 ; N. Y. 
 E. .*<. 18S2, pp. 23.36, 23:i8 ; Oh=o R. S. 1880, ^? .3108, 8109, 31U ; Pa. Pnrd. 
 Dig. 187-2-1876, p. 1005 ; R. I. P. S. 1882. pp. 42-2-424 ; S. C. G. S. 1871, p. 
 441 ; Tenn. R. S. 1873, ^ -2481 ; Tex. R. 8. 1879, \ -2851 ; Vt. R. L. 1880, 
 \<C 2321, e« seq. ; W. Va. R. S. 1879, pp. 77;}-777 ; Wis. R. S. 1878, U 2340- 
 2M2. 
 
 2 Scliindel. 12 Md. 294, 31.3. See Robertson v. Wilcox, 36 Conn. 
 426, 430 ; Johnson v. Chapman, 35 Conn. .5.50 ; Wheeler v. Jennings, 16 
 Mon. B. 476 ; Logan v. McGill, 8 .Md. 461, 470 ; Chapman v. Williams, 
 13 Gray, 416; White v. Dorris, 35 Me. 181, 187, 188; Coleman v. Salter- 
 field, 2 Head, 259. 
 
 3 See Vreeland, 16 N. J. Eq. 512, 524. 
 
 4 See Mich. R. S. 1882, J 6295. 
 
 5 See statutes discu.ssed ante, ?? 12-23. 
 
 6 See Ala. Const, art. 10, § 6; Ark. Const, art. 12, \ 6. 
 
 7 See Kemp v. Clark, Md. Law Rec. April 19, 1884 ; Md. Ct. App. 
 Oct. Term, 18S4. 
 
 8 Pelzer v. Campbell, 15 S. C. 581, .589, ."94. 
 
 9 Pelzer v. Campbell, 15 .S. C. 581, 591, 592. 
 
 ? 219. "Property," "personal rights," etc., defined. — 
 The meaning of the word " property," in such clauses 
 as "a married woman's property shall be held by her 
 as a.femme sole,'''' has been much discussed.^ It is said 
 not to include mere contingent interests,' but it does 
 include corporeal and ineorporeal,^ animate and inani- 
 mate,* property ; it includes choses in action ex con- 
 tractu,^ and, probably, cho.ses in action ex delicto;^ it 
 includes money,' though when one act forbids con- 
 tracts for the payment of money and another author-
 
 § 219 wife's statutory separate estate. 322 
 
 izes contracts in reference to separate property, a 
 married woman's note is void;^ so a mining interest 
 in a "lead" is property.^ Sometimes a statute gives a 
 married woman as lier separate property any riglit of 
 action growing out of the violation of her " personal 
 rights." 1" Assault and battery is such a violation," so 
 is enticing away her liusband,^^ though the latter is not 
 an injury to her person or character.'^ When her 
 "household furniture" is hers by statute, this term 
 includes a sewing machine " and a piano.^5 though this 
 seems to depend on the intent of the legislature and 
 nature of the statute ;'^ so that under attachment laws 
 the term has been held not to cover pianos, i' paintings,'* 
 or trunks. 1^ 
 
 1 See cases cited in Lawson's Concordance. 
 
 2 Bering v. Kynaston, Law R. 6 Eq. 210, 214. 
 
 3 Smilie v. Siler, 35 Ala. 88, 95 ; Selden v. Bank, G9 Pa. St. 424, 425. 
 
 4 Gans?'. Williams, 62 Ala. 41,43. 
 
 5 Nicholson i'. Drurv, Law R. 7 Ch. D, 48, 53, 54 ; Barton, 32 Md. 
 212, 224, 225 ; Kemp v. Clark, Md. Law Rec. Apr. iw, I8S4 ; S. C. on ap- 
 peal, Md. Law Rec. Feb. 28. 1SS5 ; Cooper v. Alger, 51 N. H. 172, 175 ; 
 Vreeland, Ifi N. J. Eq. 512, 522; Selden v. Bank, 69 Pa. St. 424, 425; 
 Bennett v. Held, 4 Heisk. 440, 444 ; Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390, 398 ; 
 Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 35 ; 28 Am. Rep. 527 ; po.it, | 229. 
 
 6 See ]iro. Berger r. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215, 220,221 ; Leonard v. Pope, 
 27 Mich. 145, 146 ; Mann v. Marsh, 21 How. Pr. 372, 376 ; Clark v. Har- 
 lan, 1 Cin. Rep. 418,423; Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621. 6;!3; 32 Am. Hep. 
 397 ; Stevenson ?). Morris, 37 Ohio St. 10, 17 ; cases supra, n. 5. Contra, 
 Ballard v. Rnssell, 33 Me. 196, 197 ; 51 Am. Dec. 620 ; Laughlin v. Eaton, 
 54 Me. 156, 160 ; Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 33 ; 28 Am. Rep. 527; post, I 230. 
 
 7 Mitchell, 35 Mi.ss. 108, 114. 
 
 8 Butler v. Baber, 51 Cal. 178, 179. 
 
 9 Cheuvete t». Mason, 4 G. Greene, 231,238, 239. * 
 
 10 See Ohio R. S. laSO, ?? 3108, 3109, 3111. 
 
 11 Stevenson v. Morris, 37 Ohio St. 10, 17. 
 
 12 Clark v. Harlan, 1 Cin. Rep. 418, 423. 
 
 13 Logan,77Ind. .558, 564, .t65. 
 
 14 Von Storch v. Winslow, 13 R. I. 23, 24 ; 43 Am. Rep. 10. 
 
 15 Von Storch v. Winslow, 13 R. I. 23, 24 ; 43 Am. Rep. 10. 
 
 16 30 Alb. L. J. 25 ; Richardson v. Hall, 124 Mass. 2.37. 
 
 17 Dunlap v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 224, 22a ; Tanner v. Billings, 18 Wis. 
 163, 166. 
 
 18 Lea, 30 Alb. L. J. 25 ; Pa. Com. Pleas, June 28, 1884. 
 
 19 Towns V. Pratt, 33 N. H. .345.
 
 323 STATLTOr.Y SI^PAUATK PUOPERTY. ^^ 220-221 
 
 Art. II. — Sources op Statutory Separate Property. 
 
 5 220. Modes of acquisition, generally, 
 
 J 221. Owner! at time of marriage. 
 
 f 222. Acquired in any manner. 
 
 J 223. Acquired by purchase. 
 
 J 224. Acquired by gift or grant. 
 
 § 225. Acquired by devise, bequest, descent, distribution. 
 
 i 226. Acquired by excliango. 
 
 § 227. Acquired by increase. 
 
 i 228. Acquired bj' services or trade. 
 
 ^ 229. Acquired by contract. 
 
 i 230. Acquired by tort. 
 
 ? 231. Acquired jointly with husband. 
 
 ^ 220. Modes of acquisition of statutory separate prop- 
 erty, generally. — Some statutes provide that a married 
 woman shall hold " her property " lo her sole and sepa- 
 rate use,' but most of them define more or less specific- 
 ally what property she sliall so hold,^ as property 
 owned at the time of her marriage, or afterwards ac- 
 quired by gift, grant, devise, bequest, descent, in course 
 of distribution, in course of trade, by her services, in 
 0.nj manner, etc.* The naming of one mode excludes 
 property acquired in other modes.* Property is " ac- 
 quired" if it is paid into jjossession after tlie passage of 
 the statute, though owned as a chose in action before ;* 
 and the word "held" means simply "owned," and 
 applies to equitable estates and choses in action.* 
 
 1 See Arli. Dig. 1874, ? 4193. 
 
 2 See Md. R. C. 1878, p. 481, U '9, 20. 
 
 3 See statutes cited ante, § 218 ; post, ?§ 222-231. 
 
 4 See CoNSTRiTCTiox OF Statutes, ante, 1 16. 
 
 5 White v. Waite, 47 Vt. 502, 507. Consult a«te, ?? lS>-'-3. 
 
 6 Witsell V. Charleston, 7 S. C. 88, 99, 100. 
 
 3 221. Property owned at the time of marriage. — There 
 is a general agreement among the statutes in making 
 property of a married woman owned at the time of her
 
 ^J 222-223 STATUTORY SKPARATK PROPKRTY. 324 
 
 marriage her separate property i A right in an undis- 
 tributed estate existing at the time of marriage is piop- 
 erty owned or " held " ^ at the time of marriage,^ thougli 
 when it comes into her possession it is also property 
 acquired during coverture.* 
 
 1 See ante. ? 218 ; Vandevoort v. Gould, 3S X. Y. 630; Prevot v. 
 Lawrence, 51 X. Y. 21U. 
 
 2 Witsell V. Charleston, 7 S. C. 83, 99, 100. 
 
 3 Sharp v. Burns, 35 Ala. 6.53, 6«2. 
 
 4 White V. Waite, 47 Vt. 502, 507. 
 
 ? 222. Property acquired "in any manner." — It has 
 been held that a statute giving a wife her propertj' 
 acquired " in any manner " covers a riglit of action for 
 personal injuries to herself,' and personalty obtained 
 from a .sale of realty;* but generally tliese words add 
 nothing to the word " property."^ 
 
 1 Berger v. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215, 220, 221 ; pryst, 5 230. 
 
 2 Brevard v. Jones, 50 Ala. 221, 238. 
 
 3 Property defined, ante, J 219. 
 
 g 223. Property acquired by purchase. — At common 
 law a sale or grant (tliese words being equivalent to 
 "purchase"') to a married woman, could be avoided 
 by her husband,^ and was not good as against her 
 unless ratified by her after the dissolution of cover- 
 ture ;" speaking generally, therefore, a married woman 
 could not purchase at common law.* A .statute secur- 
 ing to a married "woman property acquired by her by 
 purchase, gives her the power to pnrchase,^ and as an 
 incident of this, to purchase on credit^ — though this 
 seems to have been denied in .some cases,^ But such a 
 statute does not enable her to make an executory con- 
 tract for the purchase of property ;8 nor does it enable 
 her to make a personal contract for the purchase 
 money;' though, whether on the ground that the con- 
 tract for the purchase money is a contract with refer-
 
 325 STATUTORY SKPARATE PROPERTY. g 22-3 
 
 enee to her separate propeiij' i" or is intended, to be a 
 charge upon it," or on other grounds, '^ property pur- 
 chased by her is always liable, at least in equitj', for 
 the purchase money. ^^ So it is bound in her hands by 
 an 3' conditions" or encumbrances '^ attached to it. So, 
 under special statutes her promissory note for the pur- 
 chase money,!^ and her mortgage securing ii have been 
 held good" at law.i* When she may trade she may 
 purchase goods for her trade ; •' when she may earn she 
 may purchase a machine to sew upon or a piano to give 
 lessons upon. 2" The purchase of an imijlement for her 
 separate farm,^^ or of a horse for farming purposeS,-- 
 (but not for pleasure riding-''), or of furniture for her 
 house ^ (but not of supplies for the family ^s), is a contract 
 relating to her separate property.^ A co-purchaser is 
 bound, whether she is bound or not.^ She may equally 
 well make her purchase through an agent.^ But as 
 against her husband's creditors slie must show that the 
 purchase was made out of her own funds or upon h^r 
 own credit ; ® this is what is meant wlien it is said that 
 she cannot purchase on credit.^'^ She may purchase 
 her husband's lands at public sale.^^ An exchange is 
 really a purchase.^^ 
 
 1 Abbev r. Devo, +4 Barb. 374, 373 ; Dayton r. Walsh, 47 "Wis. 113, 
 119 ; 32 Am. Rep. 7.57 ; iw*f, i '224. 
 
 2 Bedford r. Burton, lOG V. S. ."^JS, :>>3 ; Patterson r. Robinson^ 25 
 Pa. St. 81,82. 
 
 3 Hunter v. Duvall, 4 Bush, 4.T.S, 430 ; im.tt, ? .3f.fi. 
 
 4 Hj'clrick v. Burke, 30 Ark. l'-4 ; Alvarsou v. Jones, 10 Cal. 9. 
 
 5 Tiemever v. Turnqnist, So N. Y. 516, 521; 39 Am. Rop. 674; 
 Krouskop i: Shoutz, .11 Wis. 204, 210; Davton )•. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113. 
 1 14, 118 ; 32 Am. Rep. 7.",7. See Warner v. Dovo, .33 .Md. .571 ; Allen v. 
 Fuller, 118 Ma.ss. 402, 403 ; Hyler v. Atwood, 26 X. J. Eq. 504, 507. 
 
 6 Shields v. Kevs, 24 Iowa, 208, 313 ; Devries r. Conklin, 22 Mich. 
 2.5.5, 2.59; Abbev v. Devo, 44 Barb. 374, 37:1 : Knapp ?\ Smith, 27 X! V. 
 277, 279 ; Frecking r. Rolland, 53 N Y. 425 ; Tiemever v. Turnquist, 85 
 X. Y. 516, 521, 522 ; 39 Am. Rep. 674 ; Cramer v. Hansford, 53 Wis. 8.5, 
 87. Consult Carpenter v. Mitchell, 50 III. 470, 473; 54 111. 126; John- 
 son r\ Chissom, 14 Ind. 415; Spaulding v. Dav, 10 Allen. 9fi, 100; Rat- 
 olllTe 1'. Collins. 35 Miss. 5Sl ; Porterfield r. Butler, 47 Miss. 165, 176; 
 12 Am. Rep. 329 ; Johr.son v. Houston, 47 Mo. 227 ; Coffin v. Morrill, 22 
 
 II. & W. — 28.
 
 g 223 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 326 
 
 N. H. 352 ; Baringer v. Stiver, 49 Pa. St. 129, 1.32 ; Robinson v. Wal- 
 lace, 3D Pa. St. 12P, 1.32 ; Bucli v. Gibson, 37 Vt. 65.3. 
 
 7 Dunning!'. Pike, 46 Me. 461,463. See MUler r. Handy,33 La. An. 
 160, 167. 
 
 8 Jones v. Crostliwaite, 17 Iowa, 393, 402. 
 
 9 Doyle v. Orr, 51 Miss. 229, 232. 
 
 10 Labaree v. Colby,' 90 Mass. .vn, 560 ; Williamson r. Dodge, 5 Hun, 
 498, 499 ; Krousliop i'."Shoutz, 51 Wis. 204, 214. 
 
 11 Bedford v. Butler, 106 V. S. 3-38, 3.39, 340 ; Doyle v. Orr, 51 Miss. 
 229, 2:e. 
 
 12 Patterson v. Robinson, 25 Pa. St. 81, 83 ; inft-a, notes, 13, 16, 17, 18. 
 
 13 Pemberton v. Johnsoti, 46 Mo. ^2, »«. See Slilelds v. Keys, 24 
 Iowa, 298, 313 ; jiost, U 238, 407. 
 
 14 Bedford v. Lurton, 106 V. S. 81, 83 ; Patterson v. Robinson, 25 
 Pa. St. 81, 83. 
 
 15 Brewer v. Maurer, 38 Ohio St. 51.3, 553 ; 43 Am. Rep. 4.36. See 
 Brown xk Hermann, 14 Abb. Pr. 394 ; supra, n. 15. 
 
 16 Allen v. Fuller, 118 Mass. 402, 403. 
 
 17 Hyler r. Atwood, 26 X. J. Eq. .501, .507. 
 
 18 Krouslcop V. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 214, 216. As to liability of wife 
 and her property for purchase monev, see Bedford v. Burton, 106 
 V. S. 3.38, 3;J9; Chilton v. Bralden, 2 Black, 458 ; Smith v. Doe, 56 Ala. 
 456; Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727, 729; Donovan. 41 Conn. .S51, .5.54 ; 
 Boland v. Klink, 63 Ga. 447 ; Carpenter v. Mitchell, 54 111. 126 ; 
 Kyper v. Skirt, 34 Ind. 249, 2.50 ; Hunter v. Duvall, 4 Bush, 438 ; 
 Fowler r. Jacob, Md. Ct. App. Oct Term, 1883 ; Alien v. Fuller, 118 
 Mass. 402, 40! ; Spaulding ?'. IJav, 10 Allen, 98; Bosford r. Pearson, 7 
 Allen. 5114, 5)6; Stewart r. Jenkins, 6 Allen, 300 ; Tillman v. Shackle- 
 ton, 15 Mich. 447. 4.56 ; Doyle v. Orr, 51 Miss. 229, 2:f2 ; Nicholson v. 
 Heiderhoff, .50 Miss. .56 ; EskrWge, 51 Miss. .522; Pemberton v. John- 
 son, 46 Mo. .^2, 313 ; Bruner v. Wheaton, 46 Mo. 3C3 ; Messer v. Smith, 
 58 X. H. 298, 209 ; Albin v. Lord, 39 :X. H. 196 ; Armstrong v. Ross, 20 
 X.J.Eq.l09; Tiemever?'. Turnquist, 8.5 N.Y. 516,521; 39 Am. Rep. 674 ; 
 Brewer v. Maurer, 38 Ohio St. 54.3, 5.53; 43 Am. Rep. 4.36; Sixbee r. 
 Bowen, 91 Pa. St. 149; Willingham r. I^eake, 7 Baxt. 453 ; Bugbee r. 
 Blood, 48 Vt. 500 ; Cramer v. Hansford, 5.J Wis. 85, 87. 
 
 19 Trieber v. Stover, SO Ark. 727, 730 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, .51 Wis. 
 201. 217 ; post, I 475. 
 
 20 Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 120; 32 Am. Rep. 7S7. See Wil- 
 liamson V. Dodge, 5 Hun, 4J8, 499. 
 
 21 McCormick v. Holbrook, 22 Iowa, 487, 489. 
 
 22 Mitchell 1'. Smith, .32 Iowa, 484, 487. 
 
 2:1 McDermott v. Garland, 1 Mackey, 496. 
 
 24 Harman ik Garland, 1 Mackey, 1. 
 
 25 Schneider v. Garland, 1 Mackey, 3.tO. 
 
 26 These contracts discussed ante, H 206, 207 ; pott, i .373. 
 
 27 Robinson, 1 1 Bush, 174, 179 ; post, H 368, .382, 40S. 
 
 28 .Southard v. Plummer, 36 Me. 84, 85; Abbey v. Devo, 44 Barb. 
 374, 379 ; ante, U 84-88 ; post, i 364. 
 
 29 McMasters v. Edgar, 22 W. Va. 671, 676. See Curry v. Bott, 53 
 Pa. St. 400, 403 ; Bower, 63 Pa, Su 126, 138 ; atiU, U 119-121.
 
 327 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. I 224 
 
 30 Hopkins v. Carey, 23 Miss. 54, 58 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 31 Blum V Harrison, 50 Ala. 16 ; Baker, 22 Minn. 265; Bowser, 82 
 Pa. St. 57. 
 
 32 Elder v. Cordray, bi 111. 244, 245 ; post, ? 226. 
 
 § 224. Property acquired by "gift" or "grant."— The 
 words "gift and grant" include all modes of acquiring 
 property by deed ; ^ " gift " includes a grant of realty ; ^ 
 "grant" applies equally to personalty ;3 "grant" in- 
 cludes a deed of bargain and sale.* A gift of jjei-son- 
 alty may be by parol.^ A lease is property obtained by 
 gi-ant.® Whether a deed creates an equitable separate 
 or a statutory separate estate depends upon its word- 
 ing ;' unless the intent to exclude the husband's rights 
 clearly apj^earS; a statutory' separate estate is created.^ 
 Deeds from the husband to the wife are often unlaw- 
 ful,* but generally if creditors are not prejudiced'" they 
 are good in equity,'' and may be good at law.'^ At 
 common law a husband might refu.se a gift, or grant to 
 his wife,'-^ and if he accepted one he had his marital 
 rights therein;'* this did not apply to .settlements for 
 her equitable separate use;'^ under the statutes she 
 takes the legal title as fully as she took the equitable 
 before under sucli settlements.'^ The instrument need 
 not contain words showing the property was meant 
 to be " separate " ; " where the contrary has been held, 
 this was due to the peculiar wording of some early 
 statutes.'^ 
 
 1 Huyler v. Atwood, 26 N. J. Eq. 5(M, 505 ; Lyon v. Green, 42 Wis. 
 532,536. 
 
 2 Libby v. Chase, 117 Mass. 105, 106. 
 
 3 Spaulding v. Day, 10 Allen, 96, 98 ; Abbey t'. Deyo, 44 Barb. 374, 
 379. 
 
 4 Lyon c. Green, 42 Wis. 532, 535. 
 
 5 Tlnslev V. Roll, 2 Met. (Kv.).')09, 510. .See Walton r. Broaddus, 
 6 Bush, 328, 329 ; Ewing v. Helm, 2 Tenn. Ch. 368, 369. 
 
 fi Darbv i'. Callaghan, Ifi N. Y. 71, 75. See Vandevoort v. Gould, 
 36 N. Y. 639 ; Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 7 Prout V. Roby, 15 Wail. 471, 474 ; ante, I 200.
 
 II 225-226 STATUTOKY SKPAllATK PROPERTY. 328 
 
 8 TJpplncott V. Mitchell, 94 U. 761. 768, 770. See William.s, 68 Ala. 
 405, 406 ; Swain v. Duane, 48 Cal. 358, 360 ; ante, 5 216. 
 
 9 See Jenkins v. Flinn, 37 Ind. 343 ; Tovvlo, 114 Mass. 167 ; ante, 
 U 40-46, 12.5. 
 
 10 Discussed ante, H 113-118. 
 
 11 Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 398, 399 ; ante, \ 42. 
 
 12 Burdeno v. Am perse, 14 Mich. 91, 97 ; ante, ? 43. 
 
 13 Patterson v. Robinson, 25 Pa. St. 81, 82 ; ante, I 2-23. 
 
 14 Kleake v. Koeltze, 75 Mo. 239, 243 ; ante, H 148, 157, 170, 176. 
 
 15 Pollard v. Merrill, 15 Ala. 169, 173 ; ante, 5? 197-216. 
 
 16 Clawson, 25 Ind. 229, 231 ; post, §J 232, et seq. 
 
 17 Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 192, 193 ; 9 Am. Rep. 679 ; Stone v. 
 Gazzam, 46 Ala. 26;), 273. 
 
 18 See Hoyt v. Parks, .39 Conn. .3.57, 360, .361 ; Merrill v. Bullock, 105 
 Mass. 486, 493 ; Leighton v. Sheldon, 16 Minn. 243. 
 
 ^ 225. Property acquired by devise, bequest, descent, 
 distribution. — A lai^-sed legacy which goes as directed 
 by statute is not property acquired bj' devise, bequest, 
 descent, or distribution.' A wife's share before distri- 
 bution is property,'^ and if owned at the time of her 
 marriage is protected as property owned at that time, 
 though she receive it afterwards.^ Property " acquir- 
 ed" by distribution covers a share paid after the pas- 
 .sage of tlie statute tliough owned before.* 
 
 1 "Williams v. Bailee, Md. Law Rec. Jan. 14, 1882. 
 
 2 Smilie v. Siler, 35 Ala. 88, 95, 
 
 3 Sharp v. Burns, 35 Ala. &53, 662. 
 
 4 White V. Waite, 47 Vt. a»2, 507. 
 
 I 226. Property acquired by exchange. — An exchange 
 is really a purcliase.' Purchases with her separate 
 savings,'- persontdty exchanged for other separate prop- 
 erty ,3 money received for her dower,* are separate prop- 
 erty ; but it must be remembered that when one kind 
 of property is changed with her consent into anotlier — 
 as wlien realty is clianged into personalty — she has 
 only sucli rights as naturally attach to the latter kind.^ 
 Still, when realty owned before tlie passage of tlie sepa- 
 rate 231'operty act was changed into personalty after
 
 329 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. § 227 
 
 the passage thereof, said personalty was held to come 
 ■within the statute ;fi and sometimes a statute exprossly 
 makes the proceeds of realtj^ separate property.'' 
 
 1 Elder v. Condray, 54 111. 2J4, 245 ; Fisk v. Wright. 47 Mo. 352 ; 
 ante, 'i 22.3. 
 
 2 Merritt v. Lyon, 3 Barb. 110, 114. 
 
 3 Pike V. Baker, .53 111. 163, 167 ; Ireland i'. Webber, 27 Ind. 256, 259 ; 
 Welch, 63 Mo. 57, 60 ; Hutchln.s v. Colby, 43 N. H. 159, 160. 
 
 4 Beal v. Storm, 26 X. J. Eq. 372, 376. 
 
 5 Discussed ante, ? 136. 
 
 6 Brevard v. Jones, 50 Ala. 221, 238. 
 
 7 Sloan V. Torry, 78 Mo. 623, 626. 
 
 ? 227. Property acquired by accretion (increase). — Tlie 
 sprout savors of tlie root and goes the same way,^ and 
 the increase of separate property is separate, whether 
 the statute says so or not ; ^ the products, rents, increase, 
 and interest are all separate property.^ Thus, the crop 
 of a married woman's lands is hers* (it is " profits "S), 
 though raised by her husband as her agent,* and 
 thougli the land was bought by her on credit and has 
 not been paid for,' and it continues separate j^roperty 
 thougli invested in horses, mules, etc.^ So the foal of a 
 separate mare,* calves of a separate cow,^" and the earn- 
 ings of separate property ^^ are separate property. The 
 rule applies equally to realty and personalty.'^ though 
 while the ownersliip of the increase of personal prop- 
 erty is a natural incident of the ownersliip of personal 
 propertj^,'^ this is said not to be the case with real es- 
 tate'* (the accumulated rents of realty being merely 
 personal property'^), and on this ground the naming 
 of tlie increase of realty in the Minnesota statute was 
 held not to exclude the increase of personalty,'* a con- 
 trary decision having been rendered under the statute 
 of Texas.'' A statute may expressly regulate the in- 
 crease of .statutory separate property,'^ as in Alabama, 
 where the husband has full power thereover.'* Nor is
 
 § 223 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 330 
 
 a husband, unless guilty of fraud or breach of trust, or 
 by virtue of a promise,'^" accountable to his wife for her 
 rents and profits.^^ 
 
 1 Gore V. Knight, 2 Vern. 535 ; Prec. Cii. 255 ; ante, ? 209. 
 
 2 See Barrack v. McCulloiigh, 3 Kay & J. 110, 119 ; Hart v. Sorrell, 
 11 Ala. 3Sfi, -lOl ; CJans v. Williams, 62 Ala. 41, 43 ; Sanford v. Atwood, 
 44 Conn. 141, 143 ; Bongard v. Core, 82 111. 19, 21 ; Langford v. Greirson, 
 5 Bradf. .361. .365; .Stout v. Perry. 70 Ind. 501, .504 ; Russell v. Long, 52 
 Iowa. 250, 252 ; Hanson v. Millett, .55 Me. 184, 189 ; Hill r. Chambers, 30 
 Mich. 422, 429; Williams v. MoGrade, 13 Minn. 46, .52; Hutchins t'. 
 Colby, 43 N. H. 159, 161 ; Merritt v. Lyon, 3 Barb. 114 ; Knapp v. Smith, 
 27 N. Y. 280; Holcomb v. Meadville, 92 Pa. St. 338, ^i ; Nelson v. 
 Holllns, 9 Baxt. 55!, .5.54 ; De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 27 ; Braden r. 
 Gose, 57 Tex. 37, 40; Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 118; 32 Am. Rep. 
 7.57. But see Bank v. Barnes, 2 Smedes <fe M. 165 ; Beatty v. Smith, 2 
 Smedes & M. 567. 
 
 3 Bongard v. Core, 82 111. 19, 21. 
 
 4 Stout V. Perry, 70 Ind. 501, 504 ; De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 27. 
 
 5 Stout V. Perry, 70 Ind. 501, .504. 
 
 6 Langford v. Greirson, 5 Bradf. 361, .365 ; Russell v. Long, .52 Iowa, 
 250, 252 ; ante, ? 87. 
 
 7 Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 118 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 8 Nelson v. Hollins, 9 Baxt. 553, 554 ; ante, ? 226. 
 
 9 Sanford v. Atwood, 44 Conn. 141, 143 ; Hanson v. Millet^;, 55 Me. 
 184, 189. 
 
 10 Russell V. Long, 52 Iowa, 250, 252 ; Hutchings v. Colby, 43 N. H. 
 159, 160. 
 
 11 Barrack v. McCuUough, 3 Kay cfe J. 110, 119. 
 
 12 Holcomb v. Meadville, 92 P.a. St. 338, 34.3. 
 
 13 There being no estate in personaltj' originally : Ante, ? 136. 
 
 14 Williams v. McGrade, 13 Minn. 46, 5.3. 
 
 15 Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush, 474, 478. 
 
 16 Williams v. McGrade, 13 Minn. 46, 52, 53. 
 
 17 Braden v. Gose, 57 Tex. 37, 40. 
 
 18 Brucev. Thompson, 25 Vt. 741,747. 
 
 19 Mulhouse V. Weeden, 57 Ala. 502, 504 ; Sterrett v. Coleman, .57 
 Ala. 172, 173. 
 
 20 Ante, ?? 42, 45, 129, 209. 
 
 21 Chambers v. Richardson, 57 Ala. 85, 89 ; ayite, U 42, 209. 
 
 5 228. Property acquired by trade or earned. — (A mar- 
 ried woman's right to the proceeds of lier personal ser- 
 vices has already been treated,^ and " married women 
 as traders" will be discussed hereafter.'^ 
 
 1 Ante, ? 6.5. 
 
 2 Post, ?H04, et seq.
 
 331 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. §§ 229-230 
 
 § 229. Property acquired by contract — Choses in action 
 ex contractu. — Property acquired by an executed con- 
 tract is acquired by purchase. ^ An executory contract 
 is a chose in action ex contractu :'^ it made by the mar- 
 ried woman herself, her right to enforce it depends on 
 her capacity to make the contract,^ her remedies, on 
 the particular statutes of the forum,* and there seems 
 to be no more reason to question her ownership of the 
 proceeds than there would liave been if the contract 
 had been voluntarily executed.^ If a contract made by 
 a third person and acquired by her from such person by 
 purchase, gift, etc., it is property so acquired, for all 
 choses in action ex contractu are property.^ 
 
 1 See ante, H 223, 224. 
 
 2 For definitions of Choses in Action, consult ante, 1 171. 
 
 3 See Contracts of Mabrikd WOiVien, post, U 355-393. 
 
 4 Stoneman v. Erie, 52 N. Y. 429, 432 ; ante, f 35 ; post, §§ 427-463. 
 
 5 See Fuller v. Naugatuck,2l Conn. 567, 573,574. It is property 
 gotten by "purchase," ante, J 123, or " exchange," a7ite, i 226. 
 
 6 Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 27, 32 ; 28 Am. Rep. 527 ; cases cited ante, ? 219. 
 
 § 230. Property acquired by tort. — Whether a right 
 of action growing out of a personal tort to a married 
 woman is "her property," is disputed.^ On the one 
 hand it is said that it is not,^ but on the other, it is held 
 to come within the description of " proi^erty acquired 
 in any manner," ^ and there is no doubt but that stat- 
 utes may be so framed as to include it.* Thus, when 
 a statute gives a married woman as separate property 
 any right of action growing out of a violation of her 
 " personal rights," a right of action for assault and bat- 
 tery ,s or for enticing away her husband,^ is included. 
 But when a statute provides only for injuries to her 
 person or character, she cannot sue for enticing away 
 her husband.^ While there hardly seems to be mucli 
 reason for refusing to call choses in action ex delicto 
 "proi^erty," if choses in action ex contractu are so
 
 § 231 STATUTOKY SEPARATIC PKOPERTY. 332 
 
 called,^ whether the joint right of action of husband 
 and wife in her right is " her" property, is a nice ques- 
 tion : in Maryland at nisi prius it has been decided in 
 the affirmative.^ Different principles govern rights 
 arising from torts to her property. Damages must be 
 regarded as the natural increase of the injured prop- 
 erty or as given in exchange for the property destroyed 
 by the injury,'" and would therefore seem to be prop- 
 erty acquired by increase" or exchange.!'^ The diffi- 
 culty in this clahs of cases is, how shall the wife sue ? '^ 
 Damages awarded when her property is taken for pub- 
 lic use belong to her." 
 
 1 Consult Chicago v. Dunn, 52 III. 2r>0, 263 ; Logan, V? Ind. 558, 5&4 ; 
 Ballard v. Kussell, 33 Me. 196, 197; 54 Am. Dec. 620; Lauglilin v. 
 Eaton, M Me. 1.56, 160 ; Kemp v. Clark, Md. Law Rec. Apr. 19, 1884 ; 
 Berger v. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215, 220 ; Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 145, 
 146; Mann v. Marsh, 21 How. Pr. 372, 376; Clark v. Harlan, 1 Gin. 
 Rep. 418,423; Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621,633 ; 32 Am. Rep. 397; Stev- 
 enson V. Morris, 37 Ohio St. 10, 17 ; Gibsoji, 43 Wis. 23, 27, 32 ; 28 Am. 
 Ilep. 527 ; eases cited ante, I 219, notes 5, 6. 
 
 2 Ballard v. Russell, 33 Me. 19^1, 197; M Am. Dec. 620; Laughlin 
 V. Eaton, 54 Me. 156, 100 ; Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 33 ; 23 Am. Rep. 527. 
 
 3 Chicago v. Dunn, .52 111. 260, 263 ; Kemp r. Clark, Md. Law Rec. 
 Apr. 19, 18S4 ; Berger v. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215, 220 ; Leonard v. Pope, 27 
 Mich. 145, 146. 
 
 4 Berger v. Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215, 220 ; Mann v. Marsh, 21 How. Pr. 
 372, 376. 
 
 5 Stevenson v. Morris, 37 Ohio St. 10, 17 ; ante, ? 7G. 
 
 6 Clark V. Harlan, 1 Cin. Rep. 418, 423 ; ante, ? 73. 
 
 7 Logan, 77 Ind. 5.58, 564, 565 ; ante, ? 78. 
 
 8 But see Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 27-33 ; 28 Am. Rep. 527. 
 
 9 Kemp ?'. Clark, Md. Law Rec. Apr. 19, 1SS4 (Appealeil to Md. Ct. 
 of Appeals, Oct. Term. 1884, affirmed Jan. 188.5.) 
 
 10 1 Sedgwick Damages, pp. 35, 36. 
 
 U Discussed ante, § 227. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, ? 226. 
 
 13 Suits of Married Womkx, post, ?? 428, et seq. 
 
 14 Sharpless v. Westchester, 1 Grant, 257, 260. 
 
 § 231. Property acquired jointly with har husband. — 
 (The rights of a married woman in proi^ertj' acquired 
 by her jointly with her husband will be discussed 
 hereafter under "estates of both husband and wife."') 
 
 1 I'ost, ch. xvi. ii 302-311. See ante, U 128, 129, 132.
 
 333 STATUTORY SEPARATC PROPERTY. § £32 
 
 Article III. — Incidents of Statutory Separate 
 Property. 
 
 5 232. Necessity of inventory — Proof of title. 
 
 i Z'A Wife's power and control over, generally. 
 
 J 2:34. Powers incidental to ownership, etc. 
 
 i 235. Jurisdiction of equity —Trustee, etc. 
 
 ? 236. Wife's disposition of. 
 
 5 237. Wife's contracts concerning. 
 
 { 2.38. Wife's contracts as equitable charges upon. 
 
 5 23<). Wife's contracts under statutorj- authority. 
 
 ? 240. Wife's wills of. 
 
 { 241. Wife's remedies concerning. 
 
 i 242. Liabilities of. 
 
 J 243. Eights of husband and his creditors In. 
 
 g 232. Necessity of inventory — Proof of wife's title. — 
 In some States statutes provide that a married woman 
 shall tile for record an inventor^' of her property, as a 
 condition to its being protected as separate estate. i The 
 usual construction of these statutes is, that they are 
 intended to protect husbands' creditors,'^ and that as 
 against her husband himself a wife holds her property 
 as separate estate whether she has filed the inventory 
 or not;* but in Arkansas the husband's common-law 
 rights attach in absence of the inventory.* These stat- 
 utes are said to be wise though harsh.^ The wife's 
 propertj^ is, under these statutes, liable for debts of the 
 husband contracted after its acquisition but before the 
 filing of the inventory ;6 so is property taken in ex- 
 change for it ; ' and it is liable for debts contracted 
 before it was acquired, if no inventory has been filed.^ 
 The burden of proof is on the wife, when she is living 
 with her husband, to show her title and the sources 
 thereof, to anj^ property she claims as separate estate.^ 
 
 1 See Rev. Stat, of Ark. 1874, ? 4201 ; Cal. 1881. 9 lfi.5 ; Fla. 1881, pp. 
 7M, 75.5 ; Mass. 1882, p. 8l;i, J U ; Miss. 1880, J 1178 ; Nev. 1873, § 153. 
 
 2 Selover v. Commercial, 7 Cal. 266, 271 ; Patterson v. Spearman, 
 37 Iowa, 43 ; Jones, 19 Iowa, 236, 240.
 
 g 233 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 334 
 
 3 Jones, 19 Iowa, 236, 240. 
 
 4 Humfries v. Harrison, 30 Ark. 79, 88. 
 
 5 Price v. Sanchez, 8 Fla. 136, 140. 
 
 6 MiUer v. Steele, 39 Iowa, 531. 
 
 7 Pressuall v. Herbert, 34 Iowa, 543. 
 
 8 Stewart v. Bishop, 33 Iowa, .585. 
 
 9 Walker v. Reariy, 36 Pa. St. 410, 416, 417 ; ante, ? 119. 
 
 § 233. Wife's power and control over her statutory sep- 
 arate property generally. — Under separate property acts, 
 generally, the w'fe is legal owner of her property ; i 
 the right to possess it is in her;- for injuries to this 
 right she may sue in her own name ; ^ and she may so 
 recover the property from the possession of a third 
 party,* or even her husband.' Though she cannot pre- 
 vent such use of it by her husband as is incidental to 
 his right to live Avith her,^ — for these statutes do not 
 affect the marriage status,' — he has no property in it,* 
 and no right of action against any one who removes it 
 A\-ith her consent.* As to her powers over it, there are, 
 as in the case of equitable separate property,'" two 
 rules : one, that she has no powers not given her by 
 the act ; " the other, that she has all powers not denied 
 her by the act ; ''^ and there is the same dift'erence of 
 opinion as to whether the enumeration of certain 
 powers is a negation of all others.'^ But it seems to be 
 generally admitted that she may by implir-ation do all 
 things necessary to such ownership and enjoyment of 
 her property as is called for by the act : '* the difficulty 
 seems to be to determine what things are so necessary.'^ 
 Thus, while the power to " dispose " is said to be very 
 different from the power to " use and enjoy," '* and is 
 not included A\ithin that power,'' the power to lease is, 
 as she could not enjoy realty not occupied by her unless 
 she had the power to lease it.'* And wliile, when her 
 property " shall be owned, used, and enjoyed by her 
 as if unmarried," she cannot sell it,'^ yet when this
 
 3So STATUTOIIY SEPARATE PliOPERTY. ? 233 
 
 property is mercliandise, she can sell it, as she could 
 not otherAvise enjoy it.'^" Her incidental powers,'^i and 
 her power, respectively, to convey,^ to wili,^ and to 
 contract concerning,^ her statutory separate propertj', 
 are separately discussed. It is well settled that these 
 statutes give a married woman no personal capacity,^'' 
 but leave her, except as to her property, under the dis- 
 abilities of coverture.^® 
 
 1 Harding r. Cobb, -{7 Miss. 590, 603 : Armstrong v. Ross, 25 N. J. 
 Kq. 10), IW ; Wilbur v. Fradenburgh, 52 Barb. 474. 
 
 2 Scott, 13 Ind. 22.5, 227. 
 
 3 Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 Darbv i'. Callaghan, 16 N. Y. 71, 76. See .Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 227 ; 
 Jones, 19 Iowa, 238 ; FaddLs v. Woollomes, 10 Kan. r^i ; Miller v. Baa- 
 nUttjr, 109 Mas.'}. 2dJ ; post, Suits of ilABHiKD Womkx, a 428-463. 
 
 5 Mlnler, 4 Lans. 421. But see ante, ?? 32, 56. 
 
 6 Cole V. Van Riper, 44 III. 5.% 63 ; ante, ? 53. 
 
 7 Walker r. Beamy, 30 Pa. St. 410, 414 ; ante, ? 13. 
 
 8 Dunnahoo v. Holland, 51 Ga. 147, 149 ; post, I 241. 
 
 9 Southard v. Piper, 36 Me. 84, 85 ; post, \ 241. 
 
 10 Badford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va, 573 ; ante, I 203. 
 
 11 Pelzer ?'. Campbell, 15 S. C. 581, 589. See Whitworth v. Carter, 
 43 Miss. 61, 72 ; iJunbar v. Meyer, 43 Miss. 679, 635 ; Kavenaugh v. 
 Brown, 1 Tex. 481, 4s4. 
 
 12 Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 227 ; Hall v. Dotson, .55 Tex. 520, 524. 
 
 13 Pro. Williamson, IS Men. B. 329, 38.5. Contra, Kimm v. Weip- 
 pert, 40 Mo. 532, uoG ; 2 Am. Rep. 541. See ante, i 204. 
 
 14 Mevers ik Rahte, 46 Wis. 655, L-is. ■ See Smith v. Howe, 31 Ind, 
 233, 234 ; Batchelder r. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 2(ij ; Mahoa v. Oormley 
 24 Pa. St. SO ; pust, \\ 237, b73. 
 
 15 See Naylor v. Field. 23 N. J. L. 287, 283 ; post, ? 2;U. 
 
 16 Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58. 
 
 17 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 430 ; 14 Am. Rep. C7 ; post, ? 231. 
 
 18 Parent v. Callerand, 64 111. 97, 99 ; Vandevoort v. Gould, 36 N, Y. 
 639, 643. 
 
 19 Moore v. Cornell, 63 Pa. St. 320, 322, 323 ; post, I 236. 
 
 20 Wieman v. Anderson, 42 Pa. St. 311, 317, 318. 
 
 21 Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 1.36, 141 ; post, I 234. 
 
 22 Armstrong t>. Ross, 20 X. J. Eq. 109, 120 ; post, \ 236. 
 
 23 Xaylor v. Field, 23 N. J. L. 287, 288 ; post, \ 2:;3. 
 
 24 Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. Kq. 97. 104 ; post, \\ 2:7, 372, 373. 
 
 25 Albiu V. Lord, 39 N. II. 196, 201, 202 ; ante, \ 15 ; post, \\ 320, 371. 
 
 26 McKee v. Reynolds, 26 Iowa, .578, 5S2 ; Pond v. Carpenter, 12 
 Minn, 430, 4.J2 ; Ames v. Foster, 42 N. U. 381, 335.
 
 § 234 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 336 
 
 ? 234. Wife's powers incidental to ownership, etc. — 
 When a married woman may "own, enjoy," etc., her 
 property, she has all powers incidental to ownershij:), 
 enjoj'ment, etc' Under a statute providing that " a 
 married woman .shall have and hold her separate prop- 
 erty as if unmarried." she ma}'' deal with it,^ dispose of 
 it,^ excliange it,^ and do with it whatever any owner 
 may do with his or liors ; » she may employ counsel to 
 litigate her rights to it ;« she may contract for servants 
 and labor upon It,^ for repairing it,^ cultivating it,^ 
 selling its crops;"' she may lea.se it;'' and she may 
 charge it with lier debts as an incident to ownership.'^ 
 One class of decisions goes to this extent, but another 
 gives the statutes a much more limited etTect. It is 
 said, that a statute which enables her to use and enjoy 
 does not enable her to dispose of ; '' tliat one which 
 enables her to hold does not enable her to deal with ; '* 
 and, even, that she has strictly only those powers 
 expressly given her.'* 
 
 1 See Cookson v. Toolo, .5:1 111. 51.5, .519; Mitchell v. Carpenter, 50 
 111.470,021; Williitms t'. HuKuniii, 69 111. 214, 219; 18 Am. Rep. 607; 
 Parent v. Callerand, 64 111. !)7, 99; Scott. U Iiid. 22.5, 227; Smith r. 
 Howe. 31 Ind. 233, 234 , Brown v. Fifielrl, 4 Mich. 322, 327; Wieman v. 
 Anderson, 42 Pa. St. 311, 317, .318; Mahon r. Gormlev, 24 Pa. St. 80; 
 Krouskopv. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204,214; Meyers v. Rahte,46 Wis. 6.55, 658; 
 post, I 372. 
 
 2 Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 1.36, 141. 
 
 3 Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 447, 459 ; Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis, 136, 
 141 ; post, I 236. 
 
 4 Beard v. Redolpli, 29 Wis. 136, 141. 
 
 5 Beard v. Redolph, 23 Wis. 1.36, 141, 
 
 6 Leonard v. Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, 542 ; post, U 362, 363. 
 
 7 Cookson i>. Toole, 59 111. 515, 520. 
 
 8 Mitchell v. Carpenter, .50 III. 470, 521. 
 
 9 Mitchell V. Carpenter, .50 111. 470, 521 ; post, § 235. 
 
 10. Mltrhell?'. Carpenter, 50 111.470,521. Consult Wieman v. Ander- 
 son, 42 X'a. St. 311, 317. 
 
 11 Parent v. Canerand,64 111.97,99; Mitchell t>. Carpenter, 50 III. 
 470, 521 ; Vandevoort v. Gould, 36 N. Y. 639, 643. 
 
 12 Williams v. Hugunin, 69 111. 214, 219 ; 18 Am. Rep. 007 ; post, ? 237. 
 
 13 Parent v. Callerand, 63 111. 97, 99 ; Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58 ; 
 Swift r. lAice, 27 Mr». 2S5, 2S8 ; N.aylor v. Fi^ld, 21 N. J. L. 2S7, 288; 
 Moore v. Cornell, 68 Pa. St. 320, 322 ; post, i 236.
 
 337 STATUTOKY SKPARATK PROPERTY. §? 235-236 
 
 14 Vreeland, 16 N. J. Eq. 512, 524. 
 
 15 Lillard v. Turner, 16 Mon. B. 374, 376 ; fselzer v. Campbell. 15 
 S. C. 581, 589 ; ante, I 233. 
 
 § 235. Jurisdiction of equity over statutory separate estate 
 of married women — Trustee, etc. — Under some statutes 
 the husband is made trustee of hi^ wife's statutory sep- 
 arate estate, 1 but otherwise she has the full legal title 
 thereto.^ Accordingly, it is held that her charges there- 
 upon are valid at law,* and that her remedies and lia- 
 bilities relating thereto are to be asserted or enforced 
 in courts of law.'* But here, ai ail through tliis sub- 
 ject, there is a contrary view ; in some cases it is held 
 that a married woman cannot, without express statu- 
 tory authority, sue or be sued as a single woman ; ^ and 
 that unless the common-law procedure is conformed 
 to, she must sue or be sued in equitj'." In most States, 
 however, at present, the statutes expressly state how 
 married women are to sue or be sued.' 
 
 1 Alexander v. Saulsbury, 37 Ala. .37-5, 377 ; ante, U 1''0, 202. 
 
 2 Harding w. Cobb-, 47 Jliss. 633, C03 ; ante, i 233. 
 
 3 Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 214. S. P. Mitchell ?>. Carpen- 
 ter, 50 III. 470, 5J1 ; Cookson v. Toole, .5'» 111. 5:5, 51J ; Williams v. 
 Hugunin, (i:» 111. 214, 21'J ; 18 Am. Rep. 607 ; Albiu v. Lord, B9 N. H. 
 lUP, 201 ; Meyers v. Rahte, 46 Wis. 655, fi.58. 
 
 4 Cookson V. Toole, 59 111. 515, 522 ; supra, n. 3. 
 
 5 Roarers v. Ward, 8 Allen, .3S7, .390, .301 ; Ki-i? v. Mittalborger, .50 
 Mo. lf<2, 18) ; Johnson v. Ciiinminss, 16 N. J. Kq. 97, 105 ; Stockton r. 
 Farlev, 10 W. Va. 173, 175 ; 27 Am. Hep. 566. See Jonefs v. Crosthwaite, 
 17 Iowa, 393, 402 ; post, U 237, 240. 
 
 6 Stockton V. Farley, 10 W. Va. 173, 175 ; 27 Am. Rep. 566 ; supra, 
 n. 5. 
 
 7 Discussed i)os^ Suits o."? Makiuku Womkn-, H 428, et seq. 
 
 I 238. Wife's power to dispose of her statutory separata 
 property. — A statute giving a married woman her prop- 
 erty with the ".same rights and powers as a femme 
 sole,'' gives her the power to dispose of the same as if 
 unmarried,! even by power of attorney ;2 but tlie /«.s 
 dinponcndi is quite a different thing from the jus ten- 
 endi,^ and though it is said to bo a nece33ary incident 
 
 11. & W. - G9.
 
 g 2CG STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 338 
 
 of ownership of personalty,* the same is said not to 
 apply to realty ;^ and, therefore, thouL^Ii of course there 
 arc cases that hold that, unless expressly or impliedly 
 restrained by the statute, a married woman has all 
 the powers of a femme sole with respect to her prop- 
 erty ,6 the better oijinion is, that a married woman is 
 not empowered to dispose of her property by a statute 
 which enables her to "have, hold, and possess the 
 same as if unmarried,"' or which says that it shall be 
 "owned, used, and enjoyed by her as if single,"^ or 
 which gives it to her "separate property with power 
 to devise."' In peculiar circumstances, as in the case 
 of merchandise, the power of disposition is a necessary 
 incident to the enjoyment thereof.^" When, moreover, 
 the statute provides that she may dispose of it in a cer- 
 tain mode, she cannot dispose of it in any other Avay ; " 
 nor, except when the statute says that she shall have 
 the same powers over it which she has over her equita- 
 ble separate estate,'^ can she make a conveyance good 
 in equity though void at law.'^ Her deed wlien invalid 
 is absolutelj' void,^* even if her husband lias abandoned 
 her,i^ and cannot be rectified or enforced in equity, '^ 
 even after her husband's death ;" unless it is valid as 
 her contract to make a deed or as her charge on her 
 estate for the consideration. i^ A general power of dis- 
 position includes every form of disposition,'" for exam- 
 ple, a mortgage.^" But deeds of married woman are 
 fully discussed in another chapter of this work.^^ 
 
 1 Beal t'. Warren, 2 Gray, 4-17, 459. 
 
 2 Patton V. King, 26 Tex. 6S5, 686; Beal v. Warren, 2 Grav, 447, 
 459. 
 
 3 Nay lor r. Field, 2n N.J. L. 287, 288. S. P. Cole ?•. Van Riper, 44 
 111, 58 ; Parent v. Calleranil, 64 111. S7, 99 ; Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 
 4:« ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 ; Miller v. Wetherby, 12 Iowa, 415, 422, 
 
 4 Brown V. Fifleld, 4 Mich. 322, 327 ; Naylor ii. Field, 29 N. J, I.. 
 287, 288 ; ante, I 205, 
 
 5 Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. T., 287,288. See Cox v. Wood, 20 Ind. 
 54, 59 ; Moore v. McMullin, 23 Ind. 78, 73 ; ante, \ 20.'., 
 
 I
 
 339 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. ^ 237 
 
 6 HarrHiig v. Cobb, 47 Miss. 590, 60^ S. P. Scott, 13 Inri. 225, 227 ; 
 Jones v. Crosthvvaite, 17 Iovvh, 'i'Xi, 502 ; Kimia r. Weippert, 4t> Mo. 
 Sii, 536 ; 2 Am. Hep. 5J1 ; BeurU v. lieaolph, 2U Wis. 136, 141. 
 
 7 Swift ('. Luce, 27 Mo. 285, 238. 
 
 8 Moore v. Cornell, 68 Pa. St. 320, 322, 323. 
 
 9 Brown v. Fifield, 4 Mich. 322, 326. 
 
 10 Wieman v. Anderson, 42 Pa. St. 311, 317, 318 ; ante, § 234. 
 
 U Williamson, IS Mon. B. 32J, .3,S5. S. P. Staley v. Hamilton, 19 
 Fla. 275, 2ya ; Hartley i: Ferrell, 'J Fla. :174, 378 ; Bressler v. Kent, 61 
 111. 426, 430 ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 ; Stevens i\ Parish, 2!<Ind. 260,263 ; Scott, 
 13 Ind. 225, 227 ; (irapentjether ;•. Feiervary, 9 Iowa, Ifti, 173 ; Grove 
 V. Todd, 41 Md. 6 ii, 640; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; Townslev v. Chapin, 12 
 Allen, 476, 47:) ; H irdiiig v. Cobb, 47 Miss. 59!), 603 ; Beckman c. Stan- 
 lev, 8 Nev. 2.')7, 201 ; Naylor v. Field, 2S) N. J. L. 287, 289; Armstrong 
 V. Ross. 20 N. J. Eq. 10 •, 118, 120 ; Miller v. Hine, 13 Ohio St. 565, 568 ; 
 Tilllnghast, 7 R. I. 2;Kt, 245. 
 
 12 Hooper i'. Smith, 23 Ala. 639, 642. 
 
 13 Stalev r. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 2:0 ; Miller v. Wetherby, 12 Iowa, 
 4:5, 421 ; WilJiamsOii, 18 Mon. B. 32J, 385 ; supra, n. 11 ; post, ii 396-408. 
 
 14 Rogers r. Higgins, 48 III. 211, 216; Stevens r. Parish, 29 Ind. 260, 
 263 ; Grapengether v. Fejervar.v, 9 Iowa, 163, 173 ; Shumaker v. John- 
 son, 35 luwa, 33, 35 ; 3Iiller v. Hine, 13 Ohio St. 565, 568 ; supra, n. 11 ; 
 post, 'ii 400-404. 
 
 15 Beckman v. Stanley, 8 Nev. 257, 261 ; 2>ost, ? 394. Consult Stew- 
 art M.&\i.i 174 ; pusl, i 407. 
 
 16 Grapengether v. Fejervary, 9 Iowa, 163, 174 ; supra, n. 14 ; post, 
 2 4W. 
 
 17 Townsley v. Chapin, 12 Allen, 476, 479. 
 
 18 Frostburg v. Hamill, 55 Md. 313, 315 ; post, U 237, 407. 
 
 19 Smith V. \Vllson, 2 Met. (Ky.) 235, 237. 
 
 20 Hall V. Dotson, 55 Tex. 52C, 524 ; Pond v. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 
 432, 433. 
 
 21 PosK, ?§3M-408. 
 
 I 237. Wife's contracts concerning her statutory separate 
 property. — Separate property acts do not enable a mar- 
 ried woman to make per.sonal contracts — this is uni- 
 vei'.sally admitted. ^ But tiiree classes of her contracts 
 have been recognized as binding on her statutory sepa- 
 rate property: 2 (1) Contracts which would bind her 
 equitable separate property ; -^ (2) contracts which are 
 expressly authorized by the statute — as when a statute 
 empowers to make contracts " relating to," or " with ref- 
 erence to," her proi^erty ;* (3) contracts which are im- 
 pliedly authorized by statute — contracts, without the 
 capacity for making which, she could not possess, use,
 
 g 237 STATUTORY SKPAKATK PKOPiiKTY. 3i0 
 
 and enjoy her property as it was intended, under the 
 statute, that she should.^ On some of these contracts, 
 the remedy is at law,^ and others, it is in equity;^ 
 and on still olliers, there are current remedies at law 
 and in equity.^ But the remedy and the obligation 
 must be kept quite distinct.^ Unfortunately, the above 
 distinctions have not been genei'ally recognized or 
 regarded, and it is almost impossible to lay down rules 
 ajaplicable to all the States.'" The burden is upon the 
 party alleging tliL liability of the j)roi)erty to show that 
 the contract is one that binds it." 
 
 1 O'Daily ik Morris, 31 Ind. Ill, 112 ; McKee v. Keynokis, 26 Iowa, 
 573, 582 ; Pond !'. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 432 ; Ames v. Foster, 42 N. H. 
 381, 385 ; a7ite, § 15 ; 2J0st, i 370. 
 
 2 See distinction hinted at : Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 430 ; 14 
 Am. Kep. 67 ; Todd v. I.ee, 15 Wis. 3Uo, 380. 
 
 3 Johnson r\ Cummings, 16 N. J. K(i. !)7, 104, ID". See Binlford v. 
 Burton, 106, U. S. 338, 33!l, 340; Donovan, 41 Conn. .=>.".l, .>'>7 : t'ox v. 
 Wood, 20 Ind. 54, 59 ; Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 228 ; Shii-lds r. Kevs, 24 Iowa, 
 2;)8, 313 ; First v. Haire, 36 Iowa, 443, 446 ; Wicks r. Mitchell, t) Kan. 80, 
 88; Hall ?'. Eccleston, .37 Jld. 510, .520; Pond v. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 
 430,432; Doyle V. Orr, 57 Miss. 22l), 232; Seipli v. Howland, 23 Mi.ss. 
 264, 267 ; Pemberton v. Johnson, 46 Mo. 342, 343 ; Perkins v. Elliott, 22 
 N. J. Eq. 127, 120 ; 23 N. J. Eq. .526, 534, .535 ; Peake v. Lebaw, 21 N. J. 
 Eq. 26:i, 282 ; Wilson v. Brown, 14 N. J. Eq. 277, 27ii; Yale v. Dederer, 
 18 N. Y. 265, 272, 274 ; Ballin v. Dillave, 37 N. Y. .35, .37! Corn v. Bab- 
 cock, 42 N. Y. 613, 628 ; Patrick ?■. I.ittell, 3(i tlhio St. 79, 83 ; Graves v. 
 Phillips, 20 Ohio St. .371, .3'il ; (ilass cWurwick, 40 Pa. St. 140, 145 ; Hall 
 V. Dotson, 5.5 T<'x. .520, .524; .stcjcktoii r. Furlcv, 10 W. Va. 171,175; 
 27 Am. R(>p. .566 ; Radford r. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 661, 074. See 
 cases ante, H 206, 207 ; post, I 2;!8. 
 
 4 Marshall xk Berry, 13 Allen, '43, 45 ; Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen, 
 4ro, 462 ; West v. Laraway, 28 Mich. 464, 465 ; Batchelder v. Sargent, 
 47 N. H. 262, 264 ; Bailey v. Pearson, 29 N. H. 77, 85 ; post, I 239. 
 
 5 Williams v. Hugunin, 69 III. 214, 219; Coolcson ti. Toole, .59 111. 
 517, 519; Mitchell v. Carpenter, .50 111. 470, 521 ; Smith v. Howe, 31 Ind. 
 233, 234 ; Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106 ; Duren v. (Jetchell, .55 Me. 241, 
 248 ; Albin v. Lord, 39 N. H. 190, 201, 202 ; Frecking v. RoUand, .5:i N.Y. 
 422,425; Mahon v. Gormlev, 24 Pa. .St. 80; Wleman v. Anderson, 42 
 Pa. St. 311, 317, 318 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wi.s. 204, 214; Meyers v. 
 Rahte, 46 Wis- fi-5.5, 658 ; Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wi.s. 136, 141; Leonard 
 V. Rogan, 20 Wis. .540, 542 ; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wis. 365, 368 ; post, i 239. 
 
 6 Leonard v. Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, 542 ; post, ? 241. 
 
 7 Stockton V. Farley, 10 W. Va. 171, 175 ; 27 Am. Rep. 566 ; post, 
 ?241. 
 
 8 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 389; 5 Am. Rep. 67.5. See 
 Bradford v. (Jreenwav, 17 Ala. 707; Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. 
 Eq. 97, 106 ; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wi.s. .365, 368 ; post, ? 241, 
 
 9 Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 367, 382 ; jjost, i 241.
 
 311 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. § 238 
 
 10 See more fully post, U 23S, 239, 241. 
 
 11 Tracy v. Keith, 11 Allen, 214, 215; West v. Laraway, 28 Mich, 
 464, 467 ; Pollen v. James, 45 Miss. 129, i:a ; post, § a57. 
 
 § 238. Wife's contracts as equitable charges upon her 
 statutory separate estate. — When a separate property act 
 gives a married woman capacity to make certain speci- 
 lled contracts with respect to her property, or to charge 
 or encumber it only bj^ contract executed with certain 
 formalities, it impliedly restrains her from making any 
 others, or any without such formalities, even in 
 equity;^ but the fact that courts of law imply from 
 the terms of a statute a limited capacity to contract, 
 does not necessarily prevent courts of equity from rec- 
 ognizing some furtlier capacity.^ And, though some 
 courts have taken, as it is believed, the true ground, 
 that equity has nothing to do with statutory sei^arate 
 property,' the majority have held, that statutory estate 
 is bound by her contracts in equity precisely as it 
 would have been had it been created by a deed to her 
 sole and separate use instead of by a statute.* Whether 
 a particular contract is binding on particular statutory 
 sei^arate estate, depends on tiie rule* which would 
 determine in the State where it was made,^ whether tlie 
 said contract would be binding on an equitable sepa- 
 I'ate estate.' Thus, in New Jersey t!ie contract must 
 be beneficial to her, or must bo an express charge ;8 
 in Kansas, anj'- contract is irrebuttably presumed to 
 have been intended as a charge and to be binding,^ 
 etc.^" Two limitations to this liability have been 
 recognized: (1) She cannot charge unless she can 
 convey" — a rule which has been questioned, i- but 
 whicli prevails as to equitable separate estate ; '' 
 (2) if her husband's consent to her conveyances is 
 required, any contract of hers to be a charge must be 
 made with his consent^' — a rule also questioned.^'
 
 I 233 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 342 
 
 There are cases, as suggested above, which deem 
 charges as indirect conveyances, and will not recognize 
 them unless executed witli all the formalities required 
 of a conveyance.'^ A power to convey always includes 
 a power to charge." 
 
 1 Staley r. Hamilton, lo Fla. 275, 295 ; LiHard r. Turner, 16 Mon. 
 B. ?74, 376. See Tr.c'v r. Keith, U Allen, 214, 215 ; Robertson v. Bruner, 
 21 Miss. 242, 244 ; W'tiitworth v. Carter, 43 Miss. 61, 71, 72 ; Dunbar v. 
 Meyer, 43 Miss. r>7ii, (No ; iitfrri, n. 3. Contra, Donovan, 41 Conn. .551, 
 5.57 ; Graves v. Phillips, 20 Ohio St. 371, 391 ; 5 Am. Rep. 775 ; infra, 
 n. 4. 
 
 2 Todrl V. Lee, 15 Wis. 365, .380. See Jones v. CrosthwaJte, 17 Iowa, 
 333, 403, 404. 
 
 3 Maelay r. Love, 25 Cal. .367, 382 ; West v. I.rfiraway, 28 Mich. 464, 
 465; Cain t'.'Bunkley; 35 Mi.ss. 119, 145 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 4 Perkins r. Elliott, 22 N. J. Eq. 127, 129 ; 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 534 ; 
 cases collected ante, i 237, n. 3. 
 
 5 Rules discussed, ante, U 200, 207. 
 
 6 Ante, 5 37. 
 
 7 Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 228 ; gnpra, n. 4. But see Staley v. Hamilton, 
 19 Fla. 275, 296. 
 
 8 Perkins v. Elliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 526, 534. 
 
 9 Wicks V. Mitchell, 9 Kan. 80, 87. 
 
 10 See cases cited ante, H 206, 207. 
 
 11 Bressler?'. Kent, 61 111. 426,430; 14Am.Rep.67; Berry i-. Bland. 
 Smedes & M. 77, 83, 84 ; Puud v. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430. 
 
 12 2 Bish. M. W. I 212. 
 
 13 Ante, I 206 
 
 11 Radford V. Carwile, 13 AV. Va. .573, 674. See Hall v. Eccleston, 
 37 Md. 510, 520 ; Seiph v. Howland, 23 Miss. 264, 267. 
 
 15 2 Bish. M. W. ? 212. 
 
 16 Staley v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 295 ; ante, ? 236. 
 
 17 Hall I'. Dotson, 55 Tex. 520, 524 ; ante, ? 236. 
 
 g 239. Wife's contracts binding on her statutory sepa- 
 rate estate by virtue of the statutes. — Wlien tlie separate 
 property act authorizes a married Avoman to make con- 
 tracts "relating to," or "with respect to," or "with 
 reference to," her separate property ,' the question is, 
 wliat contracts do so relate, etc.? Whether a contract for 
 the purchase money of certain property is a contract 
 relating to that property is disputed.' But contracts 
 for the cultivation,^ improvement,* stocking,5 supply-
 
 343 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. § 239 
 
 ing with tools, ^ or with work horses,' of her separate 
 farm, are contracts relating thereto ; so is a contract for 
 furniture for her house ; ® but not a contract for sup- 
 plies for the family ,9 or for the purchase of a saddle 
 horse.*^ So a contract providing for damages for an 
 injury to her property, is a contract with reference 
 thereto." When the wife's capacity to contract with 
 reference to her separate property is implied from her 
 capacity to hold, use, and enjoy the same, as being 
 involved therein, ^^ the question is, what contracts are 
 necessary and proper to render her tenure, use, and 
 enjoyment of the property as full and beneficial as 
 was intended?'^ Whether, when she may acquire by 
 purchase, she may buy on credit, is disputed ; '* but, if 
 she may trade, she may buy a bill of goods on credit,^" 
 and miay malie all contracts in the usual course of busi- 
 ness.^fi If slie may earn for her own use, she may buy 
 a sewing macliine to do her sewing on,i' or a piano to 
 give lessons on.'^ ghe may employ counsel to litigate 
 her rights to her property ; '^ she maj- employ servants 
 and laborers thereupon ; '"> she maj- lease it,2i make 
 contracts for its cultivation, '^^ repair, etc.,^ and for dis- 
 posing of its produce.^' Whatever is essential to make 
 its use beneficial, she may do.^^ Tiiese contracts, it 
 must be remembered, are not binding on her person- 
 ally,'^* but they are enforced against her property,^' in 
 some States by a suit at law,^^ in others by a proceed- 
 ing in equity."^ 
 
 1 Marshall v. Berry, 13 Allen, 43, 45 ; aiile, \ 237. 
 
 2 Pro. Labiiree v. Colby, !)9 Mass. 539, 560. Contra, Jones v. Crosth- 
 walte, 17 Iowa, 393, 402; Miller v. Albertson, 73 Ind. 343, 345; ante., 
 I 223. 
 
 3 Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 2(M. 
 
 4 Burr v. Swan, 118 Mass. 588, 589 ; BatcheWer v. Sargent, 4V N. H. 
 262, 264, 266. 
 
 5 Batchekler v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 264, 266. 
 
 6 McCorinipk; v. Holbrook, 22 Iowa, 487,489; Batchelder ?'. Sar- 
 gent, 47 N. H. 262, 264.
 
 ^243 STATITTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 344 
 
 7 Mitchell v. Smith, 32 Iowa, 4M, 487. 
 
 8 Harmon r. Garland, 1 Macliey, 1. 
 
 Schneider ik Garland, 1 Maclcey, 350. 
 
 10 McDermott v. Garland, I Mackey, 496. 
 
 11 Duren v. Getchell, 55 Me. 241, 248. 
 
 12 Kro'jskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 214 ; Cookson v. Toole, 59 IIL 
 515, 51'J ; Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 266 ; ante. \ 237, n. 5. 
 
 13 Meyers v. Rahte, 46 Wis. 655, 658. 
 
 14 Pro. Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 516,521 ; 3!) Am. Bep. 674. 
 See cases cm/e, \ 224. 
 
 15 Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727, 730 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 
 204, 217. 
 
 16 Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen, 460, 462 ; Frecking v. Rolland, 53 N. Y. 
 422 425. 
 
 17 Williamson v. Dodge, 5 Hun, 498, 499 ; Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 
 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 18 Dayton %\ Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 19 Leonard v. Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, 542 ; post. U 362, 363. 
 
 20 Cookson v. Toole, 59 111. 515, 520. 
 
 21 Parent v. Callerand, 64 111. 97, 99. 
 
 22 Mitchell v.. Carpenter, 50 III. 470. 
 
 23 Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 136, 141. 
 
 24 Mitchell v. Carpenter, 50 III. 470. 
 
 25 Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 266 ; citations snjyra. n. 12. 
 
 26 Doyle V. Orr, 57 Miss. 229, 232 ; ante, ? 237. 
 
 27 Johnson v. Cummings. 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 104, 105. 
 
 28 Cookson V. Toole, 59 111. 515, 519 ; jwst, ? 242. 
 
 29 Stockton V. Farley, 10 W. Va. 171, 175 ; 27 Am. Rep. 566 ; post, 
 5 242. 
 
 1 240. Wife's wills of statutory separate estate. — 
 Whether a statute enabling a married Avonian to hold 
 her property as if sole, enables her to will, is doubt- 
 ful;' but a statute enabling her to hold and convey 
 does not.'^ Though the right to will is an incident to 
 ownership,^ a married woman cannot, it is said, \nl\ 
 her statutory sej^arate estate witliout express authority ; * 
 the same rule has been laid down by many courts, as 
 to equitable separate property.^ She may will under 
 an express statute,^ and may, under sucli a statute, will 
 statutory separate estate, although it was passed before 
 any separate property act.^ Wills of married women 
 are discussed in another chapter of tliis work.**
 
 345 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. §g 241-243 
 
 1 Pro. Naylor v. Field, 2!1 N. J. L. 287, 288. See post, I 346. 
 
 2 Harker v. Elliott, 3 Har. (Del.) 51, 59. 
 
 3 Cavenaugh v. AnicUbacker, 36 Ga. 500, 506. 
 
 4 Cain v. Bunkle.v, 35 Miss. 119, 145. 
 
 5 Wilkinson w Wright, 6 Jlon. B. 576, 577 ; ante, I 208. 
 
 6 Silsby v. Bullock, 10 Allen, 94, 95. 
 
 7 Emmert v. Hays, 89 111. 11, 16. 
 
 8 Po«i, 52 340-354. 
 
 § 241. Wife's remedies concerning her statutory separate 
 property. — How a married woman shall enforee her 
 rights arising out of her statutory separate proi)erty is 
 usually fixed by statute,^ and is discussed under 
 " Suits of Married Women " ; ^ when slie may, by stat- 
 ute, sue as if sole, slie cannot sue in equity unless an 
 unmarried woman could.^ 
 
 1 See Ma. R. C. 1878, p. 482, ? 22. 
 
 2 See post, li 427, et seq. 
 
 3 Frazler ?i. White, 49 Md. 1, 8 ; post, § 446. 
 
 g 242. Liabilities of statutory separate property. — A 
 married woman's statutory separate i)ro2)ertj^ i.s liable, 
 with her other property, for her torts ; i this was true at 
 common law.^ It is also liable on any contract which 
 falls within the classes already discussed as binding 
 it;^ the main question being, is the remedy at law or 
 in equity ? Those contracts which bind it on the ground 
 that it is treated as equitable separate projierty,^ are 
 enforced in equity ;» those which render it lialsle by 
 virtue of the statute,^ are usually enforced at law,' the 
 statutes themselves sometimes deterinining the form 
 of the remedy.^ It is not liable for the debts or on the 
 contracts of the husband,^ unless he acted as the wife's 
 agent in fact.'" Whether her lands are bound by me- 
 chanics' liens, depends upon circumstances ; " the lien 
 is to secure a debt arising out of a contract by the 
 owner, and the contract must therefore be made by 
 the wife,^^ and be valid ;i3 it is sufficient if it is valid in
 
 ? 243 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 346 
 
 equity." Remedies against the property of married 
 women arc more fully discussed in the chapter on 
 "Suits of Married Women." ^^ 
 
 1 Howard v. North, .5 Tex. 21)0, 299 ; ante, \ 66 ; post, \ 438 
 
 2 Ante, I G6 ; post, l\ ■121-424. 
 
 3 Ante, \ 237. 
 
 4 Johnson v. Cummings, IG N. J. Eq. 97, 104, ]a5 ; ante, \ 238. 
 
 5 Wicksr. Mitrhell.g Kan. SO, 87; Rogers r. Ward, 8 Allen, 387, 
 390, 391 ; Pond v. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 432 ; King v. Mittulberger, 
 50 Mo. 182, 18> ; John.son v. Cummings, 10 N. J. Va\. !I7, 10.'i ; Perkins 
 1'. Elliott, 22 N. .J. Kq. 127, 129 ; 23 N. J. Eq. .526, i^X^ : fJnives v. Phil- 
 lips, 20 Ohio St. 371, ;'91 ; 5 Am. Rep. 566 ; Glass v. Warwick, 40 Pa. St. 
 140, 145 ; Stockton v. Farley, 10 W. Va. 171, 175 ; -Jl Am. Rep. 566. 
 
 6 Ante, \ 238. 
 
 7 Cookson v. Toole. .59 111. .515, 522 ; Mitchell v. Carpenter, 50 HI. 
 470, .521 ; Williams v. Hugunin, 6.1 III. 214, 21il ; is Am. Hip. f)07 ; West 
 V. Larawav,28 Alich. 461, 470 ; BatcheliUr r. Sargent, 47 X. H. 262, 264 ; 
 Krouskop V. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 214 ; Meyer.s v. Italite, 46 Wis. 6.5.5, 6.58 ; 
 Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 136, 141 ; Leonard v. Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, 542. 
 
 8 The statutes of the particular State should be examined. 
 
 9 Johnson v. Tutewiler, 35 Ind. 3.53, 3.55 ; post, I 243. 
 
 10 Hobensack v. llollman, 17 Pa. St. 407, 414 ; ante, V. 84, 88. 
 
 n See Rogers v. Phillips, 3 Eng. 366 ; Johnson v. Tutewiler, 35 Ind. 
 3.53, .3.55 ; Miller v. Hollingsworth, 33 Iowa, 224 ; Burdick, 24 Iowa, 4IH ; 
 Greenongh ?>. Wiggington, 2 Greene, 435; Marsh ?•. .\lforil, 5 Busli, 
 392 ; Pell v. Cole, 2 Met. (Kv.) 282, 284 ; Jarden r. Pnmphrev, 3(1 Md. 
 361 ; Kirbv ?-. Tead, 13 Met. 149, 153 ; Selph v. Howlaiid, 23 Miss. 2(i4 ; 
 (Jray v. Pope, .35 Miss. 116, 117; Tucker )•. (irst, 4(i Mo. 339, 341; 
 Hauptman c. Catlin, 20 N. Y. 247, 24M ; Sjiinniiig v. Hluckburn, 13 
 Ohio St. 131 ; Briggs i'. Titus, 7 R. I. 441 ; Knott r. Carpenter, 3 Head, 
 &12. 
 
 12 Burdick v. Moon, 24 Iowa, 418. 
 
 13 Kirby v. Tead, 13 Met. 149, 153 ; Gray v. Pope, 35 Miss. 116, 117. 
 
 14 Hauptman v. Catlin, 20 N. Y. 247, 248. 
 
 15 Post, i'i 428, et seq. 
 
 \ 243. Rights of husband and his creditors in wife's stat- 
 utory separate estate. — A husband has the right to pos- 
 sess his wife's property so far as such possession is 
 involved in his full enjoyment of his right of cohabita- 
 tion ;i and he has a right of action of his own again.st a 
 third party who, without his wife's consent, remove.^ 
 her property from their common home ; ^ but he can- 
 not sue one who, as her agent, removes her property 
 from his possession ;3 and he cannot sue in his own 
 name for the recovery of her property itself.* When
 
 347 STATUTORY SEPARATE TROPERTY. § 243 
 
 he occupies her propei'ty with her, the law does not 
 presume that it is under his control,^ lie does not fall 
 within the definition of "owner" thereof,^ nor is he 
 liable for a nuisance thereupon, unless he is in some 
 way actively connected with such nuisancer He may 
 labor thereupon as her agent,^ or even make improve- 
 ments thereupon,^ without, in the absence of actual 
 fraudji" making it in any way liable for his debts.'' 
 The general effect of the statutes is to destroy his mar- 
 riage property' rights;'^ but a statute may exempt her 
 property from liis debts without destroying his rights 
 therein at all.'^ So, a statute may enable her to receipt 
 for her property, without affecting his common-law 
 right to receii^t therefor.'* He cannot steal her prop- 
 erty,'^ though she may, it seems, sue him for torts con- 
 nected tlicrewith.'s Unless his curtesy is destroyed by 
 the statute expressly,'^ or by laer disposition of her 
 property by virtue of her powers thereover,'^ he has 
 this estate at her death. '* His creditors have, as a 
 usual thing, no rights whatever against her property,™ 
 unless she has acquired it from him in fraud of their 
 rights.^' 
 
 1 Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. St. 410, -IH ; ante, U H. 59- 
 
 2 Rogers v. Roberts, 58 Md. 519, 523. 
 
 3 Southard v. Piper, 36 Me. 84, 85. 
 
 4 Bunnahoo v. Holland, 51 Gii, 147, 149. 
 
 5 Fiske v. BaUey, 51 N. Y. 150, 153. 
 
 6 Davis 0. Dodds, 20 Ohio St. 473. 
 
 7 Fiske v. Bailey, 51 N. Y. 150. 153. 
 
 8 Miller v. Peck, 22 W. Va. 75, 79-97 ; ante, U 87, 130. 
 
 9 Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 457, 458 ; ante, 'i 131. 
 
 10 Kirby v. Burns, 45 Mo. 234, 235 ; Haswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407. 
 414 ; ante, U 87, l:fO, 131. 
 
 11 Discussed ante, U 87, 130, 131. 
 
 12 Vreeland, 16 N. J. Eq. 517, 522 ; ante, I 1.50. 
 
 13 Logan v. McGill, 8 Md. 461, 470 ; White v. Dorris, 35 Mo. 181, 187, 
 188. 
 
 14 Clark V. Bank, 47 Mo. 17, 19. 
 
 15 Thomas, 51 111. 162, 165 ; ante, i 49.
 
 §243 
 
 STATUTORY SEPARATE PROPERTY. 
 
 16 ]\linler, 4 Lans. 421. But see Crowther, 55 Me. 353, 3.j9 ; Smitl; ii. 
 Gorman, 41 Me. 405. 408 ; Jackson v. Parks, 10 Cush. 550 ; Martin v. 
 Gofif, 6 R. I. 92, 96 ; ante, ?? 52-56. 
 
 17 Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, 287. 
 
 18 Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 106. 
 
 19 See Noble v. McFarland, 51 III. 226 ; Freeman v. Hartman, 45 
 111. 57; Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58; Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93; 
 Farr i\ Sherman, U Mich. 33 ; Tong v. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60; Piper r. 
 Johnston, 12 Minn. 60; Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204; Hatfield v. 
 Snerk'n,54 N. Y.280, 287; Curry j". Bott,63 Pa. St. 400 ; biddings t'. Cox, 
 31 Vt. 607 ; ante, H 161. 
 
 20 Martin V. Cioif, 6 R. I. 92,96. 
 
 21 Discussed ante, 99-134.
 
 349 DOWER. I 244 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 wife's estate in husband's realty — DOWER. 
 
 Art. I. Nature and Incidents of Dower, gg 244-264. 
 II. Barring and Defeating of Dower, g^ 265- 
 282. 
 III. Assignment of Dower, g? 283-300. 
 
 Article I. — Natitre and Incidents of Dower. 
 
 i 244. Meaning of the word "dower." 
 
 5 245. Origin and history of dower. 
 
 i 246. Dower at common law defined. 
 
 J 247. Dower under tlie statutes. 
 
 ? 248. Conflict of laws as to dower. 
 
 5 249. Requisites of dower. 
 
 i 230. Marriage as a requisite of dower. 
 
 § 251. Husband's death as a requisite of dower. 
 
 i 252. Husband's seisin as a requisite of dower. 
 
 § 253. Kinds of property subject to dower. 
 
 J 254. Kinds of estates subject to dower. 
 
 ? 255. Dos de dote peti non debet. 
 
 § 256. Dower in equitable estates. 
 
 § 257. Dower in partnership estates. 
 
 1 258. Dower and otlier encumbrances — Priorities. 
 
 2 259. Dower and purchase money. 
 
 5 260, Dower in mortgaged property — How it exists. 
 
 5 261. Dower in mortgaged property — Redemption and foreclosure. 
 
 § 262. Dower before husband's death — Inchoate dower. 
 
 i 2ex Dower before assignment. 
 
 i 264. Assigned dower — Incidents of. 
 
 § 244. Meaning of the word "dower." — The word 
 "dower" means generally a certain estate of a wife in 
 the lands of her husband — dower at common law ; ' this 
 estate must be distinguished from a wife's estate as 
 heir.2 The word is applicable, .strictly, only to realty,^ 
 but in one case it stood .so connected in a will, that it 
 was !\eld to cover a share in personalty r.s avcII ;* so it 
 H. & w. — so.
 
 I 245 DOWER. 350 
 
 is made by statute to describe an estate in personalty.^ 
 It is applicable properly only to an estate of a wife ; ^ 
 but here again, statutes have changed its meaning and 
 made it cover an estate of a husband as well.' 
 
 1 Ouerin v. Moore, 25 Minn. -Ifi'J, 465 ; post. ? 246. 
 
 2 Sutherland, 69 111. 4S1, 489 ;-Stewart M. & D. f 457. 
 
 3 Hill V. Mitrhell, 5 Ark. 608, 6U. S. P., Travellers r. Nolanil, 97 
 Ind. 217; Davis, S6 Iowa, 24 ; Perkins v. Uttle, 1 Me. 148 ; Bracket! i-. 
 r.eighton, 7 Me. -183 ; Dow. :W Me. 211 ; Bryant v. McCune, 49 ifo. 516 ; 
 Lamar v. Scott, 3 .Strob. 562. 
 
 4 Woodbury r. Matliewson, 17 Fla. 778, 783 ; Adamson v. Ayres, 5 
 N. J. Eq. .•M9. 
 
 5 Ark. Dig. 1874, | 2230 ; Mo. R. S. 1879, i 2196. 
 
 6 Post, U 246, 247. 
 
 7 III. R. S. 1880, p. 425, i 1 ; Hurlemaa v. Hsizlett, 55 Iowa, 256. 
 
 ^ 245. Origin and history of dower. — The custom of 
 conferring un a widow for life a portion of her hu.sband's 
 lands, of allowing her dower, is so ancient that neither 
 Coke nor Blackstone could trace it to its source. * It is 
 said to have been of German origin, ^ also, to have been 
 brought into England by tlie Normans.^ It must be 
 distiuguislied from the dos of the civil law, still known 
 in Lousiana,* which consists of a portion brought to tlie 
 husband by the wife.^ At Hrst it may have consisted 
 of a gift of personal property from the husband to the 
 wife,*^ but it became later solely an interest in lands." 
 So, too, it was one fourth, one tenth, and one half, before 
 it became settled at one third for life.^ Tiiis result was 
 due to English statutes,^ wliicli, as a part of the common 
 law, were generally adopted in tlie United States. i" 
 But later statutes have much modified common-law 
 dower, both in England and the United States." Five 
 kinds of dower are named by Littleton, namely, dower 
 ad ostium ecclesiae, dower ex a.isen sii patris, dower by 
 the custom, dower de la pluis beale, and dower at com- 
 mon law ; 12 but only the last named has ever been 
 known in the United States." However obscure its
 
 351 DOWER. g 246 
 
 origin, its object has never been doubted, which was to 
 secure a means of support to th> widow andcliildren ; '* 
 audio further this object courts have always favored 
 the widows claim for dower '^ — life, liberty, and dower, 
 being the three things said to have been favored by the 
 common law.'^ 
 
 1 Hill V. Mitchell, 5 Ark. r>as, 610 ; Wright r. Jennings, 1 Bail. 277, 
 278 ; Combs v. Young, 4 Yerg. 218 ; 1 Scrlbuer Dow. ch. 1, j 1. 
 
 2 See l-Scribner Dow. ch. 1. 
 
 3 See citations supra, n. 1. 
 J De Young, 6 La. An. 786. 
 
 5 2 Blackst. Com. 12!) ; 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, S 4. 
 
 6 Wright's Ten. 191, 193 ; 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, 1 5. 
 
 7 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, J 7 ; post, I'i 253, 254. 
 
 8 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, ? 7. 
 
 9 See discussion in 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1. 
 
 10 Ante, i 6 ; discussed 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 2. 
 
 11 rost, J 247. 
 
 12 LitUeton, 8 51 ; 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, J 26. 
 
 13 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 1, 1 30. 
 
 14 Banks v. Sutton, 2 P. Wms. T02. 
 
 15 Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172, 173. S. P., Co. Litt. 124, 6; Banks v. Sutton, 
 2 P. Wms. 702 ; Meigs v. Dimock, 6 Conn. 462; Lasher, 13 Barb. 106 ; 
 Mahon v. Smith, 60 How. Pr. 385. 
 
 16 Bacon ou Stat of Uses, ed. 1642, pp. 31, 32 ; i Scribner Dow. ch. 
 1, ?33. 
 
 § 246. Dower at common law, defined. — Dower at com- 
 mon law is the life estate • of a wife ^ in one tliird ^ of 
 all the legal * estates of inheritance ^ of which her hus- 
 band is seized "at any time during coverture' of a sole,^ 
 beneficial,^ and immediate '" seisin, and which any issue 
 of theirs might directly '^ inherit. '^ This estate has 
 three stages,!"" namely : (1) Its inchoate stage, extending 
 from the time of the marriage or of the acquisition of 
 the property, to the death of the husband ; ^^ (2) Its 
 consummate stage, extending from the death of the 
 husband ; '^ (3) its assigned stage, extending from the 
 time it is set off to the widow. '^ This was the only
 
 g 247 DOWER. 352 
 
 marriage estate of a wife in her husband's realty known 
 to tlie common law. 
 
 1 See Orrlck v. Boehm, 49 Md. 72, 101 ; Brown v. Collins, 14 Ark. 
 421 ; post, i 2&4. 
 
 2 Brooke, 60 Md. 524, 533, 534 ; pnst, i 250. 
 
 3 Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202, 208 ; post, \\ 290-296. 
 
 4 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 113 ; post, I 2.5.5. 
 
 5 Bucheridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr. 663 ; post, \\ 25.3, 254. 
 
 6 Seisin discussed, post, \ 252. 
 
 7 Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 378 ; post, k 252. 
 
 8 Chew, 1 Md. 16;5, 172 ; post, \ 252. 
 
 9 McCauley v. Grimes, 2 Gill & J. 318, 324 ; post, \ 252. 
 
 10 I louston V. Smith, 8.8 X. C. 312, 313 ; iwst, i 252. 
 
 11 1 Scribner Dow. p. 228 ; Park Dow. 80. 
 
 12 Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch. 36, 38 ; post, 5 254. 
 
 13 Moore v. Major, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; Wait, 4 X. Y. 
 95, 'X). 
 
 14 Reiflf V. Horst, 55 Md 42, 47 ; lX)St, i 262. 
 
 15 Sutliffti. Forgey, 1 Cowen, 89, 96 ; post, ? 26.3. 
 
 16 Joyner v. Speed, 68 N. C. 236 ; post, ? 264. 
 
 § 247. Dower under tho statutes. — In California,' Col- 
 orado,'' Indiana,* lowa,^ Kan.sas,' Louisiana,^ Minne- 
 sota,' Mississippi,* Nevada,^ and Texas,'" common-law 
 dower has never existed, or lias been abolished, other 
 analogous estates existing in its place. In England," 
 Alabama,''^ Arkansas,'* Connecticut," Delaware,'^ Flor- 
 ida,'" Georgia," Illinois,'® Kentucky,'^ Maine,2o Mary- 
 land,-' Massachusetts, '^2 Michigan,^ Missouri,'-'* Nebras- 
 ka, ^^ New Hampshire,"^* New Jersey,'^ New York,''* 
 North Carolina,^ Ohio,*" Oregon,*' Pennsylvania,*' 
 Rhode Island,^ South Carolina,*' Tennessee,*^ Vir- 
 ginia,*" Vermont,*' West Virginia,** and Wisconsin,*^ 
 cominon-law dower exists in a more or less modified 
 form. In one or more of these latter States the statutes 
 make one or more of the following changes in common- 
 law dower : possession,*" or right of entry,*' is substi- 
 tuted for seisin ; the interest is made one half instead 
 of one third, *^ dower is given in personal property,** in
 
 353 DOWER. § 2i7' 
 
 leaseholds," in reniainders,^^ in equitable estates ;^^ is 
 limited to sucli proportj^ as the husband is seized of at 
 the time of his death/' or such as he has not disposed 
 of by deed oi- will;'^ modifications which are better 
 understood in connection with the discussions in the 
 following sections. 
 
 1 Cal. Civ. Code, 1S81, i 173 ; Beard v. Knox, 1 Cal. 252. 
 
 2 Colo. R. S. 1877, ? 1751. 
 S Ind. R. S. 18S1, ? 2483. 
 
 4 Iowa, R. S. 1880, ^ 2440. 
 
 5 Kan. R. S. 1871, J 2129. 
 
 6 La. C'lv. Code. arts. 2337, et seq. 
 
 7 Minn. R. S. 1878, p. ."2. 
 
 8 Miss. R. S. 1880, H 1170, 1171. 
 
 9 Nev. R. S. 1873, f 157. 
 
 10 Tex. R. S. 1S7!), H 2352, et seq. 
 
 11 3 and 4 William IV. ch. 105, ch. 27, ? 41 ; 7 and 8 Vict. ch. 66, ? 16 , 
 24 Vict. ch. 12(i, a 26, 27. 
 
 12 Ala. Code, 1876, J? 2232-2251 ; Irvine v. Armistead, 46 Ala. 363, 371. 
 
 13 Ark. Dig. 1874, ?? 2210-2243 ; McWhirter v. Roberts, 40 Ark. 283, 
 287 ; Webb );. Smith, 40 Ark. 17, 23. 
 
 14 Conn. R. S. 1875, pp. 376, 377. 
 
 15 Del. R. S. 1874, p. 53.3. 
 
 16 Fla. R. S. 1881, pp. 476-480. 
 
 17 Ga. R. C. 1878, U 176:W771, 4041-4048. 
 
 18 111. R. S. 1880, p. 425. 
 
 19 Ky. R. S. 1881, p. 527. 
 
 20 Me. R. S. 1871, p. 706. 
 
 21 Md. R. C. 1878, p. 397; Reiff v. Horst, o5 Md. 42, 47; Price v 
 Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 381. 
 
 22 Mass. P. S. 1&82, p. 740. 
 
 23 Mich. R. S. 1882, ? 573.3. 
 
 24 Mo. R. S. 1879, ii 2186-22-39, 3290. 
 
 25 Neb. R. S. 1881, pp. 212-215, 227, 254, 39.3. 
 
 26 N. H. R. .S. 1878, pp. 474, 475. 
 
 27 N. J. Rev. 1877, pp. 224, 298, 320-.324, 483, 124.5. 
 
 28 X. Y. R. S. 1882, pp. 2197, 2198. 
 
 2.) N. C. Bat. Rev. 1873, pp. 839, 844 ; Houston v. .Smith, 88 X. C. 312, 
 
 .30 Ohio R. S. 1880, ?J 4188-4194. 
 
 31 Oreg. G. L. 1872, pp. 584-587. 
 
 .32 Pa. Purd. Dig. 1876, pp. 55, 56, 529, .5.30 ; Davison, 95 Pa. St. 394. 
 
 33 R. I. R. S. 1.S.82 pp. 636-«40.
 
 gg 248-249 DOWER. 354 
 
 34 S. C.R. S. 1882, §§.1700-1804. 
 
 35 Tenn. R. S. 187S, §§ 2398-2410. 
 
 36 Va. Code, 1873, pp. 8.>i-«.56, 96'-. 
 
 37 Vt. R. S. 1880, §§ 2215-2220. 
 
 .^8 W. Va. R. S. 1879, pp. 408, 499 ; Thornbury, 18 W. Va. 522. 
 
 39 Wis. R. S. 1878, §? 21.59-2163. 
 
 40 Conn. R. S. 1875, p. 376, § 1. 
 
 41 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105, § 2. 
 
 42 Ala. Code, 1876, § 223.3. 
 
 43 Ark. Dig. 1874, § 22.30. 
 
 44 Mo. R. S. 1879, § 2186. 
 
 45 Ohio R. S. 1879, ? 2186. 
 
 46 III. R. S. 1880, p. 425, § 1 ; Md. R. C. 1878, p. 3S7, J 1. 
 
 47 Ga. R. C. 1878, ? 1763 ; Tenn. R. S. 1873, § 2398. 
 
 48 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105, § 4. 
 
 ? 248. Conflict of laws as to dower. — As a general rule, 
 the existence and incidents of dower are determined bj'^ 
 tlie law of the place where the lands lie,^ and by the 
 law in force at the time of the husband's death, if he 
 died seized,'^ and by that in force at the time of aliena- 
 tion if he had disposed of tlie property;^ for dower is 
 not the result of a contract, but is an institution of the 
 law.* 
 
 1 Newcomer v. Orem, 2 Md. 297, 305; 56 Am. Dec. 717; ante, \ 33. 
 S. P., Apperson %\ Bolton, 29 Ark. 418 ; Duncan v. Dick, Walk. (Miss.) 
 281 ; Lamar v. Scott, 3 Strob. 562. 
 
 2 Riddick v. Walsh, 15 Mo. 519, 5.38 ; ante, § 3.3. 8. P., Ware 
 V. Owens, 42 Ala. 212 ; Lucas t'. Sawyer, 17 Iowa, 517. Compare John- 
 son V. Van Dyke, 6 McLean, 422 ; Moore r. Kent, 37 Iowa, 20 ; 18 Am. 
 Rep. 1 ; Kemierly v. Missouri, 11 Mo. 204. 
 
 3 O'Farrell v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, .381 ; ICennerly v. Missouri, 11 Mo. 
 204. 
 
 4 Martin, 22 Ala. 86 ; Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37 ; Hisrsins r. Breen, 
 9 Mo. 497, 501; Moore >•. Mayor, 8 X. V. 110, 113; 59 Am. Dec. 473; 
 Norwood r. Morrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442. 4-50; Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio 
 St. 547 ; Melizet, 17 Pa. St. 449 ; 55 Am. Dec. 573. 
 
 I 249. Requisites of dower. — Two things are neces- 
 sary to tiie existence of inchoate dower — marriage and 
 seisin; I and three things to the consummation of the 
 right of dower — marriage, seisin, and death of hus- 
 band;"'' to the actual enjo^^ment of the estate, there is
 
 355 DOWER. g 250 
 
 one other requisite — assignment.^ Birtli of issue is 
 not a requisite ; * not even the possibility thereof is nec- 
 essary, and an impotent woman may liave dower ; ^ but 
 it is said that the woman must be old enough to con- 
 ceive before her husband's death,^ though no matter 
 how old she is at tlie time of marriage, she may have 
 dower.'' Nor is residence,® or citizenshii),' any longer, 
 in general, a requisite of dower. 
 
 1 Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 0:3, 6J0 ; Price v. Hobbs, -JT Md. .S59, 
 .■>«I ; ante, i 246 ; post, i 262. 
 
 2 King, 61 Ala. 479, 481 ; Stevens v. Smith, 4 Marsh. J. .T. 64 ; 20 Am. 
 Dec. 206 ; Wait, 4 N. Y. 95, yj ; 1 Greeiil. Cruise, 154 ; ante, i 246 ; post, 
 «263. 
 
 3 Moore v. Maj-or,8 >'. Y. i:0, 113, lU ; 5J Am. Dec. 47:! ; (inte, 5 240 ; 
 2>ost, U -W, 28;J-a(J0. 
 
 4 1 Scribner Dow. 22X 
 
 5 1 Scribner Dow. 223. 
 
 Park Dow. 81 ; I Scribner Dow. 220. 
 
 7 2 Blackst Com. 101 ; Co. Litt. 40 a. 
 
 8 Pratt V. Tefft, 14 Mich. 131, 108. See Sewall v. Lee, 9 Mass. 303. 
 
 9 See Vict. ch. 14 ? 2 ; Sharp v. St. Sauveur, Law R. 7 Ch. 343 ; 
 Congregational ti. Morris, 8 Ala. 182 ; I'^theridge v. Malempre, 18 Ala. 
 565 ; Forrester, 39 Ala. 320 ; Ark. Dig. 1874, ^ 2211 ; Sistare, 2 Root, 468 ; 
 Whiting V. Stevens, 4 Conn. 44 ; Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458 ; III. 
 R. S. 1880, p. 425, 2 2 ; State v. Black nio, 8 Blackf. 246 ; Eldon v. Doe, 
 6 Blackf. .'m ; Alsberry v. Hawkins, 9 Dana, 177; 33 Am. Dec. 546 ; 
 Moore v. Tisdale, 5 Mon. B. 3.52 ; Mussey v. Pierce, 24 Me. 5.59 ; Potter 
 V. 'I1tcomb,22 Me. 539 ; Buchanan v. Deshon, 1 Har. & a. 280 ; Sewall 
 V. Lee, 9 Mass. 363 ; Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass. 143 ; Foss v. Crips, 20 
 Pick. 121 ; Piper v. Richardson, 9 Met. 155 ; Mich. R. S. 1882, ? 5753 ; 
 Stokes V. Fallon, 2 Mo. 32 ; Colgan v. McKeown, 4 Zab. 566 ; Sutliff d. 
 Forgey, 1 Cowen. 83; 5 Cowen, 713; Priest i\ Cummings, 16 Wend. 
 617; 20 Wend. 3:^8; Burton, 26 How. Pr. 474 ; 1 Abb. App. Dec. 271 ; 
 Hall, 82 N. Y. 130; Reese v. Waters, 4 Watts & S. 145; Benuet v. 
 Harris, 51 Wis. 251 ; 1 Scribner Dow. eh. 9. 
 
 1 250. Marriage as a requisito of dower. — The woman 
 must be the lawful wife of the man in whose proi^erty 
 she claims dower ; ^ and, in the absence of statute" she 
 must be his wife at the time of his deatli.^ Some author- 
 ities seem to hold that the marriage must be not only 
 valid,^ but legal and solemnized in facie ccclesicp as 
 well.' But in the United States, at least, a valid mar- 
 riage makes tlie j^arties husband and wife to all intents 
 and purposes,^ and a marriage by consent — per verba
 
 g 251 DOWER. 366 
 
 de prcesenti — if valid, is sufficient to give dow^er;^ the 
 fact that her husband has refused to consummate the 
 marriage makes no difference.^ Nor does it affect her 
 right that the marriage took place in some other State 
 or country.^" In suits respecting dower rights, mar- 
 riage may be proved as in other civil cases," by cohab- 
 itation and repute.i^ If the marriage is voidable and 
 not avoided, dower exists ; '^ but a void marriage cannot 
 give dower. I' In a case in Kentuckj^ whore a married 
 man had imposed on a woman and had married her, 
 and dower had been allotted her, his heirs were not 
 allowed in equity to deprive her thereof.'' 
 
 1 Park Dow. 7 ; Coke Litt. 31 a ; 1 Roper H. & W. XiS ; 1 Scribiier 
 Dow. ch. 3 ; Jones, 28 Ark. 19, 21 ; Denton r. Nanny, 8 Barb. (US, 620 ; 
 Moore V. Mayor, 8 X. Y. 110, 114 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473. 
 
 2 Allowing dowor on divorce : Stewart JI. «t D. { 41G,; jxtst { 262. 
 
 3 McCraney, 5 Iowa, 232, 250 ; Stewart M. & D. I 44(i. 
 
 4 Valid and legal distinguished : Stewart M. & D. U 5, 49, 152. 
 
 5 Shelford M. & D. 35, 3r. ; 2 Kent. Com. 87, n. n; Dalrymple. 2 
 Hagg. Con. 54, Ci ; 1 Scribner Dow. ch. G. 
 
 6 See 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 6, J 12. 
 
 7 Pearson v. Ilowey, G Halst. 12, 13,21 ; Stewart 31. & D. J 86. 
 
 S Adams, 57 Miss. 267, 2GS ; Donnellv, S Mon. B. 113 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. J 88. 
 
 9 Brooke, fiO Md. 524, &U ; Stewart 31. & D. ? 104. 
 10 Ilderton, Black. H. 145; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 114; 5.1 
 Am. Dec. 473. 
 
 n Jones, 28 Ark. 19, 22, 25, 26 ; Stewart M. & D. ? 136. 
 
 12 Carter v. Parker, 23 Me. 509, 510; Stewart M. & D. H 132, 136. 
 
 13 Higgins V. Breen, 9 Mo. 497, 501 ; Litt. J 36; 1 Greonl. Crnise, \M : 
 1 Scribner Dow. cli. 8. 
 
 14 Higgings V. Breen, 9 Mo. 497, .501. S. P., Jenkins, 2 Dsuia. 102 ; 
 26 Am. Dec. 437 ; Smart v. Whaley, 6 Smedes & M. 30e ; 1 Scribner 
 Dow. ch. 7, § 3. 
 
 15 Donnelly, 8 Mon. B. 113. 
 
 g 251. Husband's death as a requisite of dower. — The 
 husband's death must occur before that of the wife in 
 order that her right of dower maj' be consummate,' 
 vested,'- absolute.^ And it must be a natural death ; 
 civil death does not give dower,* nor is an absolute 
 divorce the equivalent of death in this connection.^
 
 357 DOWER. g 252 
 
 His death may be presumed from his long absence,^ 
 and may be i^roved in the usual ways^ — for example, 
 by reputation in the family.* 
 
 1 ' Utt. § 36 ; Park Dow. 247 ; Wait, 4 N. Y. 9o, 93 ; nnfe, I 243 ; post, 
 
 1 2g:{. 
 
 2 Thornbury, 18 W. Va. 522 ; post, U 263, 264. 
 
 3 SutUff i>. Forgey, 1 Cowen, so, 96 ; post, U 203, 264. 
 
 4 Woolbridge v. Lucas, 7 Mon. B. 49, 51. See Litt. 33 6, 1.32 6 ; 
 Plainer v. hherwood, 6 Johns. Ch. 129 ; 1 Scribuer Dow. 650 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. J 175. 
 
 5 Stewart M. & D. § 446. 
 
 6 .Stewart M. ifc D. H"^- See Foulks r. Rhea, 7 Bush, 568 ; Woods, 
 
 2 Bay, 476. 
 
 7 See Moors v. De Bervales, 1 Russ. 300 ; iXewmau v. Jenkins, 10 
 Pifli. 515. 
 
 8 Cochrane v. Libby, 18 Me. .39, 42. 
 
 I 252. Tho husband's seisin as a requisite of dower. — 
 The husband must be seized of propcrtj^ before any 
 dower rights can attach thereto. ' This rule was very 
 strictly enforced at common law.- A mere right of 
 entiy into land held by another under claim of title 
 Avas not enough,^ nor was a judgment before execu- 
 tion,* though this has been changed in England 15y 
 .statute,* and perhaps in this country by construction ,6 
 actual ownership being equivalent to seisin.' The rule 
 as to technical seisin does not aiiplj'^to incorporeal here- 
 ditaments.8 Seisin in law is as effective as seisin in 
 fact or deed, to give dower.* Possession under a war- 
 ranty deed is prima facie evidence of seisin ;'" and the 
 deed under whicli land is held need not be recorded to 
 give seisin," except, perhaps, where there is no dower 
 in equitable estates,'^ and under the terms of certain 
 registry acts, as against bona fide creditors and pur- 
 chasers ; '* nor is one seized of land which he has con- 
 vej'ed aAvay by an unrecorded deed,^* or by a deed 
 which is fraudulent as against creditors, such deed 
 being merely voidable by them.'^ Wrongful seisin is 
 sufficient to give the wife dower as against her hus-
 
 g 252 DOWER. 3.53 
 
 band'a heirs and assigns. '<' The seisin must be benefi- 
 cial,'^ the husband must be seized for his own use.'" 
 A wife has no dower in lands held by her husband as 
 administrator '9 or trustee;^ but if really beneficial, it 
 makes no difl'erenee how short a time it lasts ;2i still if 
 in one transaction, though by diflferent deeds, the title 
 passes in and out of tlie husband, as when property is 
 purchased and a mortgage is given for the p?irchase 
 money, ^^ the seisin is merely transitory and no light to 
 dower attaches,-' even though there be considerable 
 delay before the execution of the retransfer,^' and 
 though this be made to a third party.^ The seisin 
 must be sole ; ^ there is no dower in joint estates," 
 though tliere is in estates in common^ and in coparce- 
 nary;"* but if the joint estate is destroyed by any 
 other means than the husband's assignment,^" dower 
 attaches.31 The husband must have the immediate 
 seisin of the inheritance ; ''^ it will not suflSce, for exam- 
 ple, if he is seized of a life estate and is entitled to the 
 inheritance after another life estate ;'' there is no dower 
 in reversions and remainders after a freehold estate.'* 
 The seisin nxust exist at some time during the cover- 
 ture ;'* but it need not, except by statute,'^ exist at the 
 time of his deatli ;'^ it is sufficient thougli he part with it 
 on the day of his marriage immediately after the cere- 
 mony ; ^" biit if he give a bond of conveyance before 
 marriage and convey in accordance therewith after the 
 marriage, tlie second convej^ance dates back to the time 
 of the bond, and there is no dower ;"" nor is it sufficient 
 if he is seized after a divorce a vinculo.*^ 
 
 1 Houston I'. Smith, 88 N. C. 312, 313. S. P., Butler v. Cheatham, 8 
 Bush, 5iW ; Atwootl, 22 Pick. 283; Duranclo, 23 N. Y. 331 ; Leach, 21 
 Hun, 381 ; Poor r. Horton, 15 Barb. 4*5 ; Galbraith 7'. Greene, 13 Serg. 
 & R. 85 ; Pretts v. Richey, 29 Pa. St. 71 ; ante, ? 249. 
 
 2 1 Scribiier Dow. 249 ; Park Dow. 24. 
 
 3 Wlnnlni^ton, 2 Cold. 59, 60 ; Thompson, 1 Jones, 430,- 431 ; Beards- 
 lee, 5 Barb. 3:24 ; Perkuis, JJ 366-369 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 255-25".
 
 359 DOWER. 1 252 
 
 4 Witham v. Lewis, 1 AVils. 48, 55 ; Shelley, 4 Brown Pail. C. 510 ; 
 Park Dow. 26 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 257. 
 
 5 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105, J 2 ; ante. | 247. 
 
 6 See Borland v. Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308, 313. 
 
 7 McClure v. Harris, 12 ilou. B. 261, 206 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. 
 & R. 18, 21. 
 
 8 1 Seiibner DOW. 267. 
 
 9 Stevens v. Smith, 4 Marsh. J. J. 64, 65 ; 20 Am. Dec. 205. S. P., 
 Green v. Siter, 8 Cranch, 247 ; Bowen v. Collins, 15 Ga. 100 ; Denis, 7 
 Blackf. 572 ; Moun v. Edson, 39 Me. 25 ; Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172 ; Atwood, 
 22 Pick. 2».J; Green v. Chelsea, 24 Pick. 78; W^ure ik Washington, 6 
 Sniedesife M. 737; Houston v. Smith, 88 N. C. 312, 313; Borland v. 
 Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308 ; Welch v. Buckins, 9 Ohio St. 331 ; Secrest v. 
 McKenna, 6 Rich. Kq. 72. Compare Cubtesy, ante, i 155. 
 
 10 Wheeler v. Smith, 50 Mich. 93, 94. 
 
 n Picketti'. Lyles, 5S. C. 275, 278. S. P., Kirby v. Vantree, 26 Ark. 
 368,370; Sulton t'. Jervis, 31 Iiul. 265, 2(i8 ; Johnston v. Miller, 40 Ind. 
 376 ; 17 Am. Rep. 699; Tyson v. Harrington, 6 Ired. Eq. 329, 332. 
 
 12 See Kirby v. Vantree, 26 Ark. 368, 370 ; post, I 255. 
 
 13 Stribling v. Ross, 16 111. 122, 124 ; Talbot v. Armstrong, 14 Ind. 
 254, 256. 
 
 14 Blood, 23 Pick. 80, 84 ; Thomas, 10 Ired. 123, 124 ; Norwood v. 
 Morrow, 4 Dev. <fe B. 442, 419 ; Chester v. Greer, 5 Humph. 26, :». 
 
 15 King, 61 Ala. 479, 481 ; Withed v. Mallory, 4 Cush. 138, 140. 
 
 16 Toomey II.. McLean,. 105 Mass. 122 ; Randolph r. Doss, 3 How. 
 (Miss.) 205 ; Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 293; 5 Am. Dec. 22j; 
 Park Dow. 37 ; 1 Scribuer Dow. 268. 
 
 17 Johnson v. Plume, 77 Ind. 166, 171 ; McCauley v. Grimes, 2 Gill 
 & J. 318, 325 ; 20 Am. Dec. 4.34. 
 
 18 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 114. 
 
 19 Tillman v. Spann, 68 Ala. 102, 106. 
 
 20 Cowman v. Hall, 3 Gni & J. 398, 405. 
 
 21 Boughton v. Randall, Noy, 64; Sutherland, 69 III. 481, 486; 
 Johnson v. Plume, 77 Ind. 166, 171 ; Stanwood v. Dunnmg, 14 Me. 290, 
 294 ; McCauley v. Grimes, 3 Gill & J. 318, 324; 20 Am. Dec. 4:J4 ; Raw- 
 lings V. Lowndes, 34 Md. 639, 646 ; Smith v. McCarty, 119 Mass. 519, 520. 
 
 22 Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. 552, 5-38 ; post, U 259-261. 
 
 23 Johnson r. Plume, 77 Ind. 166, 171 ; McClure v. Harris, 12 Mon. 
 B. 261, 266 ; Gully v. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 114 ; Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101, 
 103 ; Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580, 605, 609 ; Rawlings v. Lowndes, 34 Md. 
 639, 613 ; Holbrook v. Finney, 4 Mas.s. 566, 569 ; 3 Am. Dec. 243 ; Clark 
 V. Monroe, 14 Mass. 3.52; Fontaine v. Boatmen's 57 Mo. 552, 558; 
 Moore V. Esty, 5 N. H. 479 ; Stow v. Tifft, 15 Johns. 4.59 ; 8 Am. Dec. 
 266 ; Gilbain v. Moore, 4 Leigh, 30, 32 ; 24 Am. Dec. 704 ; jwst, ?? 2.59, 
 260. 
 
 24 Whea tley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, 274 ; 37 Am. Dec. 654 ; post, 
 li 259, 260. 
 
 25 Glenn r. Clark, 53 Md. 580, 605, 606 ; post, H 259, 260. 
 
 26 Maybury v. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, 37; Cockerill v. Armstrong, 31 
 Ark. 580, 584 ; Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172. 
 
 27 Mavburyr. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, .37. S. P., Cockerill n. Armstrong, 
 31 Ark. 580, 584 ; Davis v. Logan, 9 Dana, 186; Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172 ;
 
 ; 2o3 BO-STER. 36C» 
 
 Holbrook r. Rjuic-t, 4 Mnss. 596: 3 Am. I>ec. 5C : Weir r. Tate. -5 
 Ir^:-d. E-q- 3&* ? Tobbe r. ViTseman, 2 CMiio St 3lC ; Walker, 6 CokL 5n : 
 
 -> l>e r. liadfcll, 22 Ifo. 202, aot S- P., Snnon r. lUdfe, 3 Lev. &4 : 
 
 K — .tl! ■ K"-— i- -- ^-^ 'rt E--^ - ^\"!:!=^!::. =•» Oa. 2« ; Bauk - . 
 - _ - - : " " - r. a Me. 412: 
 
 ^. 1 Md. KB. 
 - =« Miss. -^41: 
 
 _..,._ ._..:. .. ..^^-:- _ . » ;„. .i I'^ige, 653: 
 
 •} i ->fi<, -ii-j ; V, ..»..^ijuii t . Lrjogscrc^t, -i JUi^riis, 4(l§ ; Hodson r. 
 - . : - . f K. I. i'>i ; pi*?, j 2*1. 
 Jr C "new, 1 Aid. 163, 172 ; cases tupra. n. 2S. 
 
 10 1 S'CTibner Do^w. 337. AsiB-hea sratnte tAk'^ away nght of ?iir- 
 vTvorship : L»iiVis r. L<ocan, S< Daiia. 1>5 : Hoior « 'k r. Finne.r, 4 Miiss. 
 ■>« : Z Am. iK-c. --i-" : J^tur-3 r. iCaran. 6 Sojt-dts & M. 3S3 : AV<rlr r. 
 Tate, 4 Ire<L !>}. a>l ; E^rrd r. Kennedy, 2 btrob. 67. 
 
 31 XoT hy hnsband's assjsninent : CockeriU r. Armstrong, SI Ark. 
 '.y- '■ r ■ M yrjiiry r. Ericu, 15 Peters, il, i7. 
 
 ~ • -rr Dow. 22 : F^rk Dow. 56 : Jackson r. Jacob, U Bush. 
 '. o ifnich. l>j ; l.:-ech, £1 Hn.a, asi ; BeardsJc^.o Barb. 
 - . ij^.,.^ V. Jacksoa, 50 >'. T. 16i; T-nleer, 3 Tenn. Ch. 3 ; po?f. 
 ; :.:^ 
 
 5? Houston r. Smith, ss ?r. c. 312, 313L See Bates, 1 Raym. Ld. 336: 
 V — y.-nt r. Whipp. r^Mon. B. Co ; Eldredge r. KorresuU.7i£ass.25:i; 
 . Eastman. 5 Zf . H. 2i0 ; Dnnham r. Osbom, 1 Paige, 6S4 ; 
 ... SL 
 
 -- _ . c...:,v i; X- f •!;• - ■=; P., Robinson r. Codman. 
 
 •4: Dunham r. Angier. 
 - - - : Bruoks r. Everett. 13 
 
 •S"7 ; (jibbous r. Britte- 
 luu.., ,>i ili^-^. :;-:::; 0:ii . V^<-.'i7. ;. >:. K. 4^$ : H*k r. Eastman, h 
 X. li. 240 : Green r. patnam. 1 P.arb. ."O.i : House r. Jackson, .50 N. Y. 
 11': r>-rh:.Tri . O;"^ r-. \ I«:i:? . ~'J : Weir r. Humphries. 4 Ired. 
 r :* " ' ' ■ - . Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 
 
 1 Head, M% ; Vanleer. 3 
 - - ; po*f, \ 254. Except by 
 
 35 Kade r. Lanlier, 16 Abb. Pr. 2f . S. 287 ; 43 How. Pr. 382 ; ante, 
 
 36 Norwood r. Morrow, 4 Dev. <t E. 447, 445 ; Chester r. Greer, -5 
 Humplu 2ti, iO; ante, 5"41i. 
 
 37 Price r. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 37S. 
 
 3S Sfwart. 3 Marsh. J. J. 4%, 49. If marriage and assignment took 
 pJuce the Slime duv, court prestunes, in absence of proof, that mar- 
 riage touic place first : Stewart, 3 Marsh. J. J. 45, 4'J. 
 
 Zi Golly r. P^y, 13 Mon. B. 107, 113 ; Eawlings r. Adams, 7 Md. 
 27, iH. 
 
 -» Kide r. Lanber. 16 App. Pr. X. S. 2S7 : 4S How. I>r. 3S2. 
 
 ; 253. The kinds of property subject to dower. — Dower 
 attaches to all herediiaaients, corporeal or incorporeal, 
 which savor of the realty.' Thu.s, dower may be allowed 
 in land.s and tenements ;- in a manor ; ^ in an advowson,
 
 361 DOWER. \ 253 
 
 in gross or appendant ;* in tithes, pensions, and eccle- 
 siastical benefits from the crown ; * in a rent service, rent 
 charge, or rent seek;* in a common certain, gross or 
 appendant;^ (but it seems, in things appendant, only 
 if endowed of the thing to which they are ai?pendant ;^) 
 in franchises, parcel of an honor ;3 in a piscary , i'' offi- 
 ces,^' a fair.i- a marke;.^ a dove house," a mili.i^ a 
 ferry, 1* courts, fines, and heriors,'" and estovers.'* So 
 dower attaches to such mines as are opened by the 
 husband.'^ or by his heirs before the assignment,^ and 
 this, not only to the extent they have been opened, but 
 to their full extent ; ■^ whether, too, they have been 
 abandoned or closed, or not ; ■" but she cannot open 
 mines,^ this would be waste.-' So, she ha, dower of 
 such turpentine trees as her husband has boxed and of 
 enough others to keep up the same number.^ In some 
 States statutes deny dower in .^"ild lands ;^ and it has 
 been held that even at common law there would have 
 been no dower in such lands. ^ because it would be 
 v.aste to cut the trees,* and there would be no rents 
 and profits otherwise ;-^ but in many cases it has been 
 held not waste to clear wild lands, and dower has 
 accordingly been allowed in theni.^ But lands con- 
 nected with a dwelling,^' or used for pasture,^- or culti- 
 vated at all.^ are not wild lands. Dower attaches to 
 land covered with water, as there can be no waste of 
 such lands.^* But there is no dower in the use of sur- 
 plus water of a river for hydraulic jjurposes.^ Shares 
 in corporations are genei-ally deemed personalty,** and 
 no dower is allowed therein ;^" but in some cases, 
 whether on tlie ground that the corporate lands were 
 vested in the individual shareliolders and the corpora- 
 tion merely managed them, or on other grounds, dower 
 has been allowed in them as in realty.^ So there is no 
 dower in auuuities, unless they are charged on laiid.^ 
 H. <t w. — 31.
 
 I 253 DOWER. 362 
 
 Formerly there was dower in slaves, by statute. ^'^ 
 There is no dower in grass, fruits, and spontaneous 
 productions of the soil growing at time of liusband's 
 death.^' In the next section will be discussed wliai 
 estate the husband must have in these A'arious kinds 
 of property in order that the wife may liave dower 
 therein. 
 
 1 Buckenridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr. 652, 604 : Conner v. Shepherd, 
 ].') Mass. 164, 167; 1 Scribner Dow. pp. 198, et seq. ; Park Dow. 110-112 ; 
 nnte, i 244, n. 3. Sf»e Hudson v. Steere, 9 R. I. 106; Leach, 21 Hun, 
 381 ; Gorham v. Daniels, 23 Vt. 611. 
 
 2 Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 409 ; Litt. ? 36. 
 
 3 Bragg, Godb. 135 ; Gould-s. 37. 
 
 4 Howard v. Cavendish, Cro. Jac. 621 ; Co. Litt. 32 a. 
 
 5 Thynn, Style, 99 ; Co. Litt. 159 a, 32 a. See Ebey, 1 Wash. 216. 
 
 6 Perkins, ?? 345, 347. See Stoughton v. Leigh, 1 Taunt, 402 ; Her- 
 bert 1'. Wren, 7 Cranch, .370; Boyd r. Hunter, 44 Ala. 705; Chase, 1 
 Bland, 200, 225, 226 ; 1 Scribner Dow. pp. 373 et seq. 
 
 7 Perkins, ? 342 ; Fitzh. N. B. 148. 
 
 8 Park Dow. 114, 115. 
 
 9 Howard v. Cavendish, Cro. Jac. 622. 
 
 10 Bracton, 98, 208 ; Co. Litt. 32 n. 
 
 11 Style Pr. Reg. 122 ; Fitzh. N. B. 18, 149. 
 
 12 Co. Litt. .32 n ; Fitzh. X. B. 8 (K) n. 
 
 13 Gilbert Uses, 371. Compare Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24. 
 
 14 Co. Litt. 32 a. 
 
 15 Perkins, § 342 ; Gilbert Uses, 371. Compare Beaver.s v. Smith, 11 
 Ala. 20. 
 
 16 Stevens, 3 Dana, .371, 373. 
 
 17 Co. Litt. 32 a. 
 
 18 Perkins, ?? ^\, 343. 
 
 19 Hoby, 1 Vern. 218 ; Stoughton r. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 402 ; Quaring- 
 ton V. Arthur, 10 Mees. & W. 3;i5 ; King v. Dunsford, 2 Ad. & E. 568, 
 593. 
 
 20 Lenfers t'. Heake, 73 111. 405 ; 24 Am. Rep. 263. 
 
 21 Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493, 494 ; Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. 4fii>: 
 20 Am. Dec. <yV-\: Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. 1.S4;'8 Am. Dec. 733; 
 Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. 258 ; 10 Am. Dec. 528. 
 
 22 Coates r. Choevcr, 1 Cowon,460. 
 
 23 1 Scribner Dow. 205 ; I'ark Dow. 117-120. 
 
 24 King ti. I)unsford, 2 Ad. & E. .568, .573 ; ijost, § 264. 
 
 25 Carr, 4 Dev. & B. 179. 
 
 26 Me. R. S. 1871, ? 2 ; Mags. P. S. 1882, p. 741, ? 4 ; ante, ? 247. 
 
 27 Conner v. Shepherd, 15 Ma.ss. 164, 167 ; Webb v. Townsend, I 
 Pick. 21 ; 11 Am. Dec. 132.
 
 333 DOWEU. g 264 
 
 2S Allen V. MoCoy, 8 Ohio. 418, -13! ; jjo.s/, 2 :G4. 
 
 2tf Conner v. ShepJicnl, 15 Mass. lC-1, 167. 
 
 :« Allen V. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 418, 464. See 1 Scrlbner Dow. 214 ; Pike 
 V. Uuderliill, .4 ArU. 1-4 ; Cliapman v. Shroeder, 10 G;i. :i-l ; Schaebly, 
 20 111. 116; HicKiUiiii v. Irvine, .i Dana, 121; Campbell, J Doug. Hi ; 
 Brown v. Kicbards, 17 N. J. Eq. Si; Jackson r. tSellick, % Johns. 26- ; 
 Jaciison r. Biowuson, 7 Johns. 227; 5 Am. Dee. 2.5 S ; Walker i'. 
 .Sjnuyier, 10 Wend. 480; Joyner v. Speed, 6S ^f. C. 2.^(1; Hastings i'. 
 C'runckleton, S YeatL-s, 261; Wilson c. .Smith, o Yerg. :.7;»; Owen v. 
 Hyde, 6 Yerg. 3a4 ; 28 Am. Dec. 4U7 ; Mndlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. 134 ; 
 s Am. Dec. 733. 
 
 31 Shattuck V. Grey, 23 Pick. 8R, 92 ; White v. Willis, 7 Pick. 1!I3. 
 
 C2 Demham i'. Angler, 20 Me. 242, 240 ; Moslicr, 15 Me. ."71. 
 
 3.{ Stevens v. Perley, 24 Me. 94 ; Johnson v. Perley, 2 2\. H. 56 ; 9 
 Am. Dec. 35. 
 
 34 Brackett v. Unknown, 53 Me. 238, 246. 
 
 35 Kingman v. Sparrow, 12 Barb. 201, 20J. 
 
 36 Boone Corporations, J 105 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 214. 
 
 37 Weekly, 2 Younge, & C. 281 ; Johns, 1 Ohio St. 3.W, 331. S. P., 
 Bradley v. Holsworth, 3 Mees. & W. 42:; ; Knigbt v. Barber, Ifi Mees. 
 <te W. 66; Wiitsun r. .spratley, 28 Eng. iV; 1.. Eq. 507 ; Planters' v. 
 Merchants', 4 Ala. 75:f ; McDougal v. Hepijuni, r, Fla. 5(!S ; Knssell v. 
 Temple, 3 Dane Abr. 108, i'i 2-6; Tipptts i:. Walker, 4 Mass. 596; 
 Howe V. Starkweather, 17 Mass. 243 ; Tisdale v. Harris, 2u Pick. 9 ; 
 Hutchins c. Stiite, 12 Met. 421; Denton v. Livingstoji, !i Johns. 96; 
 6 Am. Dec. 264 ; Heart r. State, 2 Dev. Ch. Ill ; Staymaker v. Gettvs- 
 burg, 10 Pa. St. 373 ; Gilpin v. Howell, 5 Pa. St. .'.7 ; 14 Am. Dec. 720 ; 
 Arnold V. Buggies, 1 K. I. 165 ; Brightvvell v Mallory, 10 Yerg. 196. 
 
 38 Drybutter v. Bartholemew, 2 P. Wms. 127; Townsend v. Ash, 
 3 Atk. 3;*, 337, 338; Bligh v. Brent, 2 Younge & C. 268 294, 295 ; Welles 
 V. Cowles, 2 Conn. 567 ; 4 Conn. 182; 10 Am. Dec. 115; Copeland, 7 
 Bush, ;{49, 351 ; Price, 6 Dana, 107; 34 Am. Dec. 608 ; Binney, 2 Bland, 
 99, 145, 146; Cape Sable, 3 Bland, 6.56, 670; Hurst v. Meesoii, 4 Watts, 
 346. 
 
 .39 Robinson v. Townshend, 3 Gill & J. 413. 
 
 40 1 Scribner Dow. pp. 224-226. 
 
 41 Ralston, 3 Iowa, 533 ; Kain v. Fisher, 6 N. Y. 597. 
 
 I 254. Kinds of estates subject to dower. — Ab.soiute 
 fee-.simple estates are subject to dower.i So are estates 
 tail, except in the case of a fee-tail special if the 
 wife's issue is excluded ; ^ but fee-tail estates are gen- 
 erally abolished in the United States and the first donee 
 is given either a life estate or an estate in fee simple ;^ 
 in the latter case his wife has dower,* but not in the 
 former.^ A condition annexed to an estate in fee, that 
 it shall not be subject to dovver, is repugnant and void 
 at common law,*^ but this has been changed by Statute
 
 g 2a4 DOWER. 364 
 
 in England.' If one esta'Le in fee is exchanged for an- 
 other estate in fee, the widow must, both at common 
 law 8 and by statute,^ elect to take dower in either the 
 original or tlie exchanged estate, she cannot have dower 
 in both ; but tliere must have been a teclinical ex- 
 change : the estates mvist have been of tlie same quan- 
 tity,i° and the deed must liave been one of excliange ; " 
 for, wliere A and B exchanged lands by two ordinary 
 deeds, A's widow was allowed dower in both proper- 
 ties,!- but the properties need not have been of the same 
 value. 1^ Determinable fees are generally subject to 
 dower," excej^t tliat if the estate determines before the 
 husband's death dower does not become consummate 
 at all.'^ More particularly, if tlie estate determines by 
 natural limitation, the wife has dower as if it had not 
 determined at all,^^ as where tlie estate escheats to tlie 
 State for want of heirs, tlie wife continues tlie husband's 
 holding and has her dower.i' If it is determined by 
 the entry of one who has a superior title, dower deter- 
 mines too.*" When a base or qualified fee ceases, so 
 does dower.^9 If the estate is determinable under a 
 power of appointment, dower ceases if tlie power is 
 exercised, otherwise not.-" (Of course there is no dower 
 at all in a mere life estate, though the power of appoint- 
 ing the fee be annexed.'-') If the estate be conditional, 
 and be determined by entry for forfeiture, dower is de- 
 stroyed.^^ If the estate is determinable under collat- 
 eral limitations, dower is determined when the event 
 hapiseiis.'^ Whether an estate determinable under a 
 conditional limitation or by an executory devise, con- 
 tinues subject to dower after it has determined, is dis- 
 puted, though the weight of opinion seems to be that it 
 does."* Estates in remainder or reversion expectant on 
 a freehold are not subject to dower,^ except by stat- 
 ute, '^"^ but if expectant on a leasehold, they are ; " if,
 
 365 DOWER. § 234 
 
 however, the precedent estate determines during cover- 
 ture while the liusband has tlie inlieritance, inchoate 
 dower at once arises ; '■^^ if the intervening estate is 
 merely a contingent remainder, dower attaches but is 
 defeated if the remainder vests. "^ Hence there can 
 be no dower in lands assigned for dower .^° Estates in 
 common 31 and in coi^arcenary •"'' are subject to dower, 
 but joint estates are not,^^ There is no dower in trust 
 estates,** or in equitable estates at common law,*^ or in 
 partnersliip estates,*^ or in life estal;e3, whether for the 
 life of the tenant*^ or pw?" autre vie,^^ or in estates at 
 will,"^ or in estates for years,'" except by statute,'*^ or 
 an estate of iire-emi^tion.'^ 
 
 1 Conner v. Slipphord, 15 Mass. 1G4, 1C7 ; Steveus v. Owen, 25 Me. 
 iM ; 1 Soribiier Dow. 2sl. 
 
 2 Chew, 1 Md. lO'?. 172 ; Spanglcr v. Stanler. 1 Md. Ch. o6, 33 ; 
 Smitii, 2J Pa. St. y ; ante, '^ 246 ; 1 iScribner Dow. 227, 281. 
 
 3 See discus.sion, 1 .Scribner Dow. 281, 282. 
 
 4 Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172 ; Kennedy, 23 X. J. L. 185 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 5 Buriss v. Page, 12 Mo. 353 ; infra, n. C7. 
 G Mildmaj', 6 Coke, 41 a. ; Co. Litt. 424 a. 
 
 7 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105, ? C. 
 
 8 Butler, 3 Leon, 271 ; Park Dow. 201 ; Perkins, g 319 ; Co. Litt. 
 31 6. 
 
 9 Ark. Dig. 1874, U 2112-2114 ; III. R. S. ISSO, p. 427, ? 17 ; Mich. R. S. 
 )Sil, I TM ; N. Y. R. .S. 1882, p. 211)7, ^ 3 ; (Stevens r. Smith, 4 Marsh. J. .7. 
 C4 ; 2U Am. Dec. 2U5 ; Mahoney v. Young, 3 Dana, .588 ; 28 Am. Dec. 114. 
 
 10 Wilco.x V. Randall, 7 Barb. 633 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 284. 
 
 11 Cass i\ Thompson, 1 X. H. 65, 67 ; 8 Am. Dec. 30. 
 
 12 Cass V. Thompson, 1 N. H. 65, 67 ; S Am. Dec. 36. 
 
 13 1 Scribner Dow. 284. 
 
 14 Wash. Real. Prop. 131, 208 ; infra, notes 16, et seq. 
 
 15 1 Scribner Dow. 320. 
 
 16 Park Dow. 157 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 286 ; Northcutt v. Wliipp, 12 
 Mon. B. 73 ; Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. Y. 31)4 ; Fowler v. Cirilnn, 3 
 Sand. 385. 
 
 17 Park Dow. 1.58 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 237. 
 
 18 Countess v. Vanloro, Winch, 77 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 230. 
 
 19 5I.achcll }\ Clark, 2 Raym. 778 ; 2 Salk. 619 ; Whiting. 4 Conn. 173 ; 
 Jackson v. Kip, 8 X. J. L. 241. 
 
 20 Ray r. Pung, 5 Barn. <fe Aid. .561 ; 7 Eng. C. L. 103 ; Chinnnbbee 
 V. Nicks, 3 Port. 362; Thompson v. Vance. 1 Met. (Kv.)070; 7 Am. 
 Law Reg. 222 ; Link r. Edmnndson, 19 Mo. 4S7 ; Hawley v. James, 5 
 Paige, JJ-i, 455 ; Peay, 3 Rich. Eq. 40D.
 
 g 25j dower. 363 
 
 21 Thompson v. Vance. Met. (Ky.) G70 ; 7 Am. Law Reg. 222 ; Col- 
 lias V. Curlisle, 7 Mon. B. l-l ; McGaughey v. Henry, 15 Mon. B. .38.'J. 
 
 22 Moore v. Estv, 5 N. H. 479 ; Bearclslee, 5 Barb. 324 ; 1 Scribner 
 Dow. 2yi ; Park Dow. 1.>1. 
 
 23 1 Scribner Dow. 2^7 ; Park Dow. 165-167. 
 
 24 See discussion, 1 Scribner Dow. 2!)8, et seq. 
 
 25 Moorlv V. King, 2 Bing. 447 ; Eng. C. L. 475 : Barker, 2 Sim. 249 ; 
 Bufkworth v. Thirlkell, 1 Coll. Juris. :«2 ; 3 Bos. & P. 652. n : Kflwards 
 r. Bibb, 54 AJa. 475 ; ISorthcutt v. Whipp, 12 Mon. B. 65 ; Hillearv, 2fi 
 M(l. 274, 287 ; Arlams v. Beekman. 1 Paige, 631 ; Weller. 2S Barb. .588 ; 
 Evans. 9 Pa. St. 190 ; Lovett, 10 Phia. -537 ; Milledge v. Lamar, 4 Desaus. 
 617. 637, 645; Jones v. Hughes, 27 Gratt. 560; Medley, 27 Gratt. 568 ; 
 Houston V. Smith, 88 N. C. 312, 313 ; ante, i 252. 
 
 26 Cote, 89 Pa. St. 235. 
 
 27 Bates, 1 Raym. Ld. 326 ; Boyd v. Hunter, 44 Ala. 705 ; 1 Greenl. 
 Cruise, 162. 
 
 28 Co. Lltt. 29 a. ; 1 Scribner Dow. 2.34. 
 
 29 1 Scribner Dow. 246. 
 
 30 Durando, 23 N. Y. 331 ; 32 Barb. 529 ; 9 Am. Law Reg. 630 ; post, 
 §255. 
 
 31 Chew, 1 Md. 163, 172 ; ante, § 252. 
 
 32 Lee v. Lindell, 27 Mo. 202, 20G ; ante, ? 2.52. 
 
 33 Maybury ii. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, 37 ; ante, 2.52. 
 
 34 Cowm.an v. Hill, 3 Gill <fe J. 398, 40,5. S. P., Powell v. Monson, 
 3 Mason, .364 : Bailev v. West, 41 III. 290 ; Dean v. Mitchell, 4 Marsh. 
 J.J. 451 ; White v. Drew, 42 Mo. 561 ; ante, 'i 252. 
 
 35 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 113 ; post, ? 256. 
 
 36 If icoll V. Ogden, 20 111. 323 ; post, I 2.57. 
 
 37 Exton V. St. John, Finch, 368 ; Bowles v. Poore, 1 Bulst. 135 ; 
 Low V. Burron, 3 P. Wms. 262 ; People v. Gillis, 24 Wend. 201 ; Litt. 
 ? 5G ; Park Dow. 48, 58 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 359. 
 
 38 Low V. Burron, 3 P. Wms. 262; Edwards v. Bibb, .54 Ala. 475; 
 Thompson v. Vance, 1 Met. (Kv.i li(il) ; Fisher v. (irimes, 1 Smedes & 
 M. 107; Burris v. Page, 17 Mo. 358; Gillis v. Brown, 5 Cowen, 388; 
 Knickerhacker v. Seymour, 46 Barb. 198 ; Alexander v. Cunningham, 
 5 I red. 430. 
 
 39 4 Coke, 22 a, 22 6 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 369 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. 191. 
 
 40 Spnngler v. Stanler, 1 M<\. Ch. 36. 37. S. P., Goodwin, .33 Conn. 
 314 ; Wai-H r. Washington, 6 SiniMics iV "SI. 7.37 ; Joelckner?'. Hudson, 
 
 •1 Saml. 215; Ri'vnolds r. Com. Stark Co. 5 Ohio, 204 ; North ?>. Rossa, 
 13 Ohio, 2:34, 363 '; Murdock v. Itatcliff, 7 Ohio, 119. 
 
 41 Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 735, ? 2 ; Abbott v. Bosworth, 36 Ohio St. 605. 
 
 42 Drennan v. Walker, 21 Ark. .539 ; Wooley v. Magic, 26 III. 526 ; 
 Davenport v. Fauer, 2 111. .314 ; Longworthy v. Heeb, 46 Iowa, 64 ; 
 Bowers v. Keesecker, 14 Iowa, 301 ; Wells v, Moore, 16 Mo. 478. 
 
 I 255. Dos de dote peti non debet. — As dower when 
 assigned is a life estate,^ the inheritance in lands as- 
 signed for dower is subject to a freehold, and therefore
 
 367 DOWER. g 255 
 
 another dower cannot be assigned therein ; ^ hence the 
 rule — Dos de dote petl non debet J^ This is strictly true 
 when the lands have come by devise* or descent,* for 
 in such case the ancestor died seized, and the widow's 
 seisin is but a continuation of his,^ the assignment dat- 
 ing back to the time of his death ;' but when the land 
 has been aliened by the husband during his life, his 
 alienee becomes seized, and if such alienee marries be- 
 fore the alienor's widow has her dower assigned,^ the 
 requisites concur,® and his wife's inchoate dower at- 
 taches, and when he dies she has dower out of dower.i" 
 So if tlie widow of the heir has her dower assigned be- 
 fore the widow of tlie ancestor has her dower assigned, 
 though the former dower ceases wlien the latter is 
 assigned, it revives again when tlie latter ceases.^i So 
 in any case, if the widow dies before tlio heir, devisee, 
 or iDurcliaser dies or aliens tlie inheritance, the widow 
 of such heir, devisee, or purchaser, will of course have 
 her dower.i- Tlie same thing hapi)ens if the widow, 
 instead of dying, waives, forfeits, or otlierwise deter- 
 mines her dower.12 If the assignment of the tirst dower 
 has not been by metes and bounds, an analogous re- 
 sult is sought to be obtained by calculation. '* 
 
 1 Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; post, I 26-1. 
 
 2 Windham v. Portland, 4 Mass. 384, 383. 
 
 3 Glanv. Lib. 6, ch. 16 ; Perkins, ? 315 ; Park Dow. 1.54-156 ; 1 Scrib- 
 ner Dow. 324 ; D'Arcy v. Blake, 2 ScUoales & L. 387. 
 
 4 See Steel v. La Framboise, 68 111. 456; McLeerv, 65 Me. 172; 
 20 Am. Kep. 083 ; Durando,23 >'. Y. 331 ; !( Am. L:iw Reg. 631) ; Reitzel 
 V. Eckard, 65 N. C. 673; Peckham v. Howden, 8 R. I. 160 ; Apple, 1 
 Head, 348. 
 
 5 See Kitchens, 2 Vern. 403 ; Robinson ?'. Miller, 2 Mon. B. 284, 
 288 ; Beekman v. Hudson, 20 Wend. 53. 
 
 6 Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; post. I 264. 
 
 7 See Robinson v. Miller, 2 Mon. B. 284, 288 ; Gear v. Hamblin, 1 
 Me. 54, 56 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 331-3:« ; Park Dow. 156. 
 
 8 See Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. 598, 602 
 
 9 Ante, i 249. 
 
 10 Bustard, 4 Coke, 122 n ; Geer v. Hamblin, 1 Me. 54, 56 ; Manning 
 V. Laboree, 33 Me. 343 ; Durando, 23 N. Y. 331 ; Cregier, I Barb. Ch.
 
 § 256 DOWER. 36S 
 
 598, 602 ; Dunham v. Osborn, 1 Paige, C34 ; Reitzel tK Eckard, 65 N. C. 
 673. 
 
 11 Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. 508, 602 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 327. 
 
 12 Bear v. Snj-der, 11 Wend. 502 ; 1 Scribner Dow. .326. 
 
 13 Oeer v. Hamblin, 1 Me. 54, 56; Elwood v. Klock, 13 Barb. 50. 
 But see Leavitt v. Laniphrey, 13 Pick. 382 ; 23 Am. Dec. 685. 
 
 14 See Fisher r. Grimes. 1 Smedes & M. 107 ; Dunliam i: Osborn, 
 1 Paige, 634, 636 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 329. 
 
 g 256. Dower in equitable estates- — At common law 
 dower attached onlj' to legal estates ^ — all kinds of 
 uses and trusts were exempt ; ^ for in.stance, tru.sts cre- 
 ated by deed oi will,^ an equity of redemption,* or 
 property which has been jsaid for but of which the 
 deed has not been given.^ The common-law rule still 
 exists in Connecticut,^ Delaware,' Florida,^ Georgia,^ 
 Maine,!" Massachu.setts,ii Michigan, ^^ New Hamp- 
 shire,!^ Oregon,^* South Carolina, '^ Vermont,i^ and 
 Wisconsin ; i' except that in Massachusetts dower ex- 
 ists in an equity of redemption by statute, '^ and in 
 property in which the husband has a perfect and com- 
 plete equitable title by con.struction.^^ On the other 
 hand, the common-law rule has never been followed 
 in Louisiana.'^** It has been abolished by statute im- 
 pliedly in Arkansas," and expressly in England,'^ 
 Alabama,^ Illinois, ^i Kentucky, ^5 Maryland,'^ Mis- 
 souri," New Jersey, ^8 New York,^^ North Carolina,^'* 
 Ohio,^i Rhode Island,^^ Tennessee,^^ Virginia,^* and 
 West Virginia.^* The object of these statutes is to rem- 
 edy the common law, and they therefore applj^ to all 
 equitable estates,^* even to those owned by the husband 
 before the passage of the act, if the right of no third 
 party has intervened.^' But equitable estates must be 
 distinguished from equitable rifflits;^'^ in a mere right 
 there is no dower.^^ It is therefore generally said that 
 in order to entitle the wife to dower the husband's 
 equity must be perfect and complete*" — it must be an
 
 369 DOWER. § 258 
 
 interest which would pass to his heirs, not a mere right 
 of action which would pass to his personal representa- 
 tive.*i Thus, there is dower in land which the husband 
 has bought and for which he has paid, but tlie deed of 
 which he has lost before recording it;^' so there is 
 dower in an equity of redemption,*^ whether the mort- 
 gage was made before or after marriage," and with or 
 without the wife's consent ; *'^ but if made before mar- 
 riage or with her consent, she must after his death 
 contribute ratably towards redemption, *8 and if the 
 proiJerty is sold, is dowerable only out of the suri^lus.*^ 
 It must be such an equitable estate that equity would 
 decree the legal title ;''8 there is no dower when the 
 trust,*^ or contract,50 being by parol, is not enforcible 
 in equity. In the case of a contract of i^urchase, when 
 the husband has paid all the purcliase money ,^i and is 
 entitled to the specific performance of the agreement to 
 give a deed for the land,*^ the wife has dower ; and 
 when he has paid none of the purchase money, she has 
 no dower ; ^ but whether she has dower when he has 
 paid a portion of the isurchase money is disputed, some 
 courts liolding that all the purchase money must be 
 paid,=* otiiers denying this.^^ The true rule seems to 
 be, that when the husband's contract gives him the 
 right to the property only after payment of all the pur- 
 chase money, there is no dower unless it has all been 
 paid ; '^^ but when he has received possession of the 
 property,*' and the vendor has retained the title only 
 as security, or has relied on his lien for the purchase 
 monej^ the wife has dower,*^ subject to the vendor's 
 rights ; *9 and after her husband's death has a riglit to 
 call on his personal representatives to pay the balance, 
 she contributing her share,™ or if the property is sold 
 to pay such balance, she is to be endowed out of the 
 surplus.^' But there is no dower in any equitable es-
 
 g 256 DOWER. 370 
 
 tate of which the husband is not seized at the time of 
 his death, ^'^ for if he has aliened it absolutely,^ or by 
 way of niortgage,^' or has subjected it to any other 
 lien,*^ the wife's dower is defeated absolutely or pro 
 tanto.^ Still, a mere agreement to convey will not de- 
 feat dower, except to the extent of the purchase money 
 paid thereupon ; ^ and if the husband has, by means of 
 his wife's joinder, put a mortgage on all of a jiiece of 
 property, he cannot Avithout lier joinder dispose of the 
 equity of redemption so as to defeat dower therein ; *8 
 so the husband may rescind a contract of purchase 
 before it has been fully executed, without subjecting 
 the property to dower.^ If after the husband has 
 aliened the equitable title he receives the legal title, he 
 holds such title in trust for his assignee, and there is no 
 dower in it.™ 
 
 1 Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 22n, 234 ; D'Arcy v. Blake, 2 Schoales * L. 
 387, 3S8, :isii ; Smith v. Artains, 5 DeGex, M. <fe G. 712 ; Powtlrell ?•. 
 Jones, 2 Smith ct (;if. tnT ; Ransom, 17 Fed. Rep. 3:5], 3;« ; Stelle v. 
 Carroll, 12 Peters, 2(il ; P.lukeney v. Ferguson, 20 Ark. 547 ; Gully 
 1'. Ray, IH Mon. B. 107, 113 ; Mann v. Edson, 39 Me. 25; cases cited 
 ire/ra,"note8 2-17. 
 
 2 1 Scribner Dow. 413. Not in money to be laid out in land; 
 Crabtree v. Bramble, 3 Atk. 680, 687 ; ante, ? 136. 
 
 3 Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 229, 234. 
 
 4 Dixon V. Saville, 1 Bro. C. C. 320, 327 ; Maybury v. Brien, 15 
 Peters, 21, 38. 
 
 5 WUliams v. Barrett, 2 Cranch C. C. 673. 
 
 6 Conn. R. S. 1875, p. 376 ; Deforest, 1 Root, .50 ; Calder v. Bull, 2 
 Boot, 50 ; Stewart, 5 Conn. 317 ; Steadman i\ Fortune, 5 Conn. 462. 
 
 7 Del. R. L. 1874, p. 533 ; Conroy, 3 Del. Ch. 407. 
 
 8 Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 475. 
 
 9 Ga. Code 1873, p. 304 ; Chapman v. Shroeder, 10 Ga. 321 ; Green 
 V. Causev, 10 Ga. 4;B ; Bowen v. Collins, 15 Ga. 100 ; Hart v. McCollum, 
 28 Ga. 478 ; Aaron v. Boyne, 28 Ga. 107 ; Day v. Solomon, 40 Ga. 32. 
 
 10 Me. R. S. 1871, p. 756; Hamlin, 19 Me. 141 ; Mann ?'. Edson, .39 
 Me. 25 ; Freeman, 39 Me. 426 ; Thorndlke v. Spear, 31 Me. 91 ; Kidder 
 V. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461. 
 
 11 Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 740, ? 3 ; Reed v. W hitney, 7 Gray, 533, 538. 
 
 12 Mirh. R. S. 18S2, ?? 57, 33 ; Campbell v. Clark, 2 Doug. 141 ; May 
 V. Sprecht, 1 Mann. 187. 
 
 13 N. H. R. S. 1878, p. 474 ; Hobbinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 296. 
 
 14 Oreg. Dig. 1874, p. 5S4 ; Farnum v. Loomis, 2 Greg. 29.
 
 371 DOWER. g 256 
 
 15 S. C. R. S. 1882, ? 1801 ; Secrest v. McKenna, 6 Rich. Eq. 72 ; 
 Spreight v. Meigs, 1 Brev. 486 ; Peay, 2 Rich. Eq. 40'J. 
 
 16 Vt. R. S. 1880, p. 449 ; Jenny, 24 Vt. 324 ; Thayer, 14 Vt. 107 ; 
 39 Am. Ueu. 211 ; Ladd, 14 Vt. 185 ; Gorham v. Daniels, 23 Vt. 600. 
 
 17 Wis. R. S. 1878, p. 626. 
 
 18 Reed v. Whitney, 7 Gray, 533, 537. See Mich. R. S. 1882, § 5735. 
 
 19 Reed v. Whitney, 7 Gray, 533, 5.38 ; Hall !•. Munn, 4 Gray, 132. 
 
 20 Shoemaker v. Walker, 2 Serg. & R. o.54 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 
 Serg. & R. 13 ; Kellv v. Mehan, 2 Yeates, 515 ; Jones v. Patterson, 12 
 Pa. St. 149, 1-54 ; Pritts v. Richey, 29 Pa. St. 71, 76 ; Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; 
 Junk I'. Canon, 34 Pa. St. 286. 
 
 21 Kirby v. Vantreece, 26 Ark. 368, 370. 
 
 22 3 WUliam IV. ch. 105, i 2. 
 
 23 Ala. Code, 1876 J 2232 ; Gillespie v. Somerviile, 3 Stewt. >fe P. 347 ; 
 Allen, 4 Ala. 5o(; ; Edniondson c. Montague, 14 Ala. 370; Crabb r. 
 Pratt, 15 Ala. 843 ; Parks v. Brooks, 16 Ala. 529 ; Harrison v. Boyd, 36 
 Ala. 503. 
 
 24 111. R. S. 1880, p. 425 ; Davenport v. Farrar, 1 Scam. 314 ; Sisk v. 
 Smith, 1 Gilm. 503 ; Owen v. Robbins, 19 111. .549 ; Atkin v. Merrill, 39 
 111. 62 ; Stow V. Steel, 45 111. 328 ; Greenbaum v. Austrian, 70 111. 591. 
 
 25 Ky. R. S. 1881, p. 527, ? 2 ; Pugh r. Bell, 2 Mon. 126 : Stevens r. 
 Smith, 4 Marsh. J. J. 64 ; 20 Am. Dec-, 205 ; Dean v. Mitchell, 4 Marsh. 
 J. J. 451 ; Hamilton v. Hughes, 6 Marsh. J. J. .581 ; Lindsey v. Stevens, 
 
 5 Dana, 104 ; Lawson !'. Morton, 6 Dana, -t'l ; Brewer v. Van Arsdale, 
 
 6 Dana, 204 ; Robinson v. Miller, 1 Mon. B. 88, 91 ; Heed v. Ford, 16 
 Mon. B. 114 ; Gully v. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107. 
 
 26 Md. R. S. 1878, p. 397; Hopkins v. Frev, 2 Gill, 3.59; Miller v. 
 Stump, 3 Gill, 304,311; Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch. 30; Bowie v. 
 Berry, 1 Md. Ch. 452 ; 3 Md. Ch. 359 ; Purdv, 3 aid. Ch. 547 ; Steuart 
 V. Beard, 4 Md. Ch. 319 ; Lynn v. Gephart, 27 Md. 547 ; Glenn v. Clark, 
 53 Md. 680, 604. 
 
 27 Mo. R. S. 1879, p. 363 ; Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 225 ; Hart v. 
 Logan, 49 Mo. 47. 
 
 28 N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 320 ; Yen v. Mercereau, 18 N. J. L. 387, 330 ; 
 Boyd V. Thompson, 21 N. J. L. 58, 61 ; 22 N. J. L. 513, ^S. 
 
 29 N. Y. R. S. 1882, p. 2196 ; Hicks v. Stebbins, 3 Lans. 39 ; Johnson 
 V. Thomas, 2 Paige, 377 ; Hawlev r. James, 5 Paige, 318 ; Church, 3 
 Sand. Ch. 434 ; Coster v. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. 423 ; McCartee v. Teller, 2 
 Paige, 511. 
 
 30 N. C. R. S. 1873, p. 839 ; Klutts, 5 Jones Eq. 80 ; Thompson, 1 
 Jones, 430. 
 
 31 Ohio R. S. 1880, p. 1048; Abbott v. Bosworth, .36 Ohio St. 605; 
 Miller r. Wilson, 15 Ohio, 105 ; Rands )'. Kendall, loOhio, 671; Smiley 
 V. Wright, 2 Ohio, 506 ; McDonald v. Aten, 1 Ohio St. 293. 
 
 32 R. I. P. S. 1882, p. 037. 
 
 33 Tenn. R. S. 1873, J 2398. 
 
 34 Va. Code 1873, p. 8.53; Ronton, 1 Hen. & M. 92; Claiborne v. 
 Henderson, 3 Hen. & M. .322 ; Wheatlev !'. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264 ; 
 37 Am. Dec. 654 ; Blair v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 441. 
 
 35 W. Va. R. S. 1879, ch. 82, ? 17. 
 
 36 Bailey v. Duncan, 4 Mon. 2.56, 265, 266 ; Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo. 
 221,225.
 
 § 256 DOWER. 372 
 
 37 Hawley i'. James, 5 Paige, 31S, 453. 
 
 38 Yeo V. Mercereau, 18 N. J. L. 387, 390 ; Thompson, 1 Jones, 4:iO, 
 431, 432. 
 
 3a Thompson, 1 Jones, 4:30, 431, 432. 
 
 40 Pugh V. Bell, 2 Men. 125, 128. See 1 Scribner Dow. p. 436 ; Har- 
 rison V. Boyd, 3fi Ala. 505 ; Edmondson v. Montague, 14 Ala. 370, 379 ; 
 Crabb v. Pratt, 15 Ala. 843 ; Gillespie v. SomerviUe, 3 Stewt. & P. 447 ; 
 Rogers v. Rawlings, 8 Port. 325 ; Nicholl v. Todd, 70 111. 295, 297 ; Tay- 
 lor V. Kearn, 68 111. 339 ; Stow v. Steel, 45 111. 328 ; Atkin v. Merrill, 39 
 111. 62 ; Wooley v. Magie, 26 111. 626 ; Owen v. Bobbins, 19 111. 545 ; 
 Barnes v. Gav, 7 Iowa, 26 ; Lindsey v. Stevens, 5 Dana, 101 ; Brewer 
 V. Van Arsda"le, 6 Dana, 204 ; Yeo v. Mercereau, 18 N. J. L. 387 ; Prltts 
 V. Kichey, 29 Pa. St. 71, 77. 
 
 41 Nicholl V. Todd, 70 111. 295, 297 ; Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 225. 
 
 42 Tyson t<. Harrington, 6 Ired. Eq. 329. 
 
 43 McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698, 705; Cox v. Garst, 105 III. 342, 
 »46 ; Glenn v. Clark, e3 Md. 580, 607 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618. 
 620 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 18, 20 ; Eddy v. Boulton, 13 R. I. 
 105, 106 ; 2}0st, § 260. 
 
 44 Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618, 620 ; post, J 260. 
 
 45 Cox V. Garst, 105 111. 342, 316 ; post, i 260. 
 
 46 McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698, 703 ; post, U 258, 260. 
 
 47 Cox V. Garst, 105 111. 342, 346 ; post, U 258, 260. 
 
 48 Taylor v. Kearn, 68 111. 3.39, 341 ; Rowton, 1 Hen. & M. 92 ; Clai- 
 borne V. Henderson, 3 Hen. <fe M. 322, 382. 
 
 49 Ransom, 17 Fed. Rep. 331, 335. 
 
 50 Herron v. Williamson, Litt. SeL Cas. 250. 
 
 51 Edmondson r. Montague, 14 Ala. 370, 379 ; Pugh v. Bell, 2 Mon 
 125, 128 ; Tyson v. Harrington, 6 Ired. Eq. 329. 
 
 52 Taylor v. Kearn, 68 111. 339, 341 ; sui>ra, n. 48. 
 
 53 Harrison v. Boyd. 36 Ala. 203, .'^33 ; Latham v. McLnin, 64 Ga. 320 ; 
 Smith V. Addleiuan, 5 Blackf. 406 ; Barnes v. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26. 
 
 54 Edmondson v. Montague, 14 Ala. 370, 379 ; Pugh v. Bell, 2 Mon. 
 125, 128. 
 
 55 Brewer r. Van Arsdale, 6 Dana, 204. See Grponhaum %i. Aus- 
 trian, 70 111. 591, 594 ; Malin v. Cunlt, 4 Ind. 535 ; Barnes r. Gay, 7 Iowa, 
 26; Lindsey r. Stevens, 5 Dana, liM ; 3Iillcr r. .stump. :t Gill. 3(>1 ; Lvnn 
 V. Gephart, 27 Md. 547; Steuart v. Beard, 4 .Md. Ch. 319; Duke v. 
 Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 228 ; Hart )•. Logan, 49 Mo. 47 ; Hawley v. .Tames, 5 
 Paige, 318 ; Church, 3 Sand. Ch. 434 ; Thompson. 1 Jones, 430 ; Klutts, 
 5 Jones Eq. 80 ; Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, 607 ; McDonald v. Aten, 1 
 Ohio St. 293 ; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 Humph. 72. 
 
 56 Consult supra, notes 38, 54. 
 
 57 See Claiborne v. Henderson, 3 Hen. & M. 322, 382 ; sui>ra, n. 55. 
 53 See Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 226 ; svpra, n. 55. 
 
 59 Duke v. Brant, 51 Mo. 221, 226 ; post, I 259. 
 
 60 Greenbaum i'. Austrian, 70 111. 591, 594 ; Lindsey 71. Stevens, 5 
 Dana, 104 ; Brewer i: Van Arsdale, 6 Dana, 204 ; Thompson, 1 Jones, 
 430, 4;«. 
 
 61 Bank v. Owens, 31 Md. 320, 326; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 
 Humph. 72.
 
 ,373 DOWER. ? 237 
 
 62 Miller t'. Stump, 3 am, 304, 311. B. P., Ransom, 17 Fed. Rep. 331, 
 333, 334; Owen r. Robbins, 19 111. 54-5; Morse v. ThorsfU, 7S 111. 600, 
 604; Butler v. Holtznian, .T.'i Inrl. lii ; Barnes v. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26; 
 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 113 ; Heed v. Ford, 16 Mon. B. 482 ; 
 Hamilton r. Hughes, fi Marsh. J. J. o.Sl ; Lawson i'. Morton, 6 Dana, 
 471 ; Hamilton v. Hughes, 6 Marsh. J. J. 581 ; Purdy, 3 Md. C('. 547 ; 
 Bowie V. Berry, 1 Md. Ch. 4S2 ; Lvnn r. Gephart, 27 Md. M7, -567, 56.S ; 
 Glenn V. Clark, 53 Md. .580, 604 ; Lobdell v. Hayes. 4 Allen, 187, Ifllt; 
 Duke V. Brandt, 51 Mo. 221, 225 ; Hawlev v. James, 5 Paige, 318, 452, 453 ; 
 Smiley v. Wright, 2 Ohio, •5(J6; Miller r. Wilson, 15 Ohio, 108; Rands 
 V. Kendall, 15 Ohio, 671; Abbott v. Bo.svvorth, 36 Ohio 8t. 605; Pritts 
 II. Richev, 29 Pa. St. 71 ; Junk v. Canon, 34 Pa. St. 286. Except by 
 statute : See N. C. R. S. 1873, p. 839, J 1- - 
 
 63 Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580, 604. 
 
 64 Taylor v. Kearn, 68 111. 339, .341 ; Miller v. Stump, 3 Gill, 301, 311. 
 
 65 Post, i -258. 
 
 66 Lynn v. Gephart, 27 Md. 547, 5G8. 
 
 67 Bowie v. Berry, 3 Md. Ch. 350. 
 
 6S McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698, 703 ; Bank r. Owings, 31 Md. 
 320, 325 ; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452. 
 
 69 Owen v. Robbins, 19 111. 549, 5.54 ; Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 
 264 ; 37 Am. Dec. 6.>4. 
 
 70 Morse v. Thorsell, 78 III. 600; Gullv v. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107; 
 Heed v. Ford, 16 Mon. B. 114. 
 
 I 257. Dower on partnership estates. — Whether and 
 \inder what circumstance-s dower exists in partnership 
 estates has been a vexed question ; i for, not only is it 
 far from settled whether and when partnership realty 
 is to be considered personalty, ^ but even granting it to 
 be realty, there remain to be settled the priorities as 
 between the widow, the partner.ship creditors, and the 
 partners themselves.^ Apart from the widow, the rule 
 seems to be : That real estate purchased with partner- 
 ship funds or for partner.ship purposes, is in equity 
 chargeable with the debts of the partnership, and with 
 any balance due one partner on the winding up of the 
 business ; and that the surplus, if any, is to be consid- 
 ered and treated as real e.state.* This surplus alone is 
 liable to the creditors of the individual partners.* And 
 the real interest of each partner in the real estate is his 
 share of this. surplus ^ on an account taken as of the date 
 of the dissolution of the partnership.^ The A\idow holds 
 under her husband,^ and should have dower only out 
 
 H, £ W. — 32.
 
 § 257 DOWEK. 374 
 
 of his interest ; 3 so that, although there are eases which 
 hold on the one hand that partnership property is per- 
 sonalty, and there is no dower therein at all, 'o and on the 
 other that realty is realty though oAvn ed by partners, and 
 therefore fully subject to dower," the true rule is, that 
 realty bought with partnership funds or for partnership 
 purposes is realty at law subject to dower as if held in 
 common, ^'^ unless the partners have by express agree- 
 ment declared it to he personalty ; i^ but that it is subject 
 in equity to a trust ^* in favor of the partnership creditors 
 and of any of the partners with a balance due him,'^ 
 there being no dower in case the property is needed to 
 pay partnership creditors,'*' or a balance due the other 
 partners," but there being dower in the property, if it 
 is not needed for such purpose,'^ or in the surplus if it 
 is only needed in part ; '' provided, however, that if the 
 property is sold under the partnership lien during cov- 
 erture dower is defeatedj^" and that the wife does not 
 have to join i^i a.deed thereof for partnership purposes,^' 
 or have to l>e made a party when a partnership mort- 
 gage thereupon is foreclosed.22 if there is an express 
 agreement that the realty of the partnership shall be 
 used for paying the debts of the firm, there is no doubt 
 but that the property is subject to the trust above 
 described ; ^ and it is well settled that such an agree- 
 ment is always injplied ; ^* so that the property vests in 
 the partners subject to an equitable lien, which is there- 
 fore prior to the dower of their wives.'^ If the lands are 
 sold under the partnership lien, the widow has no dower 
 in rents and profits aborning before the sale.^^ The 
 realty must of course be partnership property, or it will 
 be subject to dower as any other realty ; ^ if bouglit by 
 the partners it is prima fo/cie partnership property ; ^ 
 and it is such property if bought "vvith partnership 
 funds,'^ or for the ^ise of the firm ; ^ but it is not, if
 
 375 DOWER. g 257 
 
 bought for and charged to one partner,^' or if taken in 
 common by express agreement.^^ 
 
 1 See 1 Scribner Dow. 563, el seq. 
 
 2 Hale v. Plummer, 6 Intl. 121, 123, 124 ; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 
 Mon. B. 631, 634 ; Buniside i'. Merrick, 4 Met. 537, 541. 
 
 3 Greene, 1 Ohio, 244, 251 ; 13 Am. Dec. 642. 
 
 4 Huston V. Neil, 41 Ind. 504, 509 ; Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 
 165, 200, 201. 
 
 5 Greene, 1 Ohio, 244, 251 ; 13 Am. Deo. 642. 
 
 6 Matlock, 5 Ind. 40!, 407 ; Bopp v. Fox, 63 III. 510, 544. 
 
 7 Goortburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill, 1, 28 ; 1 Md. Ch. 420, 439 ; Dyer v. 
 Clark, 5 Met. 662, 575 ; 3J Am. Dec. 6J7. 
 
 8 Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. 562, .576 ; 39 Am. Dec. 697 ; post, ? 264. 
 
 9 Priest, 5 Met. 582, 585 ; Sumner v. Hampson, 8 Ohio, 328, 364 ; 32 
 Am. Dec. 722 ; po«<, i 258. 
 
 10 Pierce v. Trigg, 10 Leigh, 405 ; Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 
 284, 273 ; 37 Am. Dec. 654. 
 
 U Smith ?'. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 28, 35. See Bell ?'. Phyn, 7 Ves. Jr. 
 25i ; Woolidge v. Wilkins, 3 How. (Miss.; 3fiO ; Markham v. Marrett, 7 
 How. (Miss.; 437. 
 
 12 Loubat V. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350, 357; Matlock, 5 Ind. 403, 406 ; Gal- 
 braith V. Gedge, 16 Mon. B. 631, 6;« ; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. 562, 677; 
 39 Am. Dec. 697 ; Howard c. Priest, 5 Met. 5S2, 5S5 ; Burnside i\ Mer- 
 rick, 4 Met. 637, 541 ; Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. i;{8, 145 ; 33 Am. Rep. 265 : 
 Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415, 417 ; Greene, 1 Ohio, 244, 249. 250 ; 13 Am. 
 Dec. 642. 
 
 13 Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 Men. B. 631, 634-6:J6 ; Goodburn v. Stev- 
 ens, 5 Gill, 1, 27. 
 
 14 Willet V. Brown, 65 MQ. 138, 147 ; 33 Am. Rep. 265 ; infra, n. 15. 
 
 15 Drewrv v. Montgomery, 28}Ark. 256, 2.59 ; Loubat v. Nourse, 5 Fla. 
 a50, 3.57 ; Matlock, 5 Ind. 403,407 ; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 Mon. B. 631, 
 631 ; Divine v. Mitchum, 4 Mon. B. 488, 491 ; 41 Am. Dec. 241 ; Good- 
 burn V. Stevens, 5 Gill, 1, 27 ; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. 602, 677; 39 Am. 
 Dec. 697; Howard ^\ Priest, 5 Met. 582, 585, .586 ; Burnside v. Merrick, 
 4 Met. .537, -541 ; WlUet r. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 143 ; 33 Am. Rep. 265; 
 Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415, 417. 
 
 16 Simpson v. Leech, 86 111. 286, 287 ; Bopp v. Fox, 63 111. 540, 544; 
 Burnside r. Merrick, 4 Met. 537, 541 ; Willet i'. Brown, 65 Mo. ViS, 147 ; 
 3.J Am. Rep. 265; Sumner j'. Hampson, 8 Ohio, 328, ;i64 ; 32 Am. Dec. 722. 
 
 17 Howard v. Priest, 5 Met. 582, 585, 586 ; Mowry v. Bradley, 11 R. I. 
 370, 372. 
 
 18 Hiscock V. Jaycox, 12 Bank. Reg. .507, 511 ; Simp.son v. Leech, 86 
 111. 286, 288; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121, 124 ; Galbraith v. Gedge, 16 
 Mon. B. 631, 634 ; Goodburn v. Stevens,5 Gill, 1, 27; 1 Md. Ch. 420, 440, 
 441 ; Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415, 417. 
 
 19 Huston ?'. Neil, 41 Ind. 504, .50^, 509 ; Dyer v. Clark, 5 Met. 562, 579 ; 
 .?9 Am. Dec. 6i*7 ; Goodburn v. Stevens, 3 Gill, 1, 27, 2s ; Uuhring, 20 
 Mo. 174, 182 ; Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415, 417 ; Mowry v. Bradley, 11 
 R. I. 370, 372. 
 
 20 See Folsom v. Rhodes, 22 Ohio St. 43a, 436 ; post, U 268, 26L 
 
 21 Simpson v. Leech, 86 111. 286, 238 ; Huston v. Neil, 41 Ind. 504, 510 ; 
 Duhring, 20 Mo. 174, 180 ; Mowry v. Bradley, H R. 1. 370, 372.
 
 2 258 DOWEE. 376 
 
 22 Huston V. Neil, 14 Ind. 504, 510 ; cialbraith v. Gedge, 16 Moii. B. 
 631, 6a5. 
 
 23 Greene, 1 Ohio, 244, 249, 250 ; 13 Am. Dec. &42 ; Thornton v. Dixon, 
 
 3 Bro. C. C. 199 ; Park Dow. 199 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 5ftl. 
 
 24 Loubat V. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350, :557 ; Howard v. Priest, 5 Met. 5S2, 
 5S5 ; Willet V. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 145, 146 ; 33 Am. Rep. 2(S ; Sumner v. 
 Hampson, 8 Ohio, 328, :J64 ; 32 Am. Dec. 722 ; 1 Scribner Dow. 566. 
 
 25 Greene, I Ohio, 244, 2.50 ; 13 Am. Dec. (H2 ; cases ^itpra, notes 8, 9. 
 
 26 Goodburn v. Stevens, 1 Md. Ch. 420, 440, 441. 
 
 2t Wheatley v. Calhoyn, 12 Leigh; 264, 273 ; 37 Am. Dec. 6.M. 
 
 28 Loubat v. Nourse, 5 Fla. 350. 357 ; Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 147 ; 
 33 Am. Rep. 265. 
 
 29 Drewrv v. Monigomery, 28 Ark. 256, 260 ; Hiscock v. Jayco.x, 12 
 Bank. Reg. 507, 516. 
 
 30 Bopp?'. Fox,63I11.510, &13. 
 
 31 Smith, 5 Ves. Jr. 189. 
 
 32 Drewry v. Montgomery, 28 Ark. 256, 260. See supra, n. 13. 
 
 ^ 258, Bower and othor encumbrances — Frioritios. — 
 Dower is iiu eueuinbrance or lieu.' It is inferior to all 
 liens attaching prior to marriage or to the acquisition 
 of the property by the hu.sband, and to all other liens 
 attaching with the legally given consent of the wife ; 
 but superior to all liens attaching during coverture 
 without such consent. Thus, dower is inferior to an 
 antenuptial mortgage ^br judgment^ against the hus- 
 band, or a mortgage on projjerty when purchased by 
 the husband,^ or a mortgage in which the wife joins ;» 
 so when property is bought subject to a trust,^ as when 
 the vendor has an equitable lien for the purchase 
 money,' or Avhere the husband before marriage has 
 agreed to sell,* or when the property is bought for a 
 partnership and is subject to a trust for partnership 
 u.ses ; ' it is also infex'ior to any lien or charge, legal or 
 equitable, having its inception in the contract of pur- 
 chase,'" as a mortgage for the purchase money ;'! so it 
 is inferior to the lien for taxes. '^ On the other hand, it 
 is superior to the rights of the husband's heirs and 
 common creditors, '* and to all judgments obtained 
 dgainst him during coverture," or against his admin-
 
 377 DOWER. § 258 
 
 istrators after his death ; '^ to the rights of a purchaser 
 from the husband/^ and to all leases or encumbrances 
 placed upon the proj^erty by the husband alone , '^ so 
 it is superior to mechanic's liens. ^^ As a general rule, 
 if the property is sold under a lien superior to dower 
 during coverture, the realty is changed into personalty 
 and dower is gone ; ^^ but if after coverture, dower is 
 awarded from the surplus.^" Any sale under an infe- 
 rior lien must be subject to dower.-'^ So if tlie prior 
 lien is satisfied there is dower.^- 
 
 1 Barnett v. Gaines, 8 Ala. 373, 374 ; post, ? 262. 
 
 2 Heth V. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344, 346 ; jMst, U 260, 261. 
 
 3 Jones v. Miller, 17 S. C. 380, 3S2, 386. 
 
 4 C'arll V. Butman, 7 Me. 1C2 ; 4 Kent, 50 ; 1 Scribner Bow. 591 ; 
 post, 'i 260. 
 
 5 Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202, 204-; j^ost, ?? 260, 261. 
 
 6 Cowman v. Hill, 3 Uill & 3. 398, 405. 
 
 7 Hugunin v. Cochrane, 51 111. 302, 305 ; 2 Am. Rep. 303 ; post, 5 259. 
 
 8 Adltins v. Holmes, 2 Cart. 197, 199 ; ante, § 252. 
 
 9 Willet V. Brown, 65 Mo. 138, 148 ; 33 Am. Rep. 265 ; ante, 5 257. 
 
 10 Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 353, 382 ; ante, I 252 ; post, I 250. 
 
 11 Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. 552, 558 ; post, I 259. 
 
 12 Trowbridge v. Sypher, 55 Iowa, 352, 35fl. 
 
 13 Croker V. Fox, 1 Root, 227, 228; Calder v. Bull, 2 Root, 50, 52; 
 Tarploy v. Gannaway, 2 Cold. 246, 248. 
 
 14 Sisk V. Smith, 6 111. 503, 508 ; Benoit v. Beard, 4 Md. Ch. 319, 321 ; 
 Combs i>. Young, 4 Yerg. 218, 226 ; 26 Am. Dec. 225 ; Tarplav x\ Ganna- 
 way, 2 Cold. 246, 248, 249. 
 
 15 Phinney v. Johnson, 15 S. C. 158, 160. 
 
 16 Stoughtbh V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410; Sisk v. Smith, 6 HI. .503, .507; 
 Gerry v. Stinson, 60 Me. 186, 191 ; Combs v. Young, 4 Verg. 218, 226 ; 26 
 Am. Dec. 225. 
 
 . 17 Benson v. Scot, 3 Lev. 385, 386 ; Davis ?'. McDonald, 42 Ga. 205, 
 209; Mowbrv, 64 111. 3S3 ; Taylor, 55 111. 2.i2 ; Sutherland, fii 111. 4S1 ; 
 Miller V. Steffer, 32 Midi. 104 ; Grady v. McCorkle, 57 Mo. 172 ; 17 Am. 
 Rep. 676 ; post, i 268. 
 
 18 Bishopii. Boyle,9Ind. 169, 171. S. P.,Gove v. Cather, 23 III. 634 ; 
 Mark v. Murphy, 76 Ind. 534 ; Van Vronder v. Eastman, 7 Met. 157". 
 
 19 See Irvine v. Armistead, 46 Ala. 363; Kintner ?>. McRae, 2 Cart. 
 453 ; Dean v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 406, 409 ; Robbins, 8 BUickf. 174 ; Brown 
 I'. Williams, 31 Me. 403; Queen r. Pratt, in Md. 5; Bislund r. Ilcwett, 
 11 Sraedes & M. 164 ; Bell r. Mavor, Hi I'aiijc, 4'.t, .v. ; Suridfonl r. Mc- 
 Lean, 3 Paige, 117- 23 Am. Deo. 773 ; Titus i: Xcilsun, 5 .Idlms. Cli. 45?, 
 457 ; Folsom v. Rhodes, 22 Ohio St. 4;i.5, 436 ; Directors k. Roger, 43 Pa. 
 St. 181 ; Rose, 6 Heisk. 533 ; Wilson v. Davisson. 2 Rob. (Va.) 398 ; post, 
 i 261.
 
 g 259 DOWER. 378 
 
 20 King, 100 Mass. 224, 226 ; Smith v. Jackson, 2 Edw. 28, 35. See 
 Green v. Causey. 10 Ga. 43.5 ; Simons ik Latimer, 37 Ga. 490 ; Robbins, 
 8 Blaclif. 174 ; Sandford v. McLean, 3 Paige, 117 ; 23 Am. Dec. 773 ; post, 
 ? 161 ; ante, \ 257. 
 
 21 Davis V. McDonald, 42 Ga, 205, 207. 
 
 22 Mayo v. Hamlin, 73 Me. 182, 185 ; past, \ 261. 
 
 \ 259. Dower and purchase money. — As a general rule, 
 every kind of lien for the purchase money of land is 
 superior to the purchaser's wife's right of dower. If the 
 vendor retains h's legal title to the land as security, this 
 is sujjerior to dower ;' so is his equitable lien superior, 
 in States where a vendor's equitable lien is recognized,^ 
 though he has parted with his legal title ;^ provided, 
 however, that if he has taken otiier security, his ven- 
 dor's lien is, in tlie absence of express agreement, 
 gone,'' so tliat even if he obtains judgment against the 
 purchaser for the purchase money, he thereby loses 
 his equitable lien,^ and the judgment is subsequent to 
 dower.'' It is very common for the liurchaser to take a 
 mortgage for the purchase monej^, and it is almost uni- 
 versally admitted that such a mortgage is laaramount 
 to dower witliout the joinder of the wife therein,' the 
 husband's seisin beings instantaneous.^ The mortgage 
 and the deed may of course be different papers;^ and 
 they need not be between the same parties,'" for a third 
 party Avho has lent the purchase money and taken a 
 mortgage tlierefor has the same rights as the vendor 
 would have liad, " as when A, B, and C meet together, 
 and A deeds to B, and B mortgages to C, who has lent 
 him tlie money to make the purchase with.'^ Nor need 
 the deed and mortgage be of the same date,'^ or deliv- 
 ered'* or recorded '^ at the same time : the point is that 
 they must be a part of one and tlie same transaction.** 
 The burden of proof to show this is on the defendant 
 (the vendor) ; " he may show it by oral evidence.'^ 
 If the two papers were recorded at the same time, they
 
 379 do\vp:r. § 269 
 
 are presumed to have been one transaction,^^ though 
 the mortgage bo to a third partj- ; '■'*' and if they are be- 
 tween the same parties, of the same date, acknowledged 
 before the same officer, they are presumed the sam.e 
 transaction,^' tliougli I'ecorded at different times.'^ A 
 delay of ten montlis before the execution of tlie morl.- 
 gage was held not to affect the mortgagee's rights when 
 it had been a part of the original contract of sale that 
 the mortgage should be given, ^ but otherwise such de- 
 lay would have been fatal.'* And if the purchaser 
 pays off the original mortgage with money borrowed 
 on a mortgage on the same i^roperty, such latter mort- 
 gage is inferior to dower.'^^ These rules apply though 
 the wife is an infant,^ and though the mortgage is in 
 tlie form of a deed of trust.^ Wliether the vendor 
 reserves his lien or takes a mortgage, very nearly tlie 
 same rights result, and the rules applicable to mort- 
 gages apply. '8 Thus, the wife has dower against all 
 persons except the mortgagor, or vendor, or assigns ; '^ 
 she may have dower till the claim of such parties is 
 asserted; 30 if the lien is discharged by payment, she 
 has dower in the land ; 3' after her husband's death she 
 maj'^ call on his personal representatives to satisfy the 
 lien,3^ or liave the other real.y exhausted for this pur- 
 pose ;33 if the lien is enforced during her husband's life 
 her dower is gone; 3* if after his death, she has dower 
 in the surplus ;^^ in any case the purchaser takes the 
 land free of dower ,3^ if she has been made a party to 
 the proceeding.3^ The vendor's lien is on the land, not 
 on the rents and profits.^^ -piie husband may reconvey 
 the land to the vendor in satisfaction of the lien,^* jiro- 
 vided that this is not done to defeat the wife's rights.^o 
 There are statutes declaratory of this law ;*i others en- 
 able the husband to sell the land clear of the wife's 
 riglits to pay off the vendor's lien ; *- others make a 
 mortgage for the purchase money inferior to dower.*^
 
 g 259 DOWER. 3S0 
 
 1 Milleri'. Stump.SGill, "04, 311 ; nnie, ?256. See Thorn r. Ingram, 
 25 Ark. 52 ; Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. Sill ; Clements v. Bostwlck, :« Ga. 
 1 ; Day v. Solomon, 40 Ga. 32 ; Malin v. Coult, 4 Iiul. .'j;i5 ; Crane v. 
 Palmer, 8 Blackf. 120; Thomas v. Hanson, 44 Iowa, 651 ; Barnes v. 
 Gay, 7 Iowa, 26 ; Naz. Lit. v. Lowe, 1 Mon. B. 257 ; Willett v. Beatty, 
 12 Mon. B. 172 ; McClure v. Harris, 12 Mon. B. 2(U ; Glenn r. Clark, 53 
 Mfl. 5S0; Walton v. Hargroves, 42 Miss. 18; Cocke v. Baily, 42 Miss. 
 81 ; Warner v. Van Aistyne, 3 Paisro, 513 ; Klrhy v. Daltoii, 1 Dev. Ch. 
 15 ; Firestone, 2 Ohio St. 415 ; Pritts )•. Hitchey, 2!) Pa. St. 71 ; Boyd v. 
 Martin, 9 Hei.sk. 382 ; Wilson v. Davis.son, 2 Bob. (Va.j 384. 
 
 2 It is adopted in Alabama, Arkansas, California Florida, Georgia' 
 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi' 
 Missouri, N -w York, Oliio, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. It is 
 rejected in Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and \'erniont. Its 
 e.xistence is doubtful in Cunnecticnt, Dclaw.'ire, and ISIassachusetts : 
 Hare & W. notes, 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq. 4S1 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. 508, n ; 
 1 Scribner Dow. -555, n. 2. 
 
 .S Brooks ?'. Woods, 40 Ala. 538, 541. See Thorn v. Ingram, 25 Ark. 
 52 ; Meigs v. Dniiock, 6 Conn. 458 ; .Slaughter v. Culpepper, 44 Ga. 31!i ; 
 Fletcher »>. Holmes, 32 Ind. 447 ; Carver v. Grove, 68 Ind. 371 ; Talbott 
 V. Armstrong, 14 Ind. 2.54 ; Noyes v. Kramer, 54 Iowa, 22 ; Thomas v. 
 Hanson, 44 Iowa, 651 ; McClure v. Harris, i2 Mon. B. 261 ; King v. 
 Aver, .53 Me. 138 ; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 35) ; Rawlings v. Lowndes, 34 
 Md. 6.3'); Smith 71. McCarty, 113 Mass. 5Ki; Bisland r. Hewett, 11 
 Smedes & M. 164 ; Cocke v. Bailey, 42 Miss. 81 ; Duke r. Brandt, 51 
 Mo. 221 ; Warner v. Van Alstyin>, 3 Paige, 513; Brackett 1'. Bauni, .50 
 N. Y. 8; Culber v. Harper, 27 Ohio St. 464; Fox v. Pratt, 27 Ohio St. 
 512 ; Calmes 1'. McCracl'ien, 8 S. C. 87; Williams v. Woods, 1 Humph. 
 408 ; Blair v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 441 ; George v. Cooper, 15 W. Va. 660. 
 
 4 McCltire ■;>. Harris, 12 Mon. B. 261, 264; Blair i\ Thompson, 11 
 Gratt. 446, 4.y2. See Meigs v. Dimock. 6 Conn. 458 ; Clements r. Bost- 
 wick, .3S(;a. 1 ; Hart r. I>ogan, 49 Mo. 47; Hollis, 4 Baxt. 524 ; Gregg v. 
 Jones, 5 Heisk. 443 ; 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq. 262-281. 
 
 5 McArthur v. Porter, 1 Ohio, 99, 101. 
 
 6 Steuart v. Beard, 4 Md. Ch. 319, 321 ; ante, i 258. 
 
 7 Maybury v. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, X>, ; ante, ? 2.52. S. P^, Eslava v. 
 Lepretre, 21 Ala. ,504, 528 ; 56 Am. Dec. 266 ; Baker v. McCuiie, 82 Ind. 
 339, .^1 ; Thomas r. Hanson, 44 Iowa, 651, 652 ; (Jrant v. Dodge, 43 Me. 
 489, 490 ; Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101, i:iO ; Gammon v. Freeman, 31 Me. 240, 
 245; Glenn >. Clark, 53 Md. .580,604; Heuisler v. Nickum, 38 Md. 270, 
 277; Rawlings 1). Lowndes, 34 Md. 639,642; Smith v. McCartney, 119 
 Mass. 519, .520; King v. Stetson, 11 Allen, 407, 408 : Pendleton v. Pom- 
 erov. 4 Allen, 501, 511 ; Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. .552, .558, 559 ; Bul- 
 lard V. Bowers, 10 N. H. 500, 502 ; Griggs v. Smith, 12 N. J. L. 22, 23; 
 Kittle V. Van Dyck, 1 Sand. Ch. 76. 81 ; Stow v. Tifift. 15 Johns. 459, 462, 
 463; 8 Am. Deo. 266; Gowan v. Smith, 44 Barb. 2.32. 239; Welsh v. 
 Buckins, 9 Ohio St. 331, :{33; Gilliam v. Moore, 4 Leigh, 30, .32 ; 24 Am. 
 Dec. 704 ; Wheatlev v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, 274 ; 37 Am. Dec. 6.54 ; 
 George v. Cooper, 15 W. Va. 666, 672 ; Jones v. Parker, 51 Wis. 218; 223. 
 Contra, Slaugliter v. Culpepper, 44 Ga. 319, .320; McClure v. Hams, 12 
 Mon. B. 261, 20G ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 18, 21. 
 
 8 Rawlings )•. Lowndes, 34 Md. 639, 643 ; ante, ? 2.52. 
 
 9 Stow V. Tlfft, 15 Johns. 459, 462, 463 ; 8 Am. Dec. 266. 
 
 10 Gammon v. Freeman, 31 Me. 243, 245. 
 
 11 Bov!iton V. Sawyer, 35 Ala. 499, 500 ; Thomas v. Hanson, 44 Ipwa, 
 651, 652 ; Moore v. lloiliiis, 45 Me. 403, 494 ; Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580,
 
 331 DOWER. § 259 
 
 604 ; MeCauley v. Grimes, 2 Gill & J. 318, SHi ; 20 Am. Dec. 4^ ; King 
 V. Stcnsoii, II Allen, 407, 408; McGowan v. Smith, 44 Barb. 2;!2, 2:!7 ; 
 Welsh V. Buckius, !) Ohio St. 33J, 3;;:! ; Jones v. Parker, 51 Wis. 2:8, 22.i. 
 
 12 Jones r. Parker, 51 Wis. 218, 223. Compare Spencer v. Loe, 13 
 W. Va. 179, 193. 
 
 13 Gammon ?». Freeman, 21 Me. 101, I0> ; Riivvlings v. Lowndes, C4 
 Me. (CW, 642. 
 
 14 Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. 552, 5.58. 
 
 15 McGowan v. Smith, 41 Barb. 232, 2:!8 ; Wheatloy v. Calhoun, 12 
 Leigh, 264, 274 ; 37 Am. Dec. 654. 
 
 16 Gage )■. Ward, 25 Me. 101. 103 ; RawiiiiETS r. Lowndes, 34 Md. 630, 
 643 ; Smith >'. MeCartnev, IIH Mass. 51!i, ."iJu ; Kius r. Stetson, H Allen, 
 407, 408 ; Fontaine r. Boatmen's, .57 Mo. .5.')2, .Vi.i ; Stow >'. Tilft, ISJohns. 
 45!l, 463; 8 Am. Deo. 266 ; Wheatlev r. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, 274 ; 
 37 Am. Dec. 6.54 ; Gilliam !'. Moore, 4 Leigh, 30, 32 ; 24 Am. Dec. 704. 
 
 17 Grant v. Dodge, 43 Me. 480, 400; Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. 
 552, 558. 
 
 IS Fontaine v. Boatmen's, 57 Mo. 552, 5.50. 
 
 19 Pendleton v. Pomeroy, 4 Allen, 510, 511. 
 
 20 Moore ?■. Rollins, 45 M". 403. 404 ; Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 5S0, 605, 
 606; Cunningham r. Knight, 1 Barb. 3^9. 
 
 21 Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 403, 404, 495. 
 
 22 McGowan v. Smith, 44 Barb. 232, 239. 
 
 23 Wheatlev v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264, 274 ; 37 Am. Dec. 654. See 
 Kittle V. Van Dyck, 1 Sand. Ch. 76, 81. 
 
 24 Rawlings v. Lowndes, 34 Md. 639, 642. 
 
 25 Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101, 103; Westfall v. Hintze, 7 Abb. N. C. 
 236 ; Calmes v. McCracken, 8 S. C. 87, 99. 
 
 ^ 26 Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 580, 604. 
 
 27 George v. Cooper, 15 W. Va. 666, 672. 
 
 28 See post, U 260. 261. 
 
 29 Bovnton v. Sawyer, .35 Ala. 497, 500 ; Rawlings r. Lowndes, 34 
 Md. 639, 642 ; Whitehead y. Middleton, 2 How. (.Miss.) 692, 61)6. 
 
 30 Thompson, 1 Jones, 430. See Tucker r. Field, 51 Miss. 19 ; Pickett 
 V. Buckner, 45 Miss. 226; Tarplev c. GmVnaway, 2 Cold. 245; .laines v. 
 Fields, 5 Heisk. 394 ; Perkins v. McDonald, 3 Ba.xt. :543. 
 
 31 BuUard !'. Bowers, 10 N. H. .500, .502. 
 
 32 Warner v. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige, 51.3. See pout, I 261. 
 
 33 Caroon r. Cooper, 63 N. C. 38b, 388. Seepo**, ? 261. 
 
 34 Consult cases infra, n. 35 ; post, I 261. 
 
 35 Brooks v. Woods, 40 Ala. 5-38, .541. S. P., Willett t\ Beatty, 12 
 Mon. B. 172; Warner r. Van Alstyne, 3 Paige, 513; Thompson, 1 
 Jones, 430 ; Klutts, 5 Jones Eq. 80 ; Williams c. Woods, 1 Humph. 408. 
 
 36 Barnes v. Gav, 7 Iowa, 26 ; Naz. Lit. v. Lowe, 1 Mon. B. 2.57 ; 
 Bisland r. Hewett, It Sniedes & M. 164 ; Riddicle v. Walsh, 15Mo.5t9; 
 Williams v. Woods, 1 Humph. 408; Wilson v. Davisson,2 Rob. Va. .384. 
 
 37 McArthur r. Porter, 1 Ohio, SO, lOl. See Willett v. Beattv, 12 
 Mon. B. 172 ; Smith v. Gardner, 42 Barb. 357 ; post, I 261. 
 
 38 Wilson V. Ewing, 79 Ky. .549, .550. 
 
 .39 Hugunin v. Cochrane, 51 111. :J02, .305 ; 2 Am. Rep. .303 ; ante, J 2.56.
 
 § 260 DOWER. 382 
 
 40 Hugunin v. Cochrane, 51 III. 302, 305 ; 2 Am. Rep. 303 ; post, I 268. 
 
 41 Baker v. McCune, 82 Ind. 339, 341 ; ante. § 247. 
 
 42 Melone v. Armstrong, 79 Ky. 248, 249. 
 
 43 Slaughter v. Culpepper, 44 Ga. 319, 320. 
 
 I 260. Dower in mortgaged lands. — When land is 
 mortgaged, the mortgagee holds the mortgage simply 
 as security ; ' his interest is a chattel interest which goes 
 to his personal representatives on his death, ^ and 
 though he has the legal title to the property, at all 
 events after default,^ he is seized simjily as tru.stee;* 
 therefore, since there is no dower in a chattel interest^ or 
 a bare legal title,^ it has always been admitted tliat the . 
 wife of a mortgagee has no dower in the mortgaged 
 lands,^ unless he has perfected his title thereto by fore- 
 closure during his life.* The mortgagor has, on the 
 other hand, tlie full substantial ownership of the mort- 
 gaged projierty until foreclosure,® and has generally 
 now the legal title reserved until default,!*' which gives 
 him an estate on condition, dower in which may be 
 defeated by breach of the condition ; " but after default, 
 at all events, he has only an equitable estate, '^ tlie right 
 to clear off the encumbrance by payment, called the 
 equity of redemption.'^ At common law there was no 
 dower in equitable estates,'* and therefore in an equity 
 of redemption;'^ so that tlie wife of the mortgagor 
 could no more have dower at common law than the 
 wife of the mortgagee ;'^ still, the mortgagor's wife had 
 dower if the mortgage were for years only." But now 
 either by an express statute or as equitable estates,'^ 
 equities of redemption are subject to dower.'® And 
 this rule applies to all cases when the mortgage is para- 
 mount to dower ;^ i. e., whetlier the land was bought 
 subject to the mortgage, ''' or the mortgage was made 
 by the husband before his marriage,^ or after marriage 
 jointly with his wife,® or after marriage without her
 
 3S:3 DOWER. 1 260 
 
 joinder, as a pari ol the transaction which vested the 
 property in him.-' In these cases there is no dower in 
 the lands but only in the equity of redemption. ^5 lu 
 other cases wlien the mortgage is made after marriage 
 without the wife's joinder, lier dower is paramount 
 thereto, and she lias dower in the lands as if tliere 
 were no mortgage, ^^ except where she has dower only 
 of the lauds of which the- husband dies seized.'^ She 
 may show that a deed absolute on its face Avas in fact 
 only a mortgage.'^* When she has dower in an equity 
 of redemption, if the husband dies without default, she 
 may be endowed out of the lands and hold them until 
 default ; ^ for even when she joins in the mortgage she 
 releases her rights only as to the mortgagee,^" and as 
 to him only to the extent that the husband releases 
 his.3* If the husband dies after default and tlie mort- 
 gagee has taken possession, the widow cannot disturb 
 him or have dower,'^ unless the property has been 
 redeemed ^3 or sold under the mortgage,^* 
 
 1 Crittenden v. Johnson, 6 Eng. 94, 104. 
 
 2 Reid !'. Shiplej', 6 Vt. 602, 600 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618, 621. 
 
 3 Stelle V. Carroll, 12 Peters, 201, 205 ; Maybury v. Brien, 15 Peters, 
 21, 38 ; Piokett v. Buckner, 45 Miss. 2^3,- 244 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Puiso, 
 4J, 54. 
 
 4 Dawson v. Whitehaven, Law R. 6Ch. D. 218, 221 ; Dixon v. Saville, 
 1 Bro. C. C. 326. 
 
 5 Spangler v. Stanlor, 1 Md. Ch. 36, .37 ; ante, I 254. 
 
 6 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 114 ; ante, U 252, 256. 
 
 7 Foster r. Dwinel, 49 Me. 44, 53. See Nash v. Preston, Ore. Car. 
 190 ; Hinton, 2 Vcs. Jr. 6J1 ; Noel v. Jevon, Freeni. 4:i, 71 ; Ark. Dig. 
 1874,12216; Crittenden v. Johnson, 6 Eng. 94, 104; 111. H. S. ISSO, p. 
 42.5, ? 6 ; N. Y. B. .S. 18S3. p. 2l:)7, ? 7 ; Cooper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 94, 
 100 ; R"id V. Shiplov, 6 Vt. 602, 609 ; Waller, 33 Oratt. 8i, 8ij ; 1 Wash. 
 Real Prop. p. Hii, H-J ; 1 Scribner Dow. 477,478. 
 
 8 Foster v. Dwinel, 49 Me. 44, 53. 
 
 9 Titus V. Xfilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452,454 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 
 618, 621, 6J.i ; Boll V. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, 51, 6S. 
 
 10 See Bank v. Arnold, 5 Paige, 38, 41 ; Danforth v. Smith, 23 Vt. 
 247, 25J ; infra, n. 23. 
 
 11 Moore v. Esty, 5 N. 11. 479 ; ante, ? 254. 
 
 12 Stelle V. Carroll, 12 Peters, 201, 205. 
 
 13 Heth V. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344, 316.
 
 §260 
 
 DOWER. 284 
 
 14 Ransom, 17 Fed. Rep. 331, 333 ; ante, ? 25G. 
 
 15 Dixon V. Saville, 1 Bro. C. C. 326 ; Dawson v. Whitohaven, Law 
 R. 6 Cli. D. 218, 221; Mavbury, v. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, 38; Cox v. 
 (^arst, 105 III. H-12, :146 ; Glenn r. Clark, '>^ Mil. 5no, 607; Mckett v. 
 Buckner, 45 Miss. 226, 2-l'i ; Denton v. Naiinv, 8 Barb. 618, 620; Reed 
 V. Morrison, 12 8erg. & K. 18, 20 ; Eddy v. Moulton, 13 R. I. 105, 106. 
 
 16 See Hopkinsou v. Dumas, 42 X. H. 296. 
 
 17 Palmes x\ Danbv, Prec. Ch. 137 ; .Swaine r. Perino, 5 Johns. Ch. 
 4Si, 4!)1 ; Keth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344, 340 ; Park Dow. 140, 3.50, 351 ; 1 
 Scribner Dow. 476. 
 
 18 M.aybury v. Brien, 15 Peters, 21, 38. 
 
 ' 19 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105, i 2 ; Dawson v. Whitehaven, Law R. 6 
 Ch. D. 213, 221 ; Ala. Code 1876, ? 2232 ; Fry v. Merchants, 15 Ala. 810 ; 
 Eshiva 1!. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 501 ; 66 Am. Dec. 266 ; Cheek ?;. Waldrum, 
 25 Ala. 152 ; Ark. Dig. 1874, g 2213 ; Cockerill v. Armstrong, 31 Ark. 580 ; 
 Fish, I Conn. 559 ; Conn. Laws 1877, p. 2U : Cornog, 3 Del. Ch. 407 ; D. C. 
 R. C. 1S57, p. 185, ? 41 ; McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 698 ; Hart v. McCol- 
 lum, 28 Ga. 47S ; Rust v. Billingslea, 44 Ga. 146, 306 ; Kinnebrew r. Mc- 
 Wharter, 61 (Ja. .33 ; 111. R. S. 18s0, p. 425, ? 3 ; Fisk v. Smitli. 1 Gilm. 506 ; 
 Bhiin I'. Harrison, 11 111. 38-1 ; Gold v. Ryan, 14 111. 53 ; Burson r. Dow, 
 Go 111. 146 ; Cox r. Garst, 105 111. 342, 347 ; K v. R. S. 1879, p. ,527 ; McClure 
 V. Harris, 12 Men. B. 2l'.l ; Willett v. Beat'ty, 12 Mon. B. 172 ; Tevis v. 
 Stojle, 4 Mon. 33!) ; Brewer v. Van Arsdale, 6 Dana, 204 ; Harrow v. 
 Johnson, 3 Met. (Ky.) 578 ; Me. R. S. Ii71, p. 758, J 12 ; Nason r. Allen, 
 6 Me. 243; .Smith v. Eustis, 7 Me. 41 ; Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. 102; 
 Hobbs V. Harvey, 16 Me. so ; Campbell v. Knights, 24 Me. 332 ; 45 Am. 
 Dec. 107 ; Gage xk Ward, 24 Me. 101 ; Gammon v. Freeman, 31 Me. 243 ; 
 Littlefield i). Crock.r, 30 Me. 192; Manning ?>. Laboree, 33 Ble. 343; 
 Simonton v. Grav, 34 Me. 50; Smith v. Stanley, :ff Me. 11 ; Young v. 
 Tarbell, 37 Me. 5C7 ; Grant v. Dodi,'e, 43 Me. 489 ; Wilkins v. French, 20 
 Me. Ill ; Moorer. Rollins, 45 Me. 493 ; Barbour, 46 Me. 9 ; Wingt'. Ayer, 
 53 Me. 138 ; Hatch v. Palmer, 58 Me. 271 ; Mass. R. S. 1882, p. 741, f 5 ; 
 8no\v II. Stevens, 15 Mass. 278 ; Barker rr. Parker, 17 Mass. 564; Peabody 
 V. P.itten, 2 Pick. 517, 519 ; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146 ; 3 Pick. 475 ; 
 Walker V. Griswold^e Pick. 416 ; Eaton %k Simomls, 14 Pick. 98 ; Jenni- 
 son V. Hapgoo 1, 11 Pick. 315 ; 19 .\m. Dec. 258 ; Van VrmikiT v. East- 
 man, 7 Met. 157 ; Messiter v. Wright, 16 Pick. 151 ; Lnnd i\ Woods, U 
 Met.5r.S; Niles?'. Nye, 13 Mot. 1:35; Nc'Wton?'. Cook,4t;rav,46 ; Pynch- 
 oi V. Lester, 6 Gray, 314 ; King 100 Mass. 224 ; Lamb v. Moiitague, 112 
 Mass. 35i, 353 ; Md. R. C. 1S78, p. .397 ; Hopltins v. Fry, 2 Gill, 359 ; Miller 
 V. 8tump,3 (Jill, 304 ; Chewti. Farmers, 9 Gill, 361 ; Mantz ?>. Buchanan, 
 1 Md. Ch. 2o: ; Bank v. Owens, 31 Md. 320 ; Glenn ?-. Clark, .53 Md. .580 ; 
 Snyder, 6 Jlich. 470 ; Newton v. Sly, 15 Mich. 391 ; Mo. R. S. 1879, p. 263 ; 
 Atkinson t). Stewart, 46 5Io. 510 ; Atkinson r. Angeri,46Mo. 515 ; Pink- 
 hf.m V. Gear, 3 N. H. in ! ; Miore r. F.stv, 5 N. H. 479; Cass v. Martin, 
 6N. H. 25; Robinsiiii v. L(avitt,7X. II. 9S ; BuIIard r. Bowers, 10 N. H. 
 500 ; Rossiter v. Cds^^it, 15 X. H. 38 ; Clmigh v. Klliott, 23 N. H. 182 ; 
 Adams v. Hill, 29 N. II. 202 ; Hastings v. Stevens, 29 N. H. 564 ; Woods i». 
 Wallace, 30 N. H. ;i84 ; Copp v. Horsey, 31 N. H. 317 ; Hinds v. Ballou, 
 44 N. H. 619; Montgomery v. Brouere, 5 N. J. L. 805 ; Woodhull v. 
 Reid, 16 N. J. L. 128; Yeo ?■. JF^rcereau, 18 N. J. L. .387 ; Thompson v. 
 Boyd, 21 N. J. L. 58, 22 N. J. L. 543 ; Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 349 ; Hinch- 
 man v. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. 361, 45}^ Furman v. Clark, 11 X. J. Eq. 135; 
 Hays V. Whitall, 13 X. J. Eq. 211 ; Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 
 231 ; Campbell, 30 X. J. Eq. 415; X. Y. R. S. 1882, p. 2197 ; Titus >•. Xei.- 
 son, 5 Julius. Ch. 4.")2, 4.") ; Coatest;. Cheever, 1 ('owcn.ino ; Jackson ?'. 
 Dewitt. 6 Cowc'i, 310; Stow v. TiTt, 15 J(dins. -l^S ; 8 Am. Dec. 266 ; 
 Hitcht'ock 1'. Harrington, 0J(dins. 2j0 ; 5 Am. Dec. 229; Van Duvne)'. 
 Thayre, 14 Wend. 233 ; 19 Wend. 1G2 ; Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw.
 
 335 DOWER. g 260 
 
 c:4 ; Smith t'. Jackson, 2 Edw. Ch. 2S ; Frost v. Peacock, 4 Edw. C'h. 
 6ri ; Tubple, 1 Johns. Ch. AH; Swaine v. Pcrine. 5 Johns. Ch. 4iJ; 
 Bell I' Mayor, 10 Puiire, ■) I ; Ilawk-v v. James, 5 Pai'^-e, 318 ; Dentoii 
 1' Nanny, 8 Barb. 613; Vartie >: I'lidcrwood, 18 Barb. 5(;2 ; Mills v. 
 Van Voorhies, 23 Barb. 125 ; 20 X. Y. 412 ; Smith v. Gardner, 42 B vrb. 
 3'i7; Matthews v. Uurvea, 45 Barb. 0.) ; Buss v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 
 527; Bracke't v. Baurh. 50 iST. Y. S ; Elmdorf r. Lockwood, 57 N. Y. 
 322 ; N. C. Rev. lS7:i, p. 839 ; Thompson,! Jones, 430 ; Klutts,5 JonesEq. 
 SO ; Campbell v. Murph v, 2 Jones 1 Oq. 357 ; Creeoy v. Pearoe, 63 N. C. 07 ; 
 Ohio R. S. 1880, HISS ; Rands i'. Kendall, 15 Ohio, 671 ; Taylor v. Fow- 
 ler, 18 Ohio, 567 ; 51 Am. Dec. 4GJ ; Carter r. Goodin, 3 Ohio St. 75; 
 Davenport v. Sovil, 6 Ohio St. 453 ; Culber v. Harper, 27 Ohio St. 4(!1 ; 
 Forr V. Pratt, 27 Ohio St. 512 ; Ungcr v. Leiter, 32 Ohio St. 210 ; 
 Ketchnm ». Shaw, 28 Ohio St. 503; Folsom r. l£lioles, 22 Ohio St. 
 435 ; Oreg. G. L. 1874 ; p. 5S4 ; Dubs, 7 C.is. 1 l:i ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 
 Serg. & R. 18; R. I. P. S. 1852, p. 6 7 ; Jlath.'wson r. Smith, 1 R. I. 
 22; Peckham v. Nowden, 8 R. I. KJO ; De Wolf v. Murphy, 11 R. I. 
 360 ; Henegan v. Harllee, 10 Rich. Eq. 2s') ; Keekley,2 Hill. Ch. (.S. C; 
 2.50; Keith v. Trapior, 1 Bail. Ch. 63; Brown v. Duncan, 4 McCord, 
 .346 ; Tenn. R. S. 1871, | 2339 ; James v. Fields, 5 Heisk. 3'J4 ; Boyer, 
 1 Cold. 12; Tarplev v. Gunnaway, 2 Cold. 245; Turbeville v. Gibson, 
 5 Heisk. 565 ; Va." Code 1873, p. 8.53 ; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344 ; 
 Wheiitlev -!'. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 264; .37 Am. Dec. 654; Daniel v. 
 Leiteh, 13 Gratt. 11)5 ; Vt. R. S. 1S80, i 2210 ; Danforth v. Smith, 23 Vt. 
 247 ; Wis. R. S. 1878, p. 62S ; ante, ? 25a 
 
 20 See a?i<e, ? 2.58. 
 
 21 Carll V. Butman, 7 Me. 102. See Campbell, 30 N. J. Eq. 415. 
 
 22 Heth V. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344, 346. 
 
 23 Cox V. Garst, 105 III. 342, .347. S. P., Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. 
 Ch. 202, 204 ; Glemi v. Clark, 53 Md. osO, 604 ; Bank v. Owens, 31 Md. 
 320, 328 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Biirb. 618, 620 ; State i'. Hinton, 21 Ohio 
 St. 509, 515 ; Mathewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 22, 27. 
 
 24 House, 10 Paige, 158, 104. S. P., Smith v. Eustis, 7 Me. 41 ; Ilol- 
 brook )'. Fiunev, 4 Mass. 566; 3 Am. Dec. 243; Bell v. Mayor, 10 
 Paige, 4), 54 ; ante, i 2.59. 
 
 25 Opdyke v. Bartles, 11 N. J. Eq. 1.33, 134 ; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. 
 aj4, 316. 
 
 26 Davis v. McDonald. 42 Ga. 205. 207 ; Gerry v. Stinson. 60 IMo. 
 186, 191. 
 
 27 S°e Tern. R. S. 1873,? 2308; ante, ^247. MoTtgnge jn-o t ant j nn 
 alienation : Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, .5.5. 
 
 28 Whitcomb v. Sutherland, 18 111. 57S, .579; Johnson r. Van Vol- 
 son, 43 Mich, 203, 214 ; Turbeville v. Gibson, 5 Heisk. 565, 566. 
 
 29 Bank r. Arnold, 5 Paige, 38, 41 ; Danforth v. Smith, 23 Vt. 2^7, 
 259. S. P., Cockerill v. Armstro.ig, 31 Ark. .530 ; Ready v. Hamm, 46 
 Miss. 422 ; Tucker v. Field, 51 Miss. 191 ; Pickett v. Buckner, 45 Miss. 
 226; Culber ?•. Harper, 27 Ohio, 464; Perkins v. McDonald, 3 Ba.\t. 
 »43; Tarpley v. Gunnaway, 2 Cold. 245 ; James v. Fields, 5 Heisk. 394. 
 
 .30 Young If. Tarbell, 37 Me. .509, 515 ; Pickett v. Buckner, 45 Miss. 
 226, 246 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, 65 ; Mathewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 
 22, 27. 
 
 31 Bank v. Arnold, 5 Paige, 38, 41. 
 
 32 Van Duyne v. Thayre, 14 Wend. 2.33, 2.36. 
 
 33 Bell V. JIayor, 10 Paige, 49, 54 ; post, i 261. 
 
 34 Smith v. Jackson, 2 Edw. 23, 35 ; post, I 201. 
 
 H. & W. -33.
 
 § 231 DOWER. 386 
 
 5 2Q1. Dower in mortgaged estates — Redemption and 
 foreclosure. — When the mortgage is in default after the 
 husband's death, the widow may call on his personal 
 representatives to redeem out of the assets of the 
 estate :^ this it is the executoi's' or administi-ators' duty 
 to do, 2 but in some States only if the estate is solvent ;2 
 and the widow need not contribute ; * if there are not 
 sufficient assets to pay the whole, they must pay what 
 they have and save as far as possible the widow's 
 dower." The widow has herself the right to redeeni,^ 
 but she must i^ay the whole debt,' unless the mort- 
 gagee agrees to accept a proportion thereof and to re- 
 lease the mortgage only as to her dower lands ; ^ if she 
 does pay the whole debt, she may call on the lius- 
 band's heirs, or other parties holding under him, to 
 contribute,* though this seems doubtful.^*' If tlie par- 
 ties holding under the husband redeem after his 
 death,ii the widow may have her dower only by con- 
 tributing her share of the debt.^' The widow's share 
 for contribution is the interest on one third of the sum 
 paid for redemption, during her life, or the equivalent 
 thereof.^^ For, though there is a rule that there is no 
 dower in any equitable estate of which the husband 
 does not die seized," and thoiigh this has been ap])lied 
 to equities of redemption,!^ generally the widow does 
 take dower, although the husband has aliened the 
 equity of redemption ^^ — certainly if the mortgage was 
 one in which she joined" — on the ground that the 
 mortgage is merely a security which can be set up only 
 by the mortgagee or his assigns ;*8 and if the alienee 
 has redeemed during the husband's life, he cannot 
 make the widow contribute,'^ though he can if he re- 
 deem after the husband's death,^ or if he be assignee 
 of the Iiusband's heir. 2' If the mortgagee buys in the 
 equitj' of redemption there is strictly a merger,^^ but 
 
 M
 
 SS7 DOWER. I 261 
 
 practically it is treated as a redemption ; ^^ so if the 
 assignee of the eqiiitj^ buys in the nior;gage.'-' If the 
 husbuud or anyone for him '^ pays otf the mortgage, 
 there is dower as if no mortgage liad existed.-'* If the 
 mortgage is foreclosed during coverture, the realty is 
 changed into personalty 2' under alien paramount to 
 dower, and dower is gone ; •® but some courts have lield 
 that on account of her inchoate right the wife must be 
 a party to the foreclosure suit,'-^ and that if there is a 
 surplus, dower therein will be set aside and kept for 
 her.^" If tlie mortgage is foreclosed after tlie husband's 
 death,^' or the fund lias not been distributed at that 
 time,^^she has dower in the surplus,** which represents 
 the value of the equity of redemption,** and in the 
 surplus only ;*^ if there is no surplus, dower is gone,*^ 
 provided that she has been duly made a party to the 
 suit.*' 
 
 1 Mantz I'. Buchanan, 1 Mel. C h. "02, 204. See Bovnton t>. S.iwver, 
 35 Ala. 4!t7, oCK) ; Morgan v. .Saci^ett, 57 Ind. 580, 582 ; Perry v. Barton, 
 2.) Ind. 274, '277; llun.sucker r. bniith, 49 Ind. 114, 118; Harrow r. 
 Joliiison,3 Met. (Ky.) 578, 581 ; King, 100 Mass. 224, 225; Kosslter i'. 
 Co.ssit, 15 N. H. 3S, 42-44; Holmes, :i Paige Vh. 363; Warner v. Van 
 Alstyne. 3 Paige, 513 ; Campbt'll v. Mnrphy, 2 Jones Kq. 357 ; Creecy 
 1\ Pearce, 6;i X. C. 07 ; M;Uii'>\vson c. Smith, 1 R. I. 22,25; Henegan v. 
 lla;llee, 10 Rich. Eq. 28i ; Keckley, 2 Jlill Ch. 250. 
 
 2 Morgan v. Sackett, 57 Ind. 6.S0, 582 ; Mathewson v. Smith, 1 R. I. 
 2J, 25 ; siqjra, n. 35. 
 
 3 Rossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 38, 42. See AVhitehead v. Cumming.s, 
 1 Cart. 5i ; Uibsou v. Crehore 5 Pick. 146, 150; Hastings v. Stevens, 21) 
 >'. H. 504,572. 
 
 4 Rossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 38, 43 ; sujyra, n. 1. 
 
 5 Hunsucker v. Smith, 49 N. H. 114, 118 ; Perry v. Barton, 25 Ind. 
 274,276. Consult «»pra, n. 35. 
 
 G Whitcomb v. Sutherland, IS 111. 578, 579 ; Lamb v. Montague, 112 
 Mass. 352, 353; Woods r. Wallace, 30 N. H. a'<4, :«8 ; Wheeler r. Mor- 
 ns, 2 Bosw. 524, 53o ; Robinson i'. Shacklett, 2J Gr;Ut. 'M, 107. See 
 Hitehins, 2 Vern. 403 ; Fry v. Merchants, 15 AUi. M(i ; JIcMahon v. 
 Russell, 17 Fla. (i.t8 ; Hanover c. Johnson, 3 Met. (Kv.i.i7->; (Jage v. 
 Ward, 25 Me. 101, 10!; Peabody v. Patten, 2 Pick. 517," 51!i ; Snydvr, 6 
 Mich. 470; Furman v. Clark, 11 N. J. Eq. 135 ; Cass v. ]\[artin, ti N. II. 
 25, 26 ; Van Duvne v. Thuvre, 14 Wend. 2:13 ; 19 Wend. 1G2 ; Ketchnni 
 V. Shaw, 28 Ohio St. 503 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 1^, 21 ; Hen- 
 egan )'. Harllee, 10 Rich. Eq. 285; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. 344, 348; 
 Danforth i'. Smith, 23 Vt. 247. 
 
 7 McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray, 14S, 149. S. P.. McMahon r. Russell. 
 17 ria. GJ8, 703; Kiuuebrew v. McWharter, 61 Ga. 33, ;i4 ; McJIahan
 
 § 2G1 DOWER. 388 
 
 r. Kimball, 3 Blackf. 1, 12 ; Watson r. Clendenin, 6 Blackf. 477, 478 : 
 Ciage V. Ward, 25 Me. 101, Wi; Campbell v. Kliiglits, U4 Me. 3a2, XU ; 
 45 Am. Dec. 107 ; Wing v. Ayer, .53 Me. lo8 ; Purtly , 3 Md. Ch. 547 ; Gib- 
 son r. Crehore, 5 Pick. 145, 151 ; i^lessiter r. Wright, 16 Pick. 151, 151 ; 
 Sneed v. Wood, II Met. 5tiri, 570 ; Brown v. Lapham, 3 Cush. 551, 554 ; 
 Rossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 3S, 43; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 4H, 71 ; 
 Van Duyne r. Thayre, 14 Wend. 2:3, 236 ; 111 Wend. 162 ; Wheatley 
 V. C'llhoun, 12 Leigh, 264; 37 Am. Den. 654; Heth v. Cocke, 1 Rand. 
 34-1.346. 
 
 8 Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 145, 151. 
 
 n Pickett V. Buckner, 45 Miss. 226, 246. See 1 .Scribner Dow. 408, 
 409; McMahan v. Kimball, 3 Blackf. 1. 12; Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. 
 lOi; Gage v. Ward, 25 Me. 101, 103; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill; 
 (iibson V. Crehore, 5 Pick. 146, 152 ; Woods v. Wallace. 30 X. H. 384, 
 3SS ; Swaine v. Periiie, 5 Johns. Ch. 482 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 4'X 
 
 10 Consult cases cited supra, n. 9. 
 
 11 Eaton V. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98, 107 ; cases infra, n. 12. 
 
 12 Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482, 491. S. P., McMahon v. Rus- 
 sell, 17 Fla. 6)8, 705 ; Cox r. Garst, 105 111. 342,347 ; Watson v. Clendeniii, 
 6 Blackf. 477; Mantz v. Buchanan, I Md. Ch. 202 ; Bank v. Owens, 
 31 Md. 320 ; Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. 102 ; Simonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 50 ; 
 Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493; Barbour, 46 Me. 9; Wilkins v. French, 
 20 Me. Ill ; Hatch v. Palmer, 58 Me. 271 ; King, 100 Mass. 224 ; Ser- 
 geant V. Fuller. 105 Mass. 119 ; Pynchon v. Lester, 6 Gray, 314 ; Katon 
 V. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98, 104, 107, 108 ; McCabe v. Bellows, 7 Gray, 148 ; 
 Niles V. Nye, 13 Mot. 1^5 ; Newton v. Cook, 4 Gray, 46; Atkinson v. 
 Stewart, 46 Mo. 510 ; Atkinson ?>. Angert, 46 Mo. 575: Seveanv i'. Mal- 
 lorv, 62 Mo. 485 ; Hinds v. Ballou, 44 N. H. 619 , Copp v. Hersey, 31 
 N. H. 317; Woods V. Wallace, 30 N. H. .^Sl ; Hastings v. Stevens, 29 
 N. H. 501 ; Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524 ; Bell v. INIayor, 10 Paige, 
 49 ; House, 10 Paige, 1-58 ; Creecv v. Pearce, 6 » N. C. 07 ; Fox v. Pratt, 
 27 Ohio St. 512 ; Wheatley v. Calhoun, 12 Leigh, 204 ; 37 Am. Dec. 654. 
 
 13 Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482, 493. See Greenbaum v. Aus- 
 trian, 70 111. 591 ; Bank v. Owens, 31 Md. 320 ; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 
 Pick. 146, 1.52; Cass v. Martin, 6 N. H. 2.5, 2r> ; Rossiter r. Cossit, 15 
 N. H. 38, 43 ; Clough V. Elliott,"23 N. II. 182, 18^ ; Woods r. Wallace, : 
 N. H. 384, .388 ; Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 349, 359 ; Evartson v. Tappen, 
 6 Johns. Ch. 482, 4)3 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, 71 ; House, 10 Paige, 
 158, 164 ; Ross V. Boardman, 22 Hun, 527. 
 
 14 Gully V. Ray, 18 Mon. B. 107, 113 ; ante, § 256. 
 
 15 Miller v. Stump, 3 Gill, 304, 311; Glenn v. Clark, 53 Md. .5.80, fi04 ; 
 Rands v. KendaU, 15 Ohio, 671, 676; Pillow v. Thomas, 1 Baxt. 120. 
 
 16 McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 6;i8, 705; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 
 618, 621. See Smith r. Eustis, 7 Me. 41, 43; .Manning v. Laboree, 33 
 Me. 343; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill ; Young v. Tarbell, 37 Me. 
 .509, 515 ; Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493, 495 ; Eaton v. Simonds, 14 Pick. 
 i;8, 104 ; Bolton v. Ballard, 13 Mass. 227 ; Wedge v. Moore, 6 Cush. 8 ; 
 Draper v. Baker, 12 Cush. 288 ; Henrv, 4 Cush. 2.57 ; Whitehead v. 
 Middleton,2How. (Miss.) 632; Rossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 38; Hast- 
 l:;gst). Stevens, 2 IN. H. .5(!4 ; Bullard )•. Bowers, 10 N. H. 500;; Hinch- 
 man v. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. 361, 362 ; Titns v. Neil.son, 5 Johns. C h. 1.52, 
 4.57; Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cowen, 460, 478; Coles, 15 Johns. 319; 
 8Am.Dec.231 ; Wlieeler r. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524, .526 ; Carter i'. Goodin, 
 3 Ohio St. 75 ; Mathewson f. Smith, 1 R. I. 22, 27. 
 
 17 Bank v. Owens, 31 Md. 320, 32.5. 
 
 18 Collins V. Torry, 7 Johns. 278, 282 ; a Am. Dec. 273 ; Hitchcock 
 V. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290, 2„5 ; 5 Am Dec. 229 ; ante, I 260, n. 30.
 
 3S9 DOWER. § 281 
 
 19 Eaton V. Simonds, 14 Pick. 9'^, 107, 108 ; At:vlnRon v. Stewart 46 
 Mo. 510, 514; Ketehum v. Shaw, i:s Ohio St. oO.i, 506; 1 \\as;i. lunil 
 I'rop. 1H6, J il. UliC See 1 Scrihiicr Dow. 5:i5 ; Baihour, 4G Me. U ; New- 
 ton V. Cook, 4 Gray, 46 ; Pyiioiiou v. Lester, 6 Gray, 314. 
 
 20 Eaton v. Simoiuls, 14 Pick. 98, 107 ; supra, notes 11, 12. 
 
 21 Cass 1'. Martin, G N. II. 25; Swaine v. Ferine, 5 John.s. Ch 4S2, 
 491 ; 1 Scribner l)oW. 532. 
 
 22 Hitchcock r. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290, 294 ; 5 Am. Dec. 229. See 
 Duval II. Kebiger, 1 C inn. App. 2(H ; Denton v. Harris, 2 Mason, 531, 
 5:!!l ; Popkin v. lUunpstead, 8 Jlass. 491 ; 5 Am. Dec. 113; Tliompsoa 
 V. Boyd, 22 X. J. L. 5i ; : 21 N. J. L. 58 ; Coates r. Cheever, 1 Cowen, 
 463, 479 ; Collins v. Torry, 7 Johns. 278 ; 5 Am. Dec. 273. 
 
 23 12 Law Rep. 16-5, 167 ; Campbell v. Knights, 24 Me. 332 ; 45 Am. 
 Dec. 107 ; Van Vronker i'. Eastman, 7 Met. l.>7 ; Snj'der, 6 Mich. 470; 
 Woods ti. Wallace. ;{0 N 11. :K1, ;iS7 ; James p. Morev,2 Cowen, 246. 
 285, 303 ; 14 Am. Dec. 475 ; Van Duyne v Thayre, 19 Wend. 162, 171. 
 
 24 Brown v. Lapham, 3 Cush. 531, 557 ; Woods v. Wallace, .30 N. H. 
 384,387; HartshorneL2 X.J Eq. :;4), 35J. Kegarded as assignee of 
 mortgage : Carll v. Butman, 7 Me 102 ; McCable v. Swap, 14 Allen, 
 18a, 193 ; Gibson v. Crehore, 5 Pick. 140 ; ICussell v. Austin, 1 1'uige, 192. 
 
 25 Carter v. Goodin, 3 Ohio St. 75, 78. See Hatch ?>. Palmer, 58 Me. 
 271 ; Brown i'. Laph im, 3 Cush. .551 ; Bolton v. Ballard, 13 Mass. 227; 
 Ketchum v. Shaw, 28 Ohio St. 503. 
 
 26 Eaton V. Simonds, 14 Pick. 98, 104 ; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. 
 Ch. 482, 493. 
 
 27 Bell V. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, 55. 
 
 28 Dean v. Phillips, 17 Ind. 406, 409 ; Xewhall v. Lvnn, 101 Mass. 
 428 ; 3 Am. Rep. 387 ; Frost v. Peacock, 4 Edw. Ch. 678, 695 ; Titus v. 
 Xeilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452,4.57; Bell v. Mayor, 10 I'aige, 49, .55 ; State 
 V. Hinton, 21 Ohio St. 509 ; Eolsom v. Rhodes, 22 Ohio St. 435, 436. 
 
 29 Wheeler v. Morris, 2 Bosw. 524, 535 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 
 618,622; Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412; Ketchum v. Shaw, 28 
 Ohio St. 50:J, .506. Contra. Pritts v. Aldrich, 11 Allen, 39, 40 ; Reddick v. 
 Walsh, 15 Mo. 519, .5;J8. See Lamb v. Montague, 112 Mass. 352, 353; 
 Davis V. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60, 63 ; Robinson v. Shacklett, 29 Gratt. 
 9J, 107. See post, i 380. 
 
 30 Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231, 232; Denton xk Nanny, 8 
 Barb. 618, 621 ; Unger v. Leiter, 32 Ohio St. 210. 
 
 31 Smith V. Jackson, 2 Edw. 28, 35 ; infra, n. :::!. 
 
 32 State II. Hinton, 21 Ohio St. 509, 515. Husband must die before 
 the sale : Frost v. Peacock, 4 Edw. 678, 6J5. 
 
 33 Relff 1'. Horst, 5-5 Md. 42, 47. S. P., Cornog, 3 Del. Ch. 407 ; Har- 
 row v. John.son, 3 Met. (Ky.) 578 ; Jennison v. llapLtooiI, 14 I'ick. 345; 
 19 Am. Dec. 2)8 ; Rutherford v. Nuince, Walk. (Miss. i 170 ; Tucker v. 
 Field, 51 Miss. 191 ; Van Doren %\ Dickerson, 33 N. J. Ki]. 3ss ; Hineh- 
 man v. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. 454 ; Matthews r. Dnryea. 45 llarli. 69 : Titus 
 1'. Neilson, 5 John.s. Ch. 452; Ha« ley r. Bradford, 9 I'aige, 2i)l ; 37 Am. 
 Dec. 3;X>; Smith r. Jackson, 2 E)(Iw. Cli. 2S; EInidorf >•. Lockwood, 57 
 N. Y. 322 ; Fox v. Pratt, 27 Ohio St. 512 ; Culver r. Harper, 27 Ohio'St. 
 464 ; State v. Hinton. 21 Ohio St. 509, 515 ; Baker v. Fetters, 16 Ohio St. 
 596; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. <fe R. IS, 21 ; Chaffee v. Franklin, 11 
 R. I. 578 ; Brown v. Duncan, 4 McCord, 346 ; Seith v. Trapier, 1 Bail. 
 Ch. 6:3; Tibbetts r. I,angley, 12 S. C. 465; Boyd v. Martin, 9 Heisk. 
 3S2 ; HoUis, 4 Bnxt. 524 ; Bover, 1 Cold. 12 ; Thcmpson v. iLvman. 28 
 Wis. 266. See J 11. R. S. 1880, p. 425, lo; Ar.c. Dig. 1874, ? 2215 ; Ky. 
 R. S. 1879, p. 5C0, 1 5.
 
 § 262 DOWER. 390 
 
 34 Hinchman v. Stiles, 9 X. J. Eq. 361, 362; Titus v. Neilson, 5 
 Johns. Cli. 452, 457. 
 
 3.5 Hinchman v. Stiles, 9 X. J. Eq. 361, 362 ; State v. Hinton, 21 Ohio 
 St. 509, 615 ; supra, n. 33. 
 
 36 Nothingham, 1 Cart. 527; Robinson v. Shacklett, 29 Gratt, 99. 
 After foreclosure all rights in lands gone : Chew i'. Farmers, 9 Gill, 
 301, 374 ; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Mci. Ch. 202, 204 ; Hartshorne, 2 K. J. 
 Eq. 349, 35» ; Matthews i<. Duryea, 45 Barb. 63, 70 ; Smith v. Jackson, 
 2 Edw. 28, 35. 
 
 37 Denton v. Nannv, 8 Barb. 618, 622 ; Mills v. Van Voorhies, 20 
 N. Y. 412 ; 23 Barb. 125 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49, 56 ; Ross v. Board- 
 man, 22 Hun, 527, 528 ; Ketchum v. Shaw, 28 Ohio St. 503, 506. 
 
 I 232. Inchoaie dower, incidents of. — From the time of 
 the miarriage,! or of the vesting of tlie propertj'- if it -was 
 acquired after the marriage,^ until the death of the hus- 
 band at common law,'' or of divorce, his insolvency, 
 etc., under statutes,* dower is a mere inchoate right.* It 
 is not vested ;fi the legislature may change it," though 
 not to enlarge it as against one Avho has purchased the 
 land from the liusband.^ or to place it ahead of a prior 
 encunabrance ; ^ it has been called an expectancy or 
 possibility," more than a possibility, a contingent inter- 
 est, not an interest in real estate," not an estate, '^ a mere 
 contingent right.i' It is a wife's right to such part of her 
 liusband's lands as the law at the tiine if his death,!* or 
 of the alienation if he has aliened it,'^ may allow her. 
 It is certainly a Aaluable right," and has manj' of the 
 incidents of property ; ^^ its probable present value can 
 be comi)uted,'9 tliough some cases say it has no present 
 value ; ^^ it is a valuable consideration for a conveyance, 
 etc., to the wife; 2' she maj^ maintain an action for the 
 protection of it,^'' for example, to set aside a deed made 
 by the husband in fraud of her rights before ^ or after ^^ 
 marriage, or to recover damages against one who has se- 
 cured her joinder in her husband's deed bj' fraud ; ^= she 
 may file a bill to redeem ; '^ in some States, but not gener- 
 ally,^ she must be a party to a suit affecting the land,'-^ 
 and in case of a foreclosure during coverture, the value of 
 
 II
 
 391 DOWER. I 262 
 
 her inchoate dower will be set aside for her out of the 
 surjilus.^ Still inchoate dower cannot be bargained 
 and soldjS" but only released to the tenant ;^' and if the 
 release reserves compensation for her, her right thereto 
 will be recognized ; ^'^ it cannot be taken in execution ; ^ 
 the Statute of Limitations does not run against it.^* 
 Though it has sometimes been questioned whether 
 inchoate dower is an encuuibrance,^^ tliat it is, is now 
 settled ;^ it comes within the covenant against encum- 
 brances,^'' and is sucli an encumbrance as would justify 
 a vendee in refusing to perform his contract ; ^^ but its 
 existence is not a breacli of a covenant of seisin ;^^ nor 
 is there a breach of a covenant not to set up dower,^ or 
 for quiet enjoyment,^^ or of general warranty,^'^ until 
 dower has been claimed and set off; before assignment 
 only nominal damages can be recovered in any case.^^ 
 A suit may be maintained for quieting the title of land 
 in which inchoate dower is claimed." 
 
 1 Walt, 4 N. Y. 95, 99 ; ante, I 2.j0. 
 
 2 Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 333, 381 ; ante, i 246. 
 
 3 Beiffw. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; ante, I 251. 
 
 4 Wright V. Oelviu, 85 Ind. 123 ; Roberts v. Shroyer, 68 Ind. 64 ; 
 ante, 'H 247, 251. 
 
 5 Buzlck, 45 Iowa, 259, 262 ; 24 Am. Rep. 740 ; cases cited infra. 
 
 6 Simon v. Canady, 53 N. Y. 238, 303 ; 3 Am. Rep, 523 ; ante, U 22, 
 248. 
 
 7 Thornbury, 18 W. Va. 522, 527 ; ante, U 22, 248. 
 
 8 Lucas V. Sawyer, 17 Iowa, 517, 521. 
 
 9 Helphinstine v. Meredith, 84 Ind. 1, 3. 
 
 10 Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. 137, 14S. 
 
 11 Bull.ard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 539 ; 13 Am. Dec. 292. 
 
 12 Simon ^'. Canadv, 5? X. Y. 293,303; 13 Am. Rep. 523 ; Moore v. 
 Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 53 Am. Dec. 473 ; post, i 263, n. 8. 
 
 13 State V. Wincroft, 76 N. C. 38, 39. 
 
 14 Johnson ?'. V.in Dyke, 6 McLean, 422, 441. 
 
 15 Guerin v. Moore, 25 Minn. 462,465. 
 
 16 See O'Ferrall's v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381 ; ante, ? 24S. 
 
 17 Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 539 ; 19 Am. Dec. 292 ; Simon v. 
 Canady, 53 N. Y. 29S, 303 ; 13 Am. Rep. 523 ; Miller v. C'rawfurd, 32 
 Gratt. -77. 
 
 IS Buzlck, 44 Iowa, 259, 262 ; 24 Am. Rep. 740.
 
 g 262 DOWEK. 392 
 
 19 Buzick, 44 Iowa, 253, 262 ; Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige, 386, 408 ; 
 2 Scribner Bow. 6, n. 5. 
 
 20 Reiff r. Horst, 55 Xd. 42, 49 ; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 59 
 Am. Dec. 473. 
 
 21 Buzkk, 14 Iowa, 2.59, 262 ; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 539 ; 
 19 Am. Dec. 2y2 ; Reiff r. Horst, oo Md. 42, 49 ; ante, i 105. 
 
 22 Buzick, 44 Iowa, 25;i, 262. 
 
 23 Petty, 4 Mon. B. 215, 233 ; 39 Am. Dec. 501. 
 
 24 Buzick, 44 Iowa, 259, 264 ; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305. 
 
 25 Simon r. Canadv, 53 X. Y. 298, 303, 304 ; 13 Am. Rep. 523 ; Russell 
 V. Taylor, 41 Midi. 702. 
 
 26 Davis i>. Wetlierell, 13 AUen, 60, 63 ; ante, 1 261. 
 
 27 Pritts V. Aldrich, 11 Allen, 39, 40 ; ante, i 2fil ; jiost, I 2S0. 
 23 Greiner v. Klein, 23 Mich. 12, IS ; ante, ? 261 ; post, ? 280. 
 
 29 Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 X. J. Eq. 231, 232 ; cmte, i 261. 
 
 30 McKee ?■. Remolds, 26 Iowa, 578, 584 ; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 
 47 ; Davis V. Wetherell. 13 Allen, 60, 62 ; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. V. 110, 
 113 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; pijst, 'i 263. 
 
 31 Moore r. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113 ; 59 Am. Dec 473 ; post, { 2TI. 
 
 32 Reiff V. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 49 ; Miller v. Crawf urd, 32 Gratt. 277. 
 
 33 Davis I'. Wetherell, 13 Allen, fiO, 62 ; post, 5 2&3. 
 
 34 Davis r Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60,62; pas«, | 277. 
 
 35 Powell V. Monson, 3 JIass. 317, 3.55; Fuller v. Wright, 18 Pick. 
 ■Wo ; Kyce v. Oberts, 17 Ohio, 71. 
 
 36 Blodsret v. Brent, 3 Cranch C. C. 304, 336 ; Bamett i\ Gaines. 8 
 Ala. 273, 274. 8. P., Duvall r. Craig, 2 Wheat. 45 ; Parks v. Brooks, 16 
 Ala. 529 ; Shelton v. Carroll, 16 Ala. 148 ; Springle v. Shields, 17 Ala. 
 2.16; Vance v. Hooper, 11 Ala. 552; Beavers v. Smith, 11 Ala. 20; 
 McLemore v. Mabsou, 20 Ala. 137; Thrasher v. Pinkard, 34 Ala. 616 ; 
 Smith r. Ackerman,5 Blackf. 542; Whisler v. Hicks, 5 Bhickf. 10(j ; 
 :« Am. Dec. 4M ; Clark %■. Richardson, 32 Iowa, 399 ; Porter )•. No.ves, 
 2 Me. 26; 11 Am. Dec. 30; Post r. Campan, 42 Mich. 95; Bigelow v. 
 Hubbard, 97 Mass. 195 ; Prescott i-. Trueman, 4 Mass. 627 ; 3 Am. Dec. 
 246 ; Greenwood ?>. Lvon, 10 Smedes & M. 615 ; 43 Am. Dee. 775 ; Rus.s 
 V. Perry, 49 X. H. 517 ; Pitts r. Hoitt, 17 X. H. *«); ''arter ?>. Dennian, 
 23 X. J. li. 260 ; Jones v. Gardiner, 10 Johns. 266 ; Hill v. Ressegieu, 
 
 17 Barb. 162 ; Stevens v. Hunt, 15 Barb. J7 ; Ketchum v. Evert-son, 13 
 Johns. :i59 ; 7 Am. Dec. 384 ; Bituer v. Brough, 11 Pa. St. 137 ; Rank 
 Cov. 109-111. 
 
 37 Shearer v. Ranger, 22 Pick. 447, 449 ; supra, n. 36, 
 
 38 Barnett v. Gaines, 8 Ala. 373,374. S. P , Spinger v. Shields, 17 
 .-Vla.2>)6; Porteri'. Xoyes,2Me. 26; H.\m.Dec.30; Fuller r. Wright, 
 
 18 Pick. 405; Greenwood r. Lyon, 10 Smedes & M. 615; *! Am. Dec. 
 775; Beardslee r. Vnderhlll, 37 X. J. I^. 310; Jones v. Gardiner, 10 
 Johns. 266 ; Bitner i'. Brough, 11 Pa. St. 137. But see Xyce v. Obert.-^, 
 17 Ohio, 71,75. 
 
 39 Lewis, 5 Rich. 12. 
 
 40 Hudson r. Steere, 9 R. I. 106, 109. 
 
 41 Lewis, 5 Rich. 12. 
 
 42 Learv )•. Dunham, 4 Ga. 593 ; AVilson v. Taylor, 9 Ohio St. 5.95 ; 
 Johnson r. Xvce,17 Ohio,66 ; 49 Am. Dec. 444 ; Tuite r. MlUer, 5 WesU 
 U J. 413.
 
 393 DOWER. g 363 
 
 4^ Runnels r. Webber, o.) Me. 4SS; Harrington v. Murph v, 103 Mass. 
 ■U Madigan v. Welsh, -22 Wis. 501 
 
 ^ 263. Consammats dower before assigament — Incidents 
 of. — On the husband's death at t-ommon law,i or di- 
 vorce, etc., under statutes,^ dower is consummate.^ It 
 is a vested right,* which cannot be taken awa3%' In 
 •some States by construction of statutes, it is an estate 
 in common with the heirs or alienee ;^ but at common 
 law, before assignment and actual admeasurement, it 
 is a mere right of action^ growing out of land;^ it is 
 not an estate in land ;^ tlie widow is not seized and has 
 no right of entry ;!" she cannot, except by the law of 
 quarantine,^^ hold possession of any of the property ; i- 
 she cannot enter as against the tenant, '^ or maintain a 
 suit of ejectment," or sue her husband's alienee for 
 trespass;^ she cannot defend against entry of heir;'® 
 she cannot proceed for partition ;*' and it is even ques- 
 tioned whether she need be a part}-- to a suit respecting 
 the land;^ if she occupies the land she must account 
 for all its fruits, etc.," and for its rents and profits ; ^^ it 
 is a naere right appendant to the land until it is severed 
 by assignment.'-' It cannot be seized in execution,'^ 
 though her creditors can in equity subject it to their 
 claims ;^ in one case the court compelled her to trans- 
 fer her right to a receiver, who then had dower assigned 
 for the benefit of her creditors.^' Slie cannot at law 
 transfer it so as to give her alienee the right to sue in his 
 own name^ — her deed does not estop her ; ^6 but such 
 suit may be maintained in her name for the benefit of 
 her alienee,^ and her transfers are recognized and en- 
 forced in equitj'.'* Nor can she make a mortgage •^ or 
 lease** of it. But she c-an release it to the tenant,^! and 
 can consent to an award in place of it.*'^ It is an ad- 
 verse claim against the projjerty within a statute re-
 
 g 263 DOWKU. 394 
 
 specting tho quieting of titles.^ Being sui juris, she 
 may make any personal contract respecting her dower 
 I hat she wishes.^* Her main right is to have her dower 
 assign ed.3» 
 
 1 Reiir V. Horst, 55 Md. Al, Al ; ante, I 251. 
 
 2 Wright V. Gebiti, 85 lud. I'28 ; ante, U 2-J7, 251. 
 :{ Price V. Hobbs, 47 Md. 351, asi ; cases infra. 
 
 4 Thornburj-, 18 W. Va. 522, 527 ; ante, ? 22. 
 
 5 Burke i'. Barron, 8 Iowa, i:!2. 
 
 6 See Greathend, 42 f'oiin. ;C4 ; Stodman r. Fortune, 5 Conn. 462 ; 
 Gomley v. Kinli-v, 7R Pa. St. 70 ; Davison, 05 Pa. St. asH ; Grant v. 
 Parliam, 15 Vt. fil ) ; Oorliani v. Daniels, 23 Vt. 606 ; Terry v. Burnell 
 14 Fed. Rep, 807, 810. 
 
 7 Penniiiston v. Yell, 11 Ark. 212, 23!) ; 52 Am. Dec. 262; Summers 
 V. Babb, 13 111.483,484; HiUeary, 26 Md. 274, 289; Torrv r. Minor, 1 
 Smedes * M. Ch. 481) ; Ray ner v. J^ee, 20 Mich. 384, 386 ; Hoxsie v. Kl lis, 
 4 R. I. 123, 124 ; Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 5.37 ; Downs v. Allen, 
 10 Lea, 652, 608. 
 
 8 Bogardus v. Parker, 7 How. Pr. 303. 
 
 9 Blodget?!. Brent, 3 C'ranch C. C. 3!)4, 3:)6 ; HiUeary, 26 Md. 274, 
 289; Hoxsie »•. Kllis, 4 H. I. 123, 124; Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 
 .537, 539 ; Whvtc r. Muvor, 2 Swan, .364, 367. S. P., Smith, 13 Ala. 329 ; 
 Sharploy v. Jones, 5 Ilur. (Del.) 373; Hoots v. (iraham, 23 111. 81 ; 
 Ri^yiKiliis /•. McCnrrv, lOO III. 356; Tavlor (>. McCrackin, 2 niuckf. 
 2«); (';ir<'V r. Hnntin, 4 IJilil), 217; .loiinson v. Shields, 32 lAh-. 421; 
 Lolxiell )'.' Hayes, IJ Gray, 2;;ii ; 1! cyimr r. Lee, 20 Mich. .'Wl ; McGlan- 
 ahan v. I'ortir, 10 ^Mo. 74i> ; Wallir r. Mardus, 29 Mo. 25; Johnson v. 
 Morse, 2 N. H. 48; Bleeeker r. llcinnon, 23 N. J. Kq. 123 ; Wade r. 
 Miller, 32 N. J. L. 296 ; Branson r. Yancv, 1 Dev. Eq. 77 ; Scott v. How- 
 ard, 3 Barb. 319 ; Jones v. lloUopetcr, 10 Serg. <fe R. .•i26 ; Weaver r. 
 Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537 ; Lamar c. Scott, 4Rich. 516 ; Guthrie v. Owen, 
 JO Yerg. :W9 ; Chapman v. Armistead, 4 Munf. 382; Farnsworth v. 
 Cole, 42 Wis. 403. 
 
 10 Hllleary, 26 Md. 274, 289 ; Downs v. Allen, 10 Lea, 652, 60,8. 
 U Fully discussed Stewart M. A D. § 4.59. 
 
 12 Hildreth v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191 ; siipra, n. 9. 
 
 13 Sheafe r'. O'Neil, 9 Mass. 13. 
 
 14 Doe V. Smith, 2 Car. <fe P. 4:iO ; 12 F.ng. C. L. 205 ; Coles, 15 Johns. 
 319; 8 Am. Dec. 231; Bradshaw?;. Callaghan, 5 Johns. 80 ; 8 Johns. 435. 
 
 15 Tuttle V. Burlington, 49 Iowa, 134. 135. 
 
 16 Hildr(>th v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191 ; Evans v. AVebb, 1 Yeates, 
 424 ; 50 Am. Dec. 308. 
 
 17 Reynolds v. McCurrv, 100 111. ■%56 ; Coles, 15 Johns. 319; 8 Am. 
 Dec. 231 ; Thorn v. Adams, 2 Whart. 188. 
 
 18 Blodget V. Brent, 3 Cranch C. <'. 394, .396. See Oivender v. 
 Smith, 8 Iowa, 360; Stewart )'. Chndwick, 8 Iowa, 463; Postlewaite 
 V. Howe, 3 Iowa, 365; Mood.v r. Seaman, 40 Mich. 74; Proctor v. 
 Bigelow, .38 Mich. 282 ; McClurg r. Turner, 74 Mo. 45 ; Miller v. Tallev, 
 48 Mo. 503; ilanlenbeck v. Gronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Tanner v. 
 Wiles, 1 Barb. .560, .564 ; Bradshaw r. Callaghan, 5 Johns. 80 ; 8 Johns. 
 435 ; Pringle v. Gaw, 5 Serg. & R. 536 ; Hoxsie v. Ellis, 4 R. I. 123, 124 ; 
 post, i 280.
 
 393 DOWKR. ^ 263 
 
 l!l Bufld V. Hiler, 27 N. J. L. -j:! ; Kaiu v. Fi.slier, 6 N. Y. oU7 ; Webb 
 V. Boyle, 63 N. C. 271, 275. 
 
 20 Grimes v. Wilson, 4 Blackf. 331. 
 
 21 Summers t;. Babb, 13 111. 483, 484. 
 
 22 Pennington v. Yell, 11 Ark. 212, 2.39 ; 52 Am. Bee. 262 ; Summers 
 V. IJabb, 13 111. 4*5, 484 ; Gorch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 378 ; Moore v. Mayor, 
 
 8 ^^ Y. 110,113; 6yAm. Dec. 473; Sutlitl" r. Forgev, 1 Cowen, 89, 96. 
 S. P., \Vallace v. Hall, 19 Ala. 367; Newman v. Willetts, 48 111. 534 ; 
 Hoots V. Graham, 23 III. 81 ; Blair v. Harrison, 11 111. 3s4 ; Rausch v. 
 Moore, 48 Iowa, 611; 30 Am. Rep. 412; furcv )'. Buntbiii, 4 liibb, 217; 
 Petty (I. Malin, 15 Mon. B. 591 ; Va.sar r. Allen, 5 Me. 477 ; Wallis v. 
 Smith, 1 Smedes & M. 22u ; Torrey v. Minor, I Smedes & M. Ch. 483 ; 
 Waller ?>. Manlus, 29 Mo. 55 ; Johnson v. Morse, 2 N. H. 48 ; Jackson 
 V. Aspell, 20 Jolins. 411 ; Webb v. Boyle, 63 N. C. 271, 275; Garretson 
 V. Brien, 3 Heisk. 534. 
 
 23 Davison v. Whittlesey, I McAr. 163 ; Stewart v. MoMartin, 5 
 Barb. 4)8 ; Tompkins v. Fonda, 4 Paige, 448 ; Payne v. Becker, 87 
 N. Y. 153, 157. 
 
 24 Payne v. Becker, 87 N. Y. 153, 1.57. 
 
 25 Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537, 540. S. P., Terry v. Burnell, 
 14 Fed. Rep. 807, 810 ; Nelson v. Holly, .50 Ala. 3 ; Saltmursli i'. Smith, 
 32 Ala. 404 ; Wallace v. Hall, 19 Ala. 307 ; Reed v. Ash, 30 Ark. 775 ; 
 Jacks V. Dyer, 31 Ark. 334 ; Carmall v. Wilson, 21 Ark. (i2 ; Hoots v. 
 Graham, 23 111. 81 ; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483, 481 ; Mc-tlock v. Lee, 
 
 9 Ind. 298 ; Strong v. Bragg, 7 Blackf. 62 ; Houston v. S>m1( v, 27 Iowa, 
 183 ; Tucker V. Vance, 2 Marsh. A. K. 4.58 ; Johnson r. Shi.lds, 32 Me. 
 424; Rowe v. Johnson, 19 Me. 116; Hildreth v. Thompson, 16 Ma,s8. 
 191 ; Leavitt v. Lamprey, 13 Pick. 382 ; 23 Am. Bee. Ohs; Jones v. 
 Manby, 58 Mo. 559 ; Jackson v. Aspell, 20 Johns. 411 ; Sutlitf v. Forgey, 
 1 Cowen, 89, 96 ; Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. 167 ; 8 Am. Bee. 
 378; Cox V. Jagger,2C'owen,638 ; 19 Am. Bee. 522 ; Douglass?'. McCoy, 
 
 5 Ohio, 522 ; Miller v. Woodman, 14 Ohio, 518 ; Lamar v. Scott, 4 Rich. 
 516. But see supra, n. 6. 
 
 26 Weaver v. Sturtevant, 12 R. I. 537, ^10. 
 
 27 Robie v. Flanders, 33 N. H. 524. S. P., Powell, 10 Ala. 900 ; Hunt 
 V. Acre, 28 Ala. 6s0; Itowo »>. Johnson, 19 Me. 146; Thomas v. Simi>- 
 son, 3 Pa. St. 60, 71 ; Lamar v. Scott, 4 Rich. 516. 
 
 28 Tompkins V. Fonda, 4 Paige, 448. S. P., Brown v. Meredeth, 2 
 Keen, 527 ; Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37 ; Strong v. Bragg, 7 Blackf. 62 ; 
 Maccubbin v. Cromwell, 2 Har. & G. 443 ; Torrey v. Mnior, 1 Smedes 
 
 6 M. Ch. 489; Porter?). Everett, 7 Ired. Eq. 1.52; Wilson v. McLen- 
 iighan, 1 McMull. F.q. .3-5. Contra, Saltmarsh r. Smith, 32 Ala. 404 ; 
 Bialr V. HarrLson, U 111. ;i84. 
 
 29 Strong v. Bragg, 7 Blackf. 62. 
 
 30 Foster ?>. Gorton, 5 Pick. 1S.5. S. P., Blair v. Harrison, 11 111. 384 ; 
 Cronde v. Ingraham, 13 Pick. 3:i ; Hildreth v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191. 
 
 31 Meek v. Chamberlain, 8 Law R. Q. B. B. 31, .34 ; Mattock v Lee, 
 9 Ind. 2!i8 ; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483, 484 ; Weaver v. Sturtevant, 
 12 R. I. 537, 540 ; post, I 271. 
 
 32 Furber w. Chamberlain, 28 N. H. 405; Cox v, Jagger, 2 Cowen, 
 638 ; Shotwell v. Sedam, 3 Ohio, 5. 
 
 33 Benoiat v. Murrin, 47 Mo. 537. 
 
 'M Consult cases supra, notes 31, 32. 
 35 Po»<, 2$ 28.3-300.
 
 g 264 DOWKR. 398 
 
 I 264. Assigned dower — Incidents of. — After assign- 
 ment of dower and entry by the widow, she is seized 
 of a freehold for lier life;' her estate is a continuation 
 of her husband's,^ and relates back to the time of h:^ 
 death,^ unless tlie assignment has been against common 
 right,* iu whicli case her estate begins from the time of 
 the assignment.* Her estate has most of the inciden..-; 
 of a conventional life estate ;^ she must pay taxes ^ and 
 charges 8 of every kind thereuison ; she is entitled to 
 reasonable estovers;^ slie has the right to the crops 
 growing on the property '<* at the time of the assign- 
 ment ;'' Iier representatives are entitled to all crops 
 .sown by her,'- and to arrears of rent due at the time 
 of her death on a lease made by her ; '^ she holds the 
 property subject to such liens as are paramovmt to her 
 dower," but free from all others ; '^ she may alien the 
 estate,'^ and it may be seized for her debts;" on her 
 death the estate ceases,'^ as does a right of way given 
 her therewith ; '* and her representatives cannot claim 
 betterments put on the property by her.^o Her posses- 
 sion is not adverse to the rcA^ersioner ; -' there is no 
 privity of estate between tliem ; "^^ a remainder cannot 
 be limited after her dower ; •^ she may make any con- 
 tract she pleases ynih. the reversioner,-' but the assign- 
 ment of dower is not a consideration therefor.^^ In 
 various ways she may foi-feit her dower,"^6a,s by waste;'^' 
 but the strict common law as to Avaste is not generally 
 enforced in the United States,-* and she may make any 
 reasonable use of the proiJcrty.''^ 
 
 1 Whyte V. Mayor. 2 Swan, 364, 367 ; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. JS.'!, 
 4S4. 
 
 2 Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113; 50 Am. Dec. 473. S. P., 
 Stevens, 3 Dana, 371 ; Baker, 4 Me. 67 ; Chilfls v. Smith, 1 Mfl. Ch. 483 ; 
 Windham v. Portland, 4 Miiss. 384 ; Norwood v. Morrow, 4 Dev. & B. 
 442, 448. 
 
 3 Norwood V. Morrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442, 44S ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 4 Discussed post, ? 2S5. 
 
 5 2 Scribner Dow. 776.
 
 397 DOWER. § 264 
 
 6 Whyte v. Mayor, 2 Swan, 3M, 367. 
 
 7 Graham i'. TJunigan, 2 Bosw. 516. S. P., Varney ti. Stevens, 22 ' 
 Me. 3:{1, 3:m ; Stetson v. Dav, .51 Me. 434 ; Cains v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. 
 312; Bliiwell v. Greenshield, 2 Abb. N. C. 427; Whyte v. Mayor, 2 
 Swan, 304, 367 ; Durkee c. Felton, 44 Wis. 467. 
 
 8 Peyton r. Jeffries, .50 111. 143; Paving assessment: Whyte i'. 
 Mayor, 2 Swan, 264, 367. Kepairs : Haulenback v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. 
 Eq. 407. 
 
 9 White V. Cutler, 17 Pick. 248. 
 
 10 Kain v. Fisher, 6 N. Y. 597, 598. S. P., Street v. Saunders, 27 ArkV 
 5.54 ; Talbot v. Hill, 6» 111. 106 ; Kalston, 3 G. Greene, 533 ; Parker, 17 
 Pick. 2:i6. 
 
 11 Budd V. Hiler, 27 N. J. L. 43. 
 
 12 2 Scribner Dow. 780. 
 
 13 Stockwell V. Sargent, 37 Vt. 16. 
 
 14 2 Scribner Dow. 775 ; ante, ? 258. 
 
 15 2 Scribner Dow. 775 ; ante, i 258. 
 
 16 Summers v. Babb, 13 HI. 483, 484 ; Windham v. Portland, 4 Mass. ■ 
 384, ass. S. P., Matlock v. Lee, 9 Inrt. 2!)H ; Stevens, 3 Dana, 371 ; Child 
 ('. Smith, 1 Md. Ch. 483 ; Norwood v. Morrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442. Con- 
 sult ante, I 263. 
 
 17 Summers v. Babb, 13 III. 483, 484 ; supra, n. 16. 
 
 18 Holmes v. McGee, 20 Miss. 411 ; Stockwell v. Sargent, 37 Vt. 16. 
 
 19 Hoffman v. Savage, 15 Mass. 130. 
 
 20 Maddison v. Jellison, U Me. 482; Bent v. Weeds, 44 Me. 45 ; ' 
 Wiltse V. Hurley, 11 Ohio, 473 ; Cannon v. Hare, 1 Tenn. Ch. 22. 
 
 21 Chairs t). Hobson, 10 Humph. .354. 
 
 22 Adums v. Butts, 9 Conn. 79. 
 
 23 Park Dow. 340, 341 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 773. 
 
 24 Page, 20 N. H. 128. 
 
 25 Perkins, ? 272 ; Park Dow. 341 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 773. 
 
 26 Discussed, 2 Scribner Dow. 795. 
 
 27 By statute in Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, 
 Missouri, New .Jersey, New York, North ('arolina, Ohio, and Rhode 
 Island, she forfeits dower for waste ; in Maryland, Michigan, New 
 Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, and M'is- 
 consin, she is liable on damages therefor : 2 Scribner Dow. 800, SOL 
 
 28 Allen v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 418. 
 
 29 Joyner v. Speed, 68 N. C. 236. 
 
 H. & W. — 94
 
 § 265 DOWER. 398 
 
 Article II. — Barring and Defeating of Dower. 
 
 I 265. Generally, various modes of. 
 
 J 2G6. Antenuptial settlement or agreement. 
 
 5 207. Postnuptial settlement or agreement. 
 
 5 268. Act of husband before and during coverture. 
 
 § 269. Act of wife during coverture. 
 
 5 270. Release of dower, generally. 
 
 J 271. Release of dower, parties, con.sideratlon. 
 
 i 272. Release of dower, eifect of. 
 
 I 273. Jointure, legal and equitable. 
 
 ? 27-1. Devise in lieu of dower. 
 
 i 275. Widow's election. 
 
 i 276. Estoppel. 
 
 ? 277. Limitations and laches. 
 
 i 278. Dedication to public uses. 
 
 J 279. Termination of husband's estate, etc. 
 
 i 280. Legal proceedings. 
 
 i 281. Divorce. 
 
 8 282. Bankruptcy of husband. 
 
 ? 265. Tlie various ways in which dower may be pre- 
 vented or defeated. — A widow nuiy have no right to 
 dower either because the right never attached, or be- 
 cause after attaching it was destroyed ; tlie riglit may 
 be prevented or defeated. Though it is extremely dif- 
 ficult to lay down any general rule which might not 
 mislead, the following statement is substantially cor- 
 rect : The husband may avoid the inconvenience of 
 dower, by taking such a title in himself tliat the requi- 
 sites of dower will not exist, or by before marriage 
 changing liis tenure for the same purpose, but this 
 must not be done secretly or it will be a fraud on the 
 wife ; so he may prevent dower by making a settlement 
 before marriage in accordance with the statute of uses 
 or similar acts, by legal jointure. After marriage and 
 acquisition of his proi>erty, he can in most .States do 
 nothing to relieve it of dower without his wife's con- 
 sent , but he can make a provision for her by deed or
 
 399 DOWER. 2 266 
 
 will in lieu of dower — an equitable jointure — by the 
 acceptance of whicli after his death slie will be barred of 
 dower. The wife nia^' prevent dower by covenanting 
 before marriage never to claim it ; during coverture 
 she may release it by complying with the statute ; and 
 after lier Iiusband's deatii, she may bar herself by any 
 agreement she may make, or by accepting any pro- 
 vision in its stead, or bj'^ any conduct Avliich would 
 make it inequitable to claim it, or by her laches or de- 
 lay. So dower may be defeated by operation of law, as 
 wlien the husband's estate terminates, or is converted 
 into personalty bj'^ legal proceedings during coverture, 
 or Avhen the realtj^ is talien during coverture by right 
 of eminent domain, or wlien the husband and Avife are 
 absolutely divorced. These different modes of barring 
 and defeating dower are discussed in the following 
 sections. 
 
 \ 266. Antenuptial settlement or agreement as a bar to 
 dower. — By the common law no provision or settle- 
 ment made by a man before his marriage in favor of 
 liis future wife, could bar dower,' because dower being 
 a freeliold estate, by a maxim of the common law, 
 could not be barred by a collateral satisfaction ; -^ but 
 the statute of uses provided that a settlement of a cer- 
 tain kind — a legal jointure — made before marriage 
 should bar dower,^ even without the wife's consent;* 
 this statute was adopted in the United States as a part 
 of the common law,^ and somewhat similar statutes 
 have been passed in man\' of the United States.* By 
 the common law, also, no contract between the hus- 
 band and wife before marriage could bar dower,^ be- 
 cause, first, an agreement was merged by the marriage 
 of the contracting parties,^ and second, an agreement 
 to release a right not vet existing was void,' And oven
 
 §266 DOWER. 400 
 
 now, except under the express provisions of some stat- 
 ute, no settlement or agreement between husband and 
 wife before marriage is a bar to dower at law.^o But 
 equity, from analogy to the statute of uses, at an early 
 date compelled a widow to elect between her dower 
 and any provision made for her before marriage ex- 
 pressly in lieu of dower, and held her barred of her 
 dower by the acceptance of any such provision." And 
 in courts of equity a marriage contract was held an ex- 
 ception to the rule that the marriage of the contracting 
 parties merges the contract,!^ and a wife's covenant not 
 to claim dower — marriage itself being a sufficient con- 
 sideration therefor'* — has always been enforced.^* Of 
 an adult woman's power in equity to absolutely bar 
 herself of dower, there is no doubt whatever, says Lord 
 St. Leonards ; '* if she acts with her eyes open she may 
 take even a chance in lieu of dower ;'* she is Hui juris, 
 and there is no reason why her covenant should not be 
 enforced ; '^ and so it is settled that, by an agreement 
 before marriage, husband and wife may vary or wholly 
 waive their rights in each other's property. '^ Still, if it 
 is stipulated that the wife shall receive a certain pro- 
 vision in lieu of her dower, and this stipulation is not 
 carried out, she is released from her contract ;!' but if 
 she accepts some other provision after her husband's 
 death, in lieu of the one which has failed, she is barred,™ 
 An antenuptial settlement is of course invalidated by 
 fraud, and a husband is required to be particularly open 
 in making such a contract with his wife.^' A contract 
 expressly referring to dower has no eflfect on the wife's 
 thirds.22 
 
 1 Vincent v. Spooner, 2 Cush. 467, 473. 
 
 2 Hastings v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34. S. P., 
 Vernon. 4 Rep. 1,4; O'Brien v. Elliott, 15 Me. 125, 127 ; 32 Am. Dec. 
 137 ; liOgun V. Phillips, is Mo. 22, 25 ; Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. 196, 
 200; Murphy, 12 Ohio 8t. 407, 400. 
 
 3 Co. Lltt. 36 6 ; Vernon, 4 Eep. 1, 3 a ; 27 Henry VIII., ch. 10, \ 9.
 
 401 DOWER. § 267 
 
 4 1 Greenl. Cruise, 199, § 37 ; 1 "Wash. Real Prop. p. 26.'5 ; 2 Scrlbner 
 Dow. •405 ; iMst, I 273. 
 
 5 Alex. Brit. Stat, in force, pp. 301, 302. 
 
 6 See Ark. Dig. 1874, JJ 2218-2220 ; 111. R. S. 18S0, p. 426, U 7-11 ; Mo. 
 R. S. 1879, i 2202, 
 
 7 Gibson, 15 Mass. lOfi, 110; 8 Am. Dec. 94; Logan v. Phillips, 18 
 Mo. 22, 25 ; Murphy, 12 Ohio St. 407, 409, 416. 
 
 8 See Long v. Klnuey, 49 Ind. 235, 238 ; Smiley, 18 Ohio St. 543, 544 ; 
 ante, I 44. 
 
 9 Ha.stings v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34 ; Logan v. 
 Phillips, IS Mo. 22, 25 ; Murphy, 12 Ohio St. 407, 409, 416. 
 
 10 Martin, 22 Ala. 86, 104 ; Andrews, 8 Conn. 79, 84 ; Cauley v. Law- 
 son, 5 Jones Eq. 132, 134 ; Murphy v. Avery, 1 Dev. & B. 25 ; Murphy, 
 12 Ohio St. 407, 411, 417 ; Gelzer, 1 Bail. Kq. 387, 388. 
 
 11 Logan V. Phillips, 18 Mo. 22, 26. S. P., Andrews, 8 Conn. 79, 85 ; 
 McGee, 91 111. 518, 551 ; Jordan v. Clark, 81 111. 465, 466; Hastings v. 
 Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34 ; post, 'H 273, 274, 276. 
 
 12 Miller v. Goodwin, 8 Grav, 512, 544 ; Crane v. Gough, 4 Md. 311, 
 331 ; McCampbell, 2 Lea, 661, 664 ; ante, i 44. 
 
 13 Wentworth, 69 Me. 247, 253 ; Stewart M. & D. J 33. 
 
 14 Dyke %'. Kendall, 2 DeGex, M. & G. 209, 216, 218, 219 ; Andrews, 8 
 Conn. 79, 84 ; Culbertson, .37 Ga. 296, 299 ; McGee, 91 111. 548, 551 ; Jor- 
 dan V. Clark, 81 111. 465, 466 ; Wentworth, 69 Me. 247, 2.52 ; Naill v. 
 Maurer, 25 Md. 5132, 539 ; Busey v. McCurle v, 61 Md. 436, 443 ; Freeland, 
 128 Mass. 50.1, 510 ; Jenkins v. Holt, 109 Mass. 261 ; Miller ?>. Goodwin, 
 8 Gray, .542, .541 ; Vincent v. Spooner, 2 Cash. 467,473; r.oKan v. Phil- 
 lips, 18 Mo. 22, 28 ; Heald, 22 N. H. 265 ; Canidcii /■. Joins, 23 N. J. Eq. 
 171,173; Cauley t'. Lawson, 5 Jones Eq. 132, i:n ; :\Iuriihy, 12 Ohio St. 
 407, 417 ; Bowen, 32 Ohio St. 164, 180 ; Mintier, 28 Ohio St. 307, 312, 315 ; 
 Gelzer, 1 Bail. Eq. .387, 3o8 ; Findlev, 11 Gratt. 4:i4, 437 ; Charles, 8 
 Gratt. 486 ; .56 Am. Dec. 155 ; Faulkner, 3 Leigh, 255 ; 23 Am. Dec. 264 ; 
 Stewart M. & D. il 32-43. 
 
 15 Dyke v. Eendall, 2 DeGex, M. & G. 209, 216 ; 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 404. 
 
 16 Caruthers, 4 Bro. C. C. 500; Dyke v. Kendall, 2 DeGex, M. & G. 
 209, 218. 
 
 17 Logan v. Phillips, 18 Mo. 22, 28. 
 
 18 Wentworth, 69 Me. 247, 2.52; Naill ?'. Maurer, 25 Md. 532, 539; 
 Findley, 11 Gratt. 4:«. 437 ; Stewart M. & D. U 32-13. 
 
 19 Freeland, 128 Mass. 509, 511 ; Gibson, 15 Mas.s. 106, 112 ; 8 Am. 
 Dec. 94 ; Camden v. Jones, 34 N. J. Eq. 171, 173. 
 
 20 Camden v. Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 171, 173 ; post, I 276, 
 
 21 Freeland, 12S Mass. 509, 510 ; Bierer, 92 Pa. St. 265 ; Stewart M. 
 & D. i 38 ; ante, 'i 110. 
 
 22 Findley, U Gratt. 4:i4, 438, 
 
 ^ 267. Postnuptial settlement or agreement as a bar to 
 dower, — Any agreement between husband and wife was 
 at common law void,i becau.se husband and wife were 
 one,'' and because a wife could not contract at all ; ^ and 
 though the fiction of the unity of liusband never had
 
 § 267 DOWEE. 402 
 
 a footing in equity,* and has been much modified by 
 modern statutes at laAv,^ and therefore a wife can bj^ a 
 contract wit li reference to her statutory *! or equitable" 
 estate bind such estate at all events in equity, her ca- 
 pacity to contract generally must be expressly given ; ^ 
 and as dower is neither equitable^ nor statutory i" sei^a- 
 rate estate, but a right sui generis arising by operation 
 of law," she can make no contract sxiih. reference to it 
 except under the provisions of a statute giving her the 
 power to contract in all cases or expressly referring to 
 it.i'-^ Statutes have been passed in all those States 
 where a husband cannot defeat dower by his separate 
 deed,!^ authorizing married women to release their 
 dower in a prescribed way ; i* these statutes must be 
 strictly comi^lied with,^' and a release not valid at law 
 is not valid in equity.^^ Equity will not even correct a 
 deed as to the wife,^' and certainly will not enforce a 
 defective release as a contract to convey .1* When the 
 question arises as to the validity of a release to the hus- 
 band under one of these statutes which authorizes 
 releases generally, it must be remembered that in deal- 
 ing with her husband a wife is said to be under a 
 double incapacity, that of wife and that of married 
 woman, '9 and that it is fairly settled that under a stat- 
 ute authorizing a married woman to contract generally', 
 she cannot contract with her husband ;2<' aecordinglj', 
 it has been held, that a release of dower under a stat- 
 ute directly to the husband is void, 2* especially where 
 the statute requires her to join with her husband ; ^- 
 and that even when she is authorized to contract, any 
 agreement between them for the release of dower is 
 void.^ And this is true though the release was com- 
 manded by a court of equity.^* A contrary decision in 
 Iowa stands by itself.^ But, granting the capacity of 
 husband and wife to contract with each other during
 
 403 DOWEK. § 267 
 
 coverture, there seems to be nothing in the nature of 
 dower to except it from the rule that to avoid circuity 
 of action an existing right maj^ be equitablj^ barred by 
 an agreement never to claim it ; ^6 such a covenant 
 should be enforced just as an antenuptial covenant is.^' 
 Under the statute of uses, a settlement made on a mar- 
 ried woman during coverture in lieu of dower puts her 
 to an election, 28 and it is settled in equity that a widow 
 cannot take both a provision in lieu of dower and dower 
 itself.'^ (This is true as to devise s in lieu of dower nearly 
 every~\vhere by statute.^") So tliat, while by a mere set- 
 tlement on his wife not expressly in lieu of dower or 
 clearly inconsistent therewith a husband does not affect 
 her right to dower at all,^i if by agreement with him 
 she accepts a provision in lieu of dower and after his 
 death retains or receives it, she ratifies her contract and 
 is barred.^- But if she has spent or wasted the i^rovis- 
 ion before his death, she may have her dower without 
 making any return.^^ It is necessary in order to estop 
 her, that she should enjoy the consideration of her 
 agreement in part at least after his death.^* This ques- 
 tion has arisen several times in regard to deeds of sepa- 
 ration. ^^ 
 
 1 Barron, 21 Vt. 375, 398 ; ante, ? il. 
 
 2 Scarborough v. Watlsins, 9 Men. B. 540, 545 ; 50 Am. Dec. 523 ; 
 ante, I 41. 
 
 3 White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, 332, 333 ; post, ? 3.i7. 
 
 4 Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 536, 600 ; Albin v. Lord. 39 N. H. 196, 
 204 ; ante, i -iZ. 
 
 5 Cole V. Van Biper, 44 111. 56, e^ ; ante, U 217-243. 
 
 6 See Wicks v. Mitchell 9 Kan. 80, 87 ; Radford v. Carwilo, 13 W. 
 Va. 573, 661 ; Krouskop v. Shoutz, 51 Wis. 201, 214 ; ante, Vi 2^7, 238. 
 
 7 Yale v. Dederer, 22 N. Y. 451, 459 ; 68 N. Y. 329 ; ante, U -06, 207. 
 
 8 Albin v. Lord, 39 N. H. 196, 202 ; Ballin v. Dillaye, 37 jS^. Y. 35, S9; 
 post, U 369-376. 
 
 9 Because .such estate Is always created by contract : Morrison v. 
 Thistle, 67 Mo. h<»i, .WJ. 
 
 10 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426. 428 ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 ; McCormick v. 
 Hunter, 50 Ind. 186, 188 ; Ulp v. Campbell, 19 Pa. St. 361, 36 J ; Towasend 
 V. Brown, 16 S. C. 91.
 
 § 267 DOWER. 404 
 
 U Martin, 22 Ala. 86, 10-5 ; ante, U 262, 263. 
 
 12 Martin, 22 Ala. 86, 105. S. P., Stidhara v. Matthews, 29 Ark. 630. 
 a57, 6.VS ; Davis v. McDonald, 42 Ga. 205, 207 ; Lathrop v. Foster, 51 Me. 
 .367, 36!) ; Davis, 61 Me. 395, 399 ; Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 633, 639 ; 20 Am. 
 Kep. 76 ; Keeler v. Tatnell, 23 N. J. L. 62 ; White, 16 N. J. L. 202, 214 ; 
 Conover v. Porter, 14 Ohio St. 450, 454 ; post, J 270. 
 
 13 See 1 Scribner Dow. ch. 29 ; post, ? 208. 
 
 14 These statutes differ greatly : Post, §§ 270-272. 
 
 15 Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 633, 639 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; supra, n. 12. 
 
 16 Stidham v. Matthews, 29 Ark. 650, 657, 65.8 ; post, H 270, 271, 404. 
 
 17 Wiswall V. Hall, 3 Paige, 313, 317 ; Carr v. Williams, 10 Ohio, 305, 
 310 ; 36 Am. Dec. 87 ; Davenport v. Sovll, 6 Ohio St. 459, 466 ; post, I 272. 
 
 18 Stidham v. Mi tthews, 20 Ark. 650, 658 ; Atwater v. Buckingham. 
 5 Day, 492, 497 , antt, U 170, 171 ; post, i 407. 
 
 19 White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 32S, 332-334 ; ante, i 43. 
 
 20 Haker v. Boggs, 63 111. 161, 163 ; Whitney v. Closson, Mass. Nov, 
 1884, 1 Daily Law Reo. No. 31 ; Knowles v. Hull, 99 Mass. 562, .564, 565 ; 
 Lord V. Parker, 3 Allen, 127, 129 ; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260, 
 264 ; Savage v. O'Neill, 42 Barb. 374, 379 ; White v. Wager, 25 N. Y. 
 328, 330-334. Contra, Bank v. Banks, 101 U. S. 240, 244, 245 , Klnkead, 3 
 Biss. 405,410; Wells v. Gaywood, 3 Colo. 487, 4;)4 ; Hamilton, 89 111. 
 349, .351 ; Robertson, 25 Iowa, 350, 355 ; Allen v. Hooper, .50 Me. 371, 374, 
 375 ; Jenne ?'. Marble, 37 Jlich. 319, .321. .323 ; Ransom, 30 Mich. .328, 330 ; 
 Rankin v. West, 25 Mich. 195,200; Burdeno v. Amperse, 14 Mich. 91, 
 97; Albin ?'. Lord, 39 N. H. 1!I6, 203, 204; Zimmerman ?•. Erhard, 53 
 How. Pr. 11, 13; Woodworth v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 81 ; ante, § 43. 
 
 21 Rowe V. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63, 67 ; Carson v. Murrav, 3 Paige, 483, 
 503 ; Grain v. Cavana, 36 Barb. 410, 412, 413 ; Graham v. Van Wyck, 14 
 Barb. 531, 532 ; infra, n. 22. 
 
 22 Markling, 30 Ark. 17, 24 ; Pillow v. Wade, 31 Ark. 678, 6.81 ; Rowe 
 V. Hamilton, 3 Mo. 63, 65; Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige, 4S3, 503 ; Mal- 
 lory V. Horan, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 289, 295. 
 
 23 Whitney v. Closson, 8. T. C. Mass. Nov. 8, 1884, 1 Daily Law 
 Rec. No. •?!. See Martin, 22 Ala. 86, 104 ; PlUow v. Wade, 31 Ark. 678, 
 681 ; Markling, .30 Ark. 17, 24 ; Howe v. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63, 67 ; Shaw 
 V. Reese, 14 Me. 432, 436; Graham v. Van Wvck, 14 Barb. 531, 5:52; 
 Crain v. Cavana, 36 Barb. 410. 412; Townsend, 2 Sand. 711, 713, 714; 
 Mallorv v. Horan. 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 2.89, 2!io ; Carson v. Murray, 3 
 Paige, 483, .503 ; Walsh v. Kelly, 34 Pa. St. 84, 85 ; Evans, 3 Yeates, 507, 
 508 ; post, I 270. 
 
 24 Craln ik Cavana, 36 Barb. 410, 413. 
 
 25 Blake, 7 Iowa, 46, 54. See Lake v. Gray, 30 Iowa, 415, 419. 
 
 26 Hastings v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34. 
 
 27 See«7i/e, ?2fi6. 
 
 28 27 Henry VIII. ch. 10, ? 9 ; Co. Lltt. .36 6. 
 
 29 Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. 194, 200 ; post, ?? 273-276. 
 .30 Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56, 70 ; post, § 274. 
 
 31 Mitchell, 8 Ala. 414, 424 ; Mitchell v. Wood, 60 Ga. 525, 531 ; 
 O'Brien ■!'. Elliott, 15 Me. 125, 127 ; 32 Am. Dec. 137 ; Swalne v. Perlne, 
 5 Johns. Ch. 4S2, 490 ; 9 Am. Dec. 318. 
 
 33 Martin, 22 Ala. 86, 104 ; Livelv r. Paschal, .35 Ga. 218, 223 ; Stod- 
 dard V. Cutcompt, 41 Iowa, 329, 333 ; Day v. West, 2 Edw. Ch. 5J2, 5J4 ;
 
 405 DOWER. ? 268 
 
 Crain v. Cavana, 36 Barb. 410, 413; Townsend, 2 Sand. 711, Tin, 714; 
 Kvaiis, 3 YeatL'S, 507, oOi ; Parliani, 6 Humph. 2S7, 297. 
 
 S'? Crain v. Cavana, 3P Barb. 410, 413 ; Carson v. Murray, 3 Pai^e, 
 4i!, 003. 
 
 34 Townsend, 2 Sand. 711, 713, 714 ; supra, n. 32 ; post, J§ 402, 420. 
 
 35 Carson v. Murray, 3 Paige, 483, 503 ; Day v. West, 2 Edw. Ch. 
 592, .=>94 ; Hlvans, 3 Yeates, 507, 503 ; Parham, 6 Humph. 287, 2J7 ; Bur- 
 dick V. Briggs, 11 Wis. 126. 132 
 
 I 2ai. Act of husband before or after marriage barring 
 or defeating dower. — Seisin of the hu.sband during cover- 
 ture is one of the requisites of dower,' so the wife has no 
 dower in lands aliened by him be.'ore their marriage ; ■* 
 and any encumbrances placed by him on the iDroperty 
 before marriage are superior to dower,^ though he was 
 an infant.^ And the wife is barred though the convey- 
 ance is not executed ''or recorded "at the time of the 
 marriage, and tliough it is fraudulent as to creditors if 
 not set aside during coverture ; ' and his agreement to 
 convey is paramount to dower.^ A deed made,^ or a 
 judgment confessed,'" on the day of the marriage, is, 
 unless proved to have been made or entered before the 
 marriage, deemed inferior to dower. A legal jointure by 
 the hu.sband bars dower." There are various devices 
 by which a husband without materially affecting his 
 enjoyment of his property could at common law pre- 
 vent his wife's dower from attaching : thus, he could 
 convey the legal title, there being no dower in eqviitable 
 estates ; ''^ or change a fee into a long leasehold ; '^ or 
 convey the property indirectly to himself for life with 
 power to deed or will." But all such antenuptial acts 
 of his must, in order to affect dower, have been known 
 to his intended wife ; a secret disposition of his property 
 is a fraud on her.'» And so when his conveyances dur- 
 ing coverture defeat her dower, any conveyance made 
 for this purpose alone may be set aside as fraudulent. '^ 
 But as a general thing, after marriage no act of tlie hus- 
 band can defeat the wife's dower." This was the rvde
 
 g 368 ]>owi;u. 40() 
 
 at common law,'^ and is still hy statute tho rulo in Aia- 
 bama,'9 Arkansas,'^" Dohiwaro,'-'' District of Colnmbia,-^^ 
 Florida,'-'-' Illinois,^^ Kentucky ,'■" Maino,'^" Maryland,'^ 
 Michigan,'^ Missouri, '-""Now Jersey' ('"Now York,"' North 
 Carolina,''- Ohio,"" On^jjon,"* Ilhodo Island,"-" South Caro- 
 lina,"^ Virginia,"' and Wisconsin."" In ICni^land,"" Con- 
 necticut,'" <}corj;ia," Now Hampshire,*' Pennsylvania,*" 
 Tennessee,** and Vermont,*^ however, a husband may 
 by statute dispose of his property witliout his wife's 
 joinder. These statutes apply only to contracts nuido 
 by tho husband after their passajije ;*'^ and do not enable 
 the husbaiul to defeat dower by will.*' 
 
 1 Iloustciii V. .Smith, SS N. C. .'US, :ti;t ; ante, ? 2r>-2. 
 
 2 ]lii\vllii(f8 !'. Adiinis.TMU. 2G,54; Helh D. Cocke, 1 Jliiiid. ;iC.I,:il(i ; 
 ante, J '2:>i. 
 
 :i llaiKis V. Kontlall, 15 Ohio, 671, 078 ; ante, i 258. 
 
 4 Oldham v. Salp, 1 Mon. ]$. 378. 
 
 5 Gully 1). Ray, 18 Mon. 11. 107, llS; Kawlliins v. Adiims, 7 Md. 
 26, .W. 
 
 6 Kichardson v. Skoindd, 4n Me. .^S'.). 
 
 7 KiiiK, f>l Ala. '179, -LSI ; WItlied v. Malloy, I C'lish. i;«, 110. 
 
 8 Adkliis v. Holmes, 12 Curt. 1!I7, r.lil ; Klntiier?'. McHiic,2 Curt. 
 45:1; Dean v. Rlitclicll, I Marsh. .1. .1. -ird ; (JalticH, it Mon. 11. 2!ir, ; -IS 
 Am. Dee. I.r, ; Howie r. Herrv, :t IMiI. Ch. ;i5!l ; Cowman i'. JIall, ;i Ulll 
 <fe J. -.VM ; Firestone, 2 Ohio !St. 11/). 
 
 9 Stewart, 3 Marsh. .T. .T. 18, 49 ; 23 Am. Doc. 396. 
 
 10 Inpjram )-. Morris, 4 liar. (Del.) 111. 
 
 11 Discussed, post, i "293. 
 
 12 Discussed, atitf, i 258. 
 
 13 SpaiiKh'r 1'. Staiiler, 1 Md. Ch. 38, .37 ; ante, ? 254. 
 
 14 Link I'. Kdniondson, 19 Mo. 487. 
 
 15 Cranson, 4 Mich. 230, 23C, ; Nye v. ratterson, 35 Mi.-h. 415, 417; 
 I'omerov, 51 Mow. I'r. 'JUS/jiK ; Hrewer 11. Connel, 11 Jlumph. 5(X), 501 ; 
 discussed, .Stewart M. & J). J 44. 
 
 16 (iihsoii V. Ilutehlnsoii, I'JO Mass. 27, 32 ; Crecellus v. Ilorst, II Mo. 
 App. :«M, 3l)(! ; .Teiin V, 21 Vt. 3J4, 3-J(.. Hut .see Ktroad v. O'JMell, M Mo. 
 App. 581 ; 20 CA'i\t. I.. .1. 308. 
 
 17 Oreeellns v. Ilorst, 11 Mo. App. .•»4, 306. See Gerry v. Stinsnn,60 
 Me. 188, lid ; ante, i "258. 
 
 IS 2 Rcrlhner Dow. 603 ; Benson v. Scot, 3 T.ev. .38.'>, .386 ; D-ivIa »>. 
 McDonald, 42 Ga. 205; Sutherland, 69 III. 481; Miller v. Hteirer, 33 
 Mich. I'M ; Grady 1'. McCorkle, .'i7 Mo. 172 ; 17 Am. Hci>. 676. 
 
 19 Ala. Code 1878, p. 578 ; Irvine v. Armlstead, 46 Ala. ;i63. 
 
 20 Ark. DIf?. 1H71, p. 155 ; Tate r. Jay, 31 Ark. 576; Menfee, 3 KnR. 
 fl; Crittenden v. .J(jhiisoii, 6 JOmk. 94; Crittenden v. WoodruiJ', 6 
 Eng. 82.
 
 407 DOWER. 2 269 
 
 21 Del. R. C. 1874, p. 533 ; Griffin v. lieece, 1 Har. (Del.) 508. 
 
 22 D. C. R. C. ch. 49, i 1. 
 
 23 Fla. Dig. lasi, p. 475 ; McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. 6!)S. 
 
 24 Til. n. S. l>!Hn, Hoylfs v. McMurpli v, ■'■>5 111. T.W, ; .Sisk v. Smith, r, 
 ril. .503 ; (li)Icl V. llvim, 14 111. 5;t; Mowbry,e4 111. 3»3; (SutherUuKl, HU 
 111. 4(11 ; Taylor, 5.'. 111. 2.«. 
 
 25 Ky. R. S. 1N73, p. 5'.'7 ; ITarrow v. Johnson, 3 Met. (Ky.) .578. 
 
 26 M". R. S. 1871, p. 75r. ; Drummond, 40 Me. 85 ; Simonton v. CJray, 
 34 Me. 50. 
 
 27 Md. R. C. 1878, p. 307 ; Prire v. Hobbs, 47 Mfl. 3.5!) ; MiWred v. 
 Nell, 2 Ulaiiil, 3.54 ; KwliigH v. Kiinols, 2 Bland, 3.54. 
 
 28 Mich. R. S. 1882, § .5745 ; Miller v. Steffer, .32 Mich. 194. 
 
 20 Mo. R. S. 1879, p. :m; Grady v. MoCorkle, .57 Mo. 172; 17 Am. 
 Rep. (1711 ; Mount v. V:illc>, 19 Mo. fi21 ; Hornsey v. Casey, 21 Mo. .5-1.5 ; 
 Wtone, 18 Mo. 389 ; Kennerly v. Mo. 11 Mo. 204. 
 
 30 N. .1. R-v. 1877, p. 320 ; Hays v. Whltall, 13 N. J. Eq. 241 ; Yeo v. 
 Merceieuu, 1» N. J. L. 3«7 ; Lloyd v. Conover, 2.5 N. J. L. 47, 51. 
 
 .11 N. Y. R. S. 1882, p. 2197 ; Harrison v. Pefk, .56 Barb. 2r)l ; .Swalne 
 V. I'erine. 5 Johns. C'h. 487, 490 ; 9 Am. Dec. 3W. 
 
 32 N. C. Bat. Rev. 1H73, p. 838 ; O'Kelly v. Williams, 84 N. C. 281 ; 
 Rose, 63 N. ('. 3!)1 ; Huttoii v. Askew, 60 N. C. 172; 8 Am. Rep, 500; 
 Holllday V. McMillan, 79 N. C. <J15. 
 
 33 Ohio R. S. 1880, p. 1048. 
 
 34 Oreg. G. L. 1874, p. 584. 
 .35 R. I. P. S. 1882, p. 637. 
 
 36 S. C. R. S. 1873, p. 429 ; Avant v. Robertson, 2 McMiill. 21.5, 
 
 37 Va. R. S. 1873, p. 8.53 ; Macauiey v. Dismal, 2 Rob. Va. 507 ; llig- 
 ginbotham v. Cornwell, 8 Urate. 83 ; 56 Am. Dec, i;iO, 
 
 38 Wis. R. 8. 1S78, p. 620. 
 
 39 3 and 4 Wm. IV. cli. 10.5, { 2 ; Fry v. Noble, 24 Law J. N. 8, 501 ; 
 7 DeUe.\, M. <fe U. r,S7. 
 
 40 Conn. P. A. 1875, p. 376 ; Laws of 1877, p. 211 ; Stewart, 5 Conn, 
 820 ; Steadman v. Fortune, 5 Conn. 462 ; Calder v. Bull, 2 Root, 50. 
 
 41 Oa. Code 1873, p. .304, ? 1763 ; Code, 1SS2, ? 1763 a ; Day v. .Solomon, 
 40 Oa. 32 ; Mart r. McCullnni, 28 Ou. 478 ; Green r. Causey, 10 Ga. 435 ; 
 Simons V. I.atimcr, 37 Ou. 490. 
 
 42 N. II. O. L. IS7S, p. 474. 
 
 43 Reed v. Morrison, 13 Berg. & R. 18, 21 ; 1 .Seribner Dow. 62.5, 
 
 44 Tinn. R. S. 1871, J 2.398 ; Combs v. Young, 4 Tex. 218 ; Chester v, 
 Qreer, 5 Humph. 2li. 
 
 45 Vt. R. .S. 18S0, i 2215 ; Thayer, 14 Vt. 107 ; 39 Am. Dec. 211 ; Ladd, 
 14 Vt. 185 ; Gorliam v. Daniels, 23 Vt. Cm. 
 
 46 Fry n. Noble, 7 DeGe.x, M. & O, 0S7, 
 
 47 Stewart, 6 Conn. 317, 
 
 § 269. Wife's acts during coverture which defeat dower. 
 — Under .statutes such as 1.1 Edward I., ch. 3t, a wife 
 may defeat her dower by elopement and adultery ,^ or
 
 g 270 DOWER. 408 
 
 by adultery alone,'' or by abandonment alone;* but 
 this result from her breaches of marriage obligations 
 depends on statute entirely.* Nor can any act in the 
 nature of a contract affect her rights to dower except by 
 virtue of a statute ; her dower must be released in the 
 mode ijrescribed by law.^ 
 
 1 See Alex. Brit. Stat. p. 13,S ; Stewart M. & D. { 178. 
 
 2 Ga. R. C. 1873, § 1764. 
 
 3 Thornberry, 18 W. Va. 522 ; ."Stewart il. & T>. J 177. 
 
 4 See Stewart M. &D. ?? 177, 178. 
 
 5 Sisk V. Smith, S 111. 503, 50'J ; post, i 276. 
 
 ? 270. Belease of dower, generally. — It was long doubt- 
 ful whether a wife could release her dower at all ;' but 
 it Avas finally settled at common law that she could re- 
 lease bj^ fine or common recovery.* In Massachusetts, 
 it was released from early times by deed tlirough cus- 
 tom ;* and now, wherever the sole deed of the husband 
 will not destroy dower,* statutes provide for its relin- 
 quishment by her.5 But separate property acts have 
 no effect on a wife'.s interest in lier husband's lands,^ .so 
 that her release of dower stands on a different footing 
 from her ordinary conveyances.' The provisions of 
 the statute must be strictly complied with,^ and a re- 
 lease not good at law is not good at all;^ equitj'- will 
 not even rectify a deed as against the wife ; i" nor does 
 anything short of an actual release, for example, an 
 agreement to give a relea.se," have any effect on her 
 right.^^ So that dower cannot be released by parol, '* 
 but only by deed duly sealed," unless of course the 
 statutes require no seal.^» Nor will a release be pre- 
 sumed from adverse possession until twenty years after 
 the husband's death ; ^* and a release will never be pre- 
 sumed to have been executed during coverture in favor 
 of one Avho does not claim under the husband but ad- 
 A-ersely to him.i" The deed of release need not be in
 
 409 DOWER. § 270 
 
 any particular form,i* but in most States it must ex- 
 pressly state that the purjiose of the wife is to release 
 her dower 18 — even that she signed "in tolcen of lier 
 free consent," has been lipid not sufficient;'^" but in 
 other States it suffices if she join in tlie granting clause,^' 
 and if there are no limiting words, she grants all her 
 interest;"^ and in New Hampshire, by custom, her 
 mere signature Ijeneath her husband's is sufficient,'^ 
 and the same seems to be the effect of the Illinois 
 statute. 2* The deed does not take effect until delivery, 
 and untU that time she may revoke her signature.^ 
 The fact that some defect in the lease is due to her 
 fraud makes no difference.^^ It seems that a married 
 woman cannot execute a blank deed of release, leaving 
 it to her husband to fill it up.^ 
 
 1 Lampet, 10 Coke, 49 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 283, 284. 
 
 2 Haverln^on, Owen, 6 ; Beckwith, 2 Coke. 57 a ; Park Dow. 200 ; 
 2 Scribner Dow. 2S5 ; Powell v. Monson, 3 Mason, Si7, 351; Chase, 1 
 Bland, 206, 228 ; 17 Am. Dec. 277 ; Jackson v. Gilchrist, 15 Johns. 89, 
 109. 
 
 3 French v. Peters, a3 Me. 396, 408 ; nail v. Savage, 4 Mason, 273. 
 
 4 Discussed ante, I 2fiS. 
 
 5 The statute of the particular State should be carefully examined. 
 
 6 McCormlck v. Hunter, 50 Ind. 18fi, 188 ; Blake, 7 Iowa, A'\, 51, 5") ; 
 rip V. Campbill, 19 Pa. St. 301, 3()3 ; Townseud t'. Brown, 10 S. C. 91 ; 
 a)de, i 267. 
 
 7 Ante, \l 205, 236 ; post, Deeds of Marhikd Womex, l'( 394-JOS. 
 
 » Russell V. Amphlet, 27 Ark. .339, 341 ; Stidham v. ^UxUhpWH, 29 
 Ark. 6.30, 6.")7, 653 ; Davis ?'. McDoiialfl, 42 Ga. 205, 207 ; Gi'dvci'. 'lold, 
 41 Md. 6:i3, 639 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; Conover v. Porter, 14 Ohio St. 4.50, 
 4.54. See Ravertv v. Fridge, 3 McLean, 2:'.0 ; Clark v. Redman, 1 
 Blackf. .379; 12 Am. Dec. 213; O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 3S1 ; 
 Rogers i'. Woody, 23 Mo. .>;8 ; Sheppard ?i. Wardell, 1 N. J. L. 4."0 ; 
 Moore 1'. Thomas, 1 Oreg. 201 ; Thompson v. Morrow, .5 So-g. & R. 
 2iJ ; 9 Am. Dec. 358 ; Kirk v. Dean, 2 Binn. 341 ; 2^oiit, H 400, 401. 
 
 9 Carr v. Williams, 10 Ohio, 305, 310 ; 36 Am. Dec. 87 ; infra, n. 12. 
 
 10 Davenport v. Sovil, 6 Ohio St. 459, 466 ; infra, n. 12. 
 
 11 Atwater v. Buckingham, 5 Day, 492, 497 ; infra, n. 12 ; pont, ? 407. 
 
 12 Stidman v. Matthews, 29 Ark. 6-50, 6.58 ; Atw.ater v. Bncki:igham, 
 5 Day, 4'.)2, 497 ; White, 16 X. J. L. 207, 21 1 ; Marvin v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 
 571, .574 ; Wiswall r. Hall, 3 Paige, 313, 3!7; Green v. Branton, 1 Dev. 
 Eq. 500, .503; Purcfll v. Goshorn, 17 0!>io, 10.5, 124; 44 Am. Dee. 448; 
 Davenport v. Sovll, 6 Oliio St. 45 \, 461 ; C irr v. Williams, 10 Ohio, 305, 
 310 ; 38 Am. Dee. 87. S ■ ■ Tcvis v. Ri Irir '.son, 7 Mon. 654, 6"9 ; Ri-h- 
 inond V. Robinson, 12 Mich, l;j3, 201 ; Martiu v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9, 13 ; 
 
 H. & W. — 35.
 
 g 271 DOWER. 410 
 
 21 Am. Dee. 245 ; Eoseburgh v. Sterling, 27 Pa. St. 292, 203 ; pout, ? 404. 
 Cintra, Lake v. Gray, f.O Iowa, 41.5, 413 ; County v. Geiger, 1 Call, 
 190, 19.% 
 
 n Davis, fil jNle. 39.">, 390 ; Lathrop v. Foster, 51 Me. .^R7, 369 ; Worth- 
 ingtoii V. Middlftoii, 6 Dana, :;00, 303 ; Keeler v. Tatnell 23 N. J. L. 62. 
 
 14 Manning v. Laboree, 33 Me. 343, 346. S. P., Brown v. Starke, 3 
 Dana, 316; Sargent v. Roberts, 34 Mo. i:S, 137 ; Task^r v. Bartictt, 5 
 Cush. 359; Giles v. Moore, 4 f;rav,600,601 ; Poster r. Deuuison, 9 Ohio, 
 121 ; Walsh v. Kelly, 34 Pa. St. 84, 85. 
 
 15 2 Scribner Dow. 20S. 
 
 16 Barnard v. Edwards, 4 N. H. 321, 327 ; 17 Am. Dec. 403 ; post, 
 
 17 Durham v. Angier, 20 Me. 242, 245. 
 
 18 See Dnnrlas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. 256, 267 ; Meyer r. Gossett, 33 
 Ark. 377, 3sO ; Diivis ri. Bartholemew, 3 Ind. 485, 491 ; Frost v. Dociing, 
 21 Me. 156, 159; Usher?;. Richardson, 29 Me. 415: Stearus v. Swift, 8 
 Pick. 5.32, 5.35 ; Gray v. McCune, 23 Pa. St. 447, 451. 
 
 19 Hall t'. Savage, 4 Mason, 273, 275 ; Powell v. Sronson, 3 Mason, 
 347, 349 ; Davis v. Bartholemew, 3 Ind. 485, 491 ; Cox v. Wells, 7 Blackf. 
 410; Hatcher V. Andrews, 5 Bush, 5G1, .565; McDowell n Prather, 8 
 Bnsh,4fi, 61; L.athrop v. Foster, 51 Jle. 3(17. .'r.:! ; Stevens v. Owen, 25 
 Me. 94, 99 ; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14, 20 , Catlin v. Wave, 9 M;uss. 
 218, 220; 6 Am. Dec. 56 ; Leavitt v. Damprey, 13 Pick. 382; 23 Am. 
 Dec. 685; MoFarland v. Febigor, 7 Ohio, 194, 195; 28 Am. Doc. 632 ; 
 Carter v. Goo^Mn, 3 Ohio St. 75, 7S. In such case no words of 
 grant are necessary : Stearus v. Swift, 8 Pick. 532, 535. 
 
 20 Stevens v. Owen, 25 Me. 94, 98. 
 
 21 Learned v. Cutler, IS Pick. 9, 12 ; Gililan v. Swift, 14 Hun, 574, 
 576 ; Smith v. Hany, l(i Oliio, lS/1, 223. 
 
 22 Daly v. Willis, 5 Lea, 100, 104. 
 
 23 Burge v. Smith, 27 X. H. 332, 338 ; Dustin v. Steele, 27 N. 11. 431, 
 432. 
 
 24 Johnson t'. Montgomery, 51 111. IS5, 190. 
 
 25 Leland, 13 Pa. St. 84, S5. :^ot after: IMcXeelv v. Kncker, 6 
 Blackf, 391, 394. 
 
 26 McFarland v. Febiger, 7 Ohio, 194, 105; 28 Am. Dec. C32; }io.ft, 
 ?5 416, 418. 
 
 27 Drurv v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 34 ; Conover t'. Porter, 14 Ohio St. 
 450, 454 ; ijost, U 400, 402, 407 
 
 ? 271. Release of dower, partios, consideration, etc. — 
 Unless the statute exi^resslj' authorizes this,' a wife 
 cannot release her dower by her sole deed," but must 
 join with her husband.^ But she need not execute the 
 deed at the same time as her husband,* and may even 
 re-execute it if it is as first defectively acknowledged.' 
 It has the same effect as her joinder with her husband 
 if she jdiiis with his attorney in faet,^ or in case of his
 
 4!1 DOWEK. § 271 
 
 insanity, with his gnardian.' Though slie may have 
 another sign the release for her in her presence,^ except 
 under the Connecticut statute,^ she cannot release her 
 dower by power of attorney,^" except where expressly 
 authorized by statute ;" nor can her guardian release 
 her dower.12 But statutes providing for the release of 
 dower have rereronce solely to the disability of covert- 
 ure,^3 and a release though duly executed Avill not be 
 valid if the wife is an infant ; i^ this disability is totally 
 distinct from that of coverture,'^ and renders the deed, 
 under the better view, voidable, ^^ or, as it is sometimes 
 said, void ; '^ if voidable, it is avoided by her subsequent 
 deed of the same property.'^ For like reasons an insane 
 wife cannot release dower,'® And a statute providing 
 that any Avoman of lawful age may release her doAver, 
 means laAvful age for contracting, not laAvf ul age for mar- 
 rying.-* But statutes sometimes proA'ide specially for the 
 release of doAver when the Avife is an infant,-' or insane.'^'^ 
 As a rule, statutes removing the general incapacities of a 
 married Avoman do not affect her caiiacities toAvards her 
 husband,^ and therefore, a married Avoman's release of 
 her doAver to her husband is A-oid;"-*^ — the same rules 
 applicable in law to her ordinary contracts Avith her 
 husband apply.^ The release cannot be made to a 
 stranger,-^ but only to one Avho in some Avay holds 
 under the husband ;2' to the grantee of the husband,^ 
 or one Avho afterwards buys the fee ; "■^ to the OAvner of 
 the foe;^" to the equitable OAvner;^! to one Avho has 
 Avarranted the title ;^^ for the release operates by Avay 
 of estoi^pel,^^ and the estoppel must be mutual; 3* in- 
 choate doAver, it must be remembered, cannot bo bar- 
 gained and sold but only relcased.^s The Avifo may 
 reserve a consideration moA'ing to herself for her re- 
 lease,^^ but none is imiilied,^^ and a consideration 
 moA'ing to her husband is sufficient.^s
 
 § 271 DOWER. 412 
 
 1 Moore v. Tisdale, 5 Mon. B. 352, 356. As in Md. R. C. 1878, p. 48:?, 
 
 2 Husband must join also in release of dower in former hus- 
 band's lands : Osborn v. Horine, 19 111. 124, 125. 
 
 3 Moore ?'. Tisdale, 5 Mon. B. 3.52, .156 ; Shaw v. Ru.ss, 14 Me. 432 : 
 French v. Peters. 33 Me. 3!»6, 410 ; Page, 6 Cush. 196, VJS ; Stearns v. 
 Swift, 8 Pick. 532, 536; Rannels v. Gehnor, IS Cent. L. J. 182.; Mallorv 
 V. Horan, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 289, 205; WillinR v. Peters, 7 Pa. St. 287, 
 288 ; T'lp V. Oamphell, 19 Pa. St. .361, 36.3. But S"e Powell r. Monson. 3 
 Mason, 347, 351. Contra, Gordon v. Haywood, 2 N. H 402, 405. 
 
 4 ForsT ?'. Gregorv, 10 Mon. B. 175, ir,0 ; Frost ?•. Peering, 21 Me. 
 1.56, 1.59 ; Ludlow v. O'Nfill, 2) Ohio St. 181, 183 ; Williams v. Robson, 6 
 Ohio St. 510, 515 ; Montgomery v. Hobson, Meigs, 437, 451. 
 
 5 Newell v. Anderson, 7 Ohio St. 12, 15. 
 
 6 Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14, 21 ; Glenn v. Bank, 8 Ohio, 72, 79. 
 
 7 Rannels r. Gehnor, 9 Mo. App. .506, 511 ; 18 Cent. L. J. 182. 
 
 8 Frost r. Deering, 21 Me. 156, 159. See post, ? 412. 
 
 9 Lindsey v. Brown, 13 Conn. 192, 194, 195. 
 
 10 Lewis V. Coxe, 5 Har. (Del.) 401, 402 ; Dawson v. Shirley, 6 Elackf. 
 .531, 532 ; Steele v. Lewis, 1 Mon. 48 ; Shanks r. Lancaster, 5 Gratt. 110, 
 118 ; .50 Am. Dec. 108 ; Sumner v. Conant, 10 Vt. 9, 20 ; post, i 406. 
 
 11 De Bar v. Priest, 6 Mo. App. 531, 5.^5. 
 
 12 Eslava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504, 529 ; 56 Am. Dec. 266. 
 
 13 W'atson r. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 280 ; 42 Am. Rep. 1 ; Phillips v. 
 Green, 3 Marsh. A. K. 7, 11 ; 23 Am. Dec. 124 ; Prewitt v. Graves, 5 
 Marsh. J. J. 115, 120; Webb v. Hall, 35 Me. 336, .3.38; Bool v. Mix. 17 
 Wend. 119, 129 ; 31 Am. Doc. 285 ; Hughes v. Watson, 10 Ohio, 127, 134 ; 
 Thomas v. Gammel, 6 Leigh, 9, 12. 
 
 14 Webb V. Hall, a5 Me. a36, 338 ; supra, n. 13. 
 
 15 Bool V. Mi.x, 17 Wend. 119, 129; 31 Am. Dec. 285; supra, n. 13; 
 P'-,st, ? 3.39. 
 
 16 Cresinger v. 'Welch, 15 Ohio, 1.59, 191 ; 45 Am. Doc. 565. S. P., 
 Watson t>. BilIings,.3S Ark. 278, 2S1 ; 42 .\m. Rep. 1 ; Pliillipsr. Green, 
 3 Marsh. A. K. 7, 11 ; 23 Am. Dec. 124 ; Adams r. Palmer, .51 Me. 480, 
 488; Yourse i\ Norcours, 12 Mo. 549. .56:!; 51 Am. Dec. 175; Bool v. 
 Mix, 17 AVend. 119, 1.30 ; 31 Am. J)(r-. 285 ; Hughes v. Watson, 10 Ohio, 
 127, 1.34 ; Thomas v. Gammol, 6 Leigh, 9, 12. 
 
 17 Glenn v. Clarke, .53 Md. .580, 603, 6M ; Chandler v. McK'nnerv. 6 
 Mich. 217, 220; Sandford v. McLean, 3 Paige, 117, 121; 23 Am. Dec. 
 773 ; Schrader v. Decker, 9 Pa. St. 14, 16 ; 49 Am. Dec. 5.38. 
 
 18 Youse V. Norcoms. 12 Mo. 549, 504 ; 51 Am. Dec. 175 ; Cresinger 
 V. Welch, 15 Ohio, 1.5!), 191 ; 45 Am. Dec. .565. If she avoids it, she need 
 not pay back any of the purchase money : Markhara v. Merrett, 
 8 Miss. 4.37, 444 ; post, ? 412. Age is presumed : Battin v. Bigelow, 1 
 Peters C. C. 452, 45.3. 
 
 19 McElwain, 29 111. 442, 44.3. 
 
 20 ISIcMorris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 5-58, 562 ; 43 Am. Rep. 629. 
 
 21 McMorris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 5.58, 561 ; 43 Am. Rep. 629 ; Aid. R. C. 
 1S76, I 2236 ; Ind. R. S. 1881, ? 29.3<J ; Me. R. S. 1871, p. 757, ? 6. 
 
 22 Iowa R. S. 18Sn, p 2216-2219; Mass. P. S. 1882, p. MO, | 20 ; Mo. 
 R. S. 1879, ? 2235 ; Ohio R. S. 1880, ? 5722 ; Va. Code, 1873, p. 933, i 11 ; 
 Wis. R. S. 1878, ii 2225, 2226.
 
 413 DOWER. § 272 
 
 23 Discussed ante, §? 14, 43. 
 
 24 Martin, 22 Ala. 80, lot ; Mnrklins, 30 Arl^. 17, 24 ; Pillow r. Wado, 
 31 Ark. 07H. 6^1 ; Kowt> v. HaiiiiltDii, 3 Me. f>3, 1)7 ; JIullory v. Horaii, 12 
 Abb. Pr. N. S. 2Sa, 2\)o ; Craiu v. Cavaiia, :« ]',arb. 410, 412 ; Graham v. 
 Van \V.vcl<, 14 Barb. 531,5:!2; Towiisoml, 2 8aiid. 711,713,714; Walsh 
 V. Kell.v, 34 Pa. St. 84, 85 ; Burdiclc v. Briggs, 11 Wis. 126, 132. But see 
 Blake, 7 Iowa, 40, 54. 
 
 25 Consult fully ante, ? 43. 
 
 26 Stiflham ?>. Matthews, 29 Ark. e'W, 6."j9 ; Chicago v. Kinzie, 49 III. 
 28!l, 2<i5; Kobbiiis %\ Ki:izio, 45 III. 3.>4, 35); La Framboise v. Crow, 56 
 111. 1!>7, 200 ; Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 483, 484 ; Harriman v. Gray, 49 
 Me. 537, 538; French v. Lord, 6J Me. 537, 542 ; ReilT v. Ilorst, 55 Md. 42, 
 47 ; Marvin v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 571, 574 ; Mallory v. Horan, 12 Abb. Pr, 
 N. S. 289, 2J5. 
 
 27 Reiff V. Horst. 55 Md. 42, 47 ; supra, n. 26. 
 
 28 Marvin v. Smith. 46 N. Y. 571, 574 ; sujyra, n. 26. 
 
 29 Harriman r. Gray, 49 Me. 537, 538. 
 
 30 Summers )'. Babb, 13 111. 483, 484 ; supra, n. 26. 
 
 31 Chicago V. Kinzie, 49 111. 239, 23.5. 
 
 32 Ilobbins v. Kinzie, 45 111. 351, 3.59. 
 
 33 French it. Lord, 69 Me. 537, 542 ; post, ?§ 272, 276. 
 
 34 Kitzmiller v. Van Rensselaer, 10 Ohio St. 63, 64 ; post, 5? 272, 276. 
 
 35 Reiff V. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; ante, § 262. 
 
 36 Bailey v. Litten, 52 Ala. 282, 285 ; Reiff v. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; 
 Miller t\ Crawfurd, 32 Gratt. 277, 286. 
 
 37 Hiscock i\ Jaycox, 12 Bank. Reg. 507. 
 
 38 Bailey v. Litten, 52 Ala. 2S2, 285. 
 
 I 272. Release of dower — Effect of. — A married wo- 
 man's release of her iinassigned dower cannot take 
 eflect as a g'rant.i but operates only by way of estop- 
 pel ; 2 and as an estoppel must be mutual,^ a stranger 
 to the release cannot avail himself of it ;* it can be set 
 up only by one wlio claims title under it,^ by the hus- 
 band's grantee,* or some one entitled to stand in his 
 shoes ; ' thus, when a wife joins her husband in a mort- 
 gage, only the mortgagee or one claiming under the 
 mortgage, can set up her release of dower ; * against all 
 others she has her dower,' and if the mortgage is fore- 
 closed after the husband's deatli, she has dower in the 
 surplus,!^ even where, instead of foreclosing a mort- 
 gage, the property is sold by the husband's assignee 
 in bankruptcy, and the debt is paid, the purchaser
 
 § 272 BOWER. 414 
 
 takes the property subject to her dower." So when 
 she joins in a lease she does not aflect her rights in the 
 reversion or the rent ;^- nor does her release to one ten- 
 ant in common affect her rights as against the other 
 tenants in common.'^ She is not, moreover, estopped 
 from setting up a subsequent title in herself,'^ or from 
 alleging her husband's fraud. ^^ The etlect of the re- 
 lease is confined to the property actually referred to;'^ 
 and if a mistako is made in the description, the deed 
 Avill not be rectified as against the Avife.'' Nor if she 
 joins with her husband avowedly to " release her 
 dower" does the deed have any effect as a conveyance 
 of her own property, >* even if no property of her hus- 
 band's is referred to ;^9 of course, the deed may be so 
 drawn as to release her dower and convey her own 
 property also.-" If she release dower, the release cov- 
 ers dower in the same land under a former husband.-' 
 But if she conveys ju-operty as guardian,-- or as admin- 
 istratrix,^ she does not release her dower; though if 
 she convey in a representative capacity and her indi- 
 vidual capacity also, her dower is gone.'''* If the deed 
 in which she joins to release her dower is set aside, or 
 for any reason becomes inoperative — as where a mort- 
 gage debt is paid,'^ or a deed in fraud of creditors is set 
 aside by them,-^ even when tlie fraudulent deed was to 
 the wife herself 2" — she has her dower as if she had not 
 joined therein ;** but the deed must really become in- 
 operative;^ it is not sufficient if the grantee from 
 laches never has had any benefit thereunder.^" 
 
 1 Reiff I'. Horst, 5.5 Mil. 4:, 47 ; ante, U -62. 203. 
 
 2 French v. I,orfl, f.') M'\ 57, r,4L' ; Efiflf v. llorst, 55 Mil. 42, 47; 
 Mallor.v v. Honin, r: Abb. Fr. X. S. 2.S.), 2<.w ; post, i 410. 
 
 3 Kitzmiller v. Van Rensselaer, 10 Ohio St. 63, P4. 
 
 4 Robinson 1'. Bates, 3 Met. 40 ; infra, n. 7. 
 
 5 Mallory v. Horan, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 289, 295 ; infra, n. 7. 
 
 6 Dearborn v. Taylor, 18 N. II. 153, 15S ; infra, n. 7.
 
 415 KowER. \ 273 
 
 7 Bliilr v. Harrison, 11 III. !»4,3Sfi. S. P., Bobbins v. Kinzio, 4". 111. 
 ■XA, :»« ; Gove i-. Catlier, 2.i 111. 6;H. 641 ; Frt-neh v. Cro.sby, 61 Me. .5iJJ, 
 .i(H ; Freiicli c. Lord, fi:i Me. 5:i7, h\l\ Harriniaii r. (^ray, 49 Me. fi\~, 
 •>«; Llttlefleld r. frocker, .iO Me. 1H2, \%K\ Kiibiiisoti /. Kates, .i Met. 
 4(), 4-'; Pixlev I'. Bennett, 11 .Mass. 2J8 ; Pearson c. Williams, ij Mi.ss. 
 64,68; Harrison r. Kldndge, 7 N. J. 1-. :«r2, 411 ; Dearborn r. Taylor, 
 H N. H. l.>», \^ ; Mallory v. Hornn, 12 Ahb. I*r. N. ^s. iw'.t, •-•H.i ; Gray v. 
 McC'une, 23 Pa, St. 447, 451. Cf/ntra, Elmdorf v. Lockwood, 67 N. Y. 
 ;<22, :i2.5. 
 
 8 niair v. Harrison, 11 111. zm, Xir> ; Johnson v. Hlnes, 61 Md. 123, 
 129 ; ante, U 260, 261. 
 
 9 Youns V. Tarbell, 37 Me. 609, 51.5 ; ante, U 260, 261. 
 , 10 Chew V. Farmers, 9 Gill, 361, 374 ; ante, ? 261. 
 
 11 Bartenbaeh, 11 Bank. Ueg. 61. 
 
 12 Herbert t'. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370 ; Chase, 1 Bland, 200, 231 ; 17 Am. 
 Dec. 277. 
 
 13 White, 16 X. J. L. 202, 21.5. 
 
 14 Blair r. Harrison, 11 111. .^S4,.3.S0; ;jo.«<, H12 
 
 15 WoodwortU V. Paige, 5 Ohio St. 70, 74. 
 
 16 French t;. Lord, 69 Mo. 5.37, 542. 
 
 17 Rieben v. F'ranks, 52 Iowa, 642, 643; Davenport v. Sovll. 6 Ohio 
 St. 451, 466 ; ante, i 270. 
 
 18 Hnghes v. Wilkinson, 21 Ala. 296, 300; Kavmond v. Holden, 2 
 Cu«h. 2W, 270; McDaniel v. Priest, 12 Mo. .544, .>4fi ; Flag? v. Bean, 25 
 N. H. It, 6'i; Foster v. Dennison, 9 Ohio, 121, 125; Mavo v. Foster, 2 
 McCord Ch. 137. 
 
 19 Flags V. Bean, 25 N. H. 49, 63. 
 
 20 Gregory, 16 Ohio .St. 560, 5M. 
 
 21 rsherr. Richardson, 29 Me. 415, 417. 
 
 22 Jones v. llollopeter, 10 Serg. & U. 326, .328. 
 
 23 Shiirtz ?•. Thomas, 8 Pa. St. &59, 362. See Kitchie v. Putnam, 13 
 Wend. 524, 526. 
 
 24 Churchill v. Be4>, 66 Ga. C21, 6:52. 
 
 25 Mallory v. lloran, 12 Abb. Pr. X. R. 289, 296. 
 
 26 Summers v. Babb, 13 111. 4«, 484 ; infra, ii. 28. 
 
 27 Richardson ji. Wyman, 62 Me. 280, 283. 
 
 28 Hoppin, 96 111. 265, 271, 272; Morton v. Noble, .57 111. 176, 179; 
 McKee x. Brown, 4:! III. IIO ; r;.,ve v. Catlier, 23 III. 634, 641 ; Lockett 
 n James, 8 Bush, 28, 31 ; lliclianlson )■. Wvriiaii, 62 Me. 2^0, 284 ; Rob- 
 inson V. Bates. 3 Mi't. 40 ; Sthisii'i v. Siini'ur, 9 M:vss. Mi ; 6 Am. Dec. 
 49; I»inson r. Williams, 23 Miss. 64, <;s ; Frev r. liovlau, 23 N. .1. E(i. 
 90; Elmdorf r. Lockwood, 57 X. Y. .322, ;i25; Mallorv v. Horan, 12 
 Abb. Pr. X. S. 289, 216 : Clowes ^;. Dickenson, 5 Johns". Ch. 2:{5, 246; 
 Ridgway v. Masting 23 Ohio St. 294, 296 ; Bickard v. Talbird, Rice 
 Eq. 158. 
 
 29 Iloppin, 96 III. 26.5, 271, 272. 
 
 30 Morton v. Xoble, .57 111. 176, 179 
 
 'i 273. Jointure, legal and oquitablo. — Jointnro is toch- 
 iiicalh'^ .such a .settlement on a wife as bars licr of her
 
 g 273 DOWER. 41(3 
 
 dower under the statute of uses,' for by the early com- 
 mon law dower could not be barred by any collateral 
 satisfaction.- The settlement was so called because 
 usually made upon the husband and wife jointly dur- 
 ing coverture, and on her after her husband's death.* 
 The word when used in a statute without qualification 
 means legal jointure under the above-named statute ; ^ 
 but it is commonly used at present to mean any pro- 
 vision for a Avife in lieu of her dower .& A legal jointure 
 is such a provision as under the statute of uses or other 
 statute bars her dower ; ^ an equitable jointure is .sucli 
 a proAdsion as puts her on her election to take it or 
 dower.*' Antenuptial contracts between the husband 
 and wife, in which the wife agrees to give up her 
 dower, have also been called equitable jointures;* but 
 such contracts stand on a different footing, and are ab- 
 solutely' binding, if made between adults,^ and void- 
 able only if the woman were an infant.'* To a strict 
 legal jointure under the statute of uses, which is in 
 force in tliis country as a part of the common law,'^ so 
 far as consistent with the modem statutes,'^ the follow- 
 ing are the requisites :'^ (1) Tlie provision must consist 
 in an estate or interest in land ; '* (2) it must take effect, 
 in possession or profit, immediately from the death of 
 the husband ; '^ (3) it must be for the wife's life, at 
 least;'® (4) it must be limited to the wife herself, and 
 not in trust for her;" (5) it must be made in satisfac- 
 tion of her whole dower,'* and must be so expressed 
 in the deed;'^ ((J) it must be a reasonable and compe- 
 tent provision for the wife's livelihood;™ (7) it must 
 be made before marriage.^' Any other provision made 
 for a wife expresslj'^ in lieu of dower ^^ will, if she ac- 
 cepts it, bar her of dower in equity,^ independently of 
 statute;^* it puts her to an election.^ In most of the 
 States statutes provide in what cases a wife shall be ab-
 
 417 DOWER. ? 274 
 
 solutely barred by a proAnsion in lieu of dower, and in 
 what cases she may elect.-^^ If, when the wife is abso- 
 lutely barred she conveys away jointly with her hus- 
 band her jointure lands," she is; nevertheless barred of 
 her dower ; but if she has the right of election she may 
 claim her dower all the same.^* If she is evicted of 
 either kind® of jointure, she may be endowed of so 
 much of the remainder of her husband's lands as may 
 be necessar^'^ to make up her loss,^" provided that she 
 does not get more altogether than she would have had 
 had she taken dower at first ;^i and she may be so en- 
 dowed even as against her husband's alienee.^^ A 
 jointure, unlike dower after assignment,^^ is not a con- 
 tinuance of the husband's estate ;** the wife takes as a 
 purchaser,'^ and is not entitled to the crops which were 
 soA\Ti at the time of his death.^* 
 
 1 27 Henry VIIL ch. 10, g? 6-9 ; Alex. Brit. Stat. 300, 301 ; 2 Scrlbner 
 Dow. -Wi 
 
 2 Vernon, 4 Co. 1 ; Vincent r. Spooner, 2 Cush. 467, 473 ; Hastings 
 V. Dickinson, 7 Mass. I-t;? ; 5 Am. Dec. 34. 
 
 3 Drury, WUm. 1S5, 186 ; Vernon, 4 Co. 1 6. 
 
 4 Vance, 21 Me. 36t 
 
 5 Tevis t'. McCreary, 3 Met. (Ky.) 151. 
 
 6 Dniry, 3 Brown Pari. C. 492 ; Wilm. 177. 
 
 7 Ha-stlngs i\ Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34. 
 
 8 Dyke v. Rendall, 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 404, 411 ; 2 DeGex, M. & G. 209. 
 
 9 Caruthers, 4 Bro. C. C. 513 ; ante, i 206. 
 
 10 McCartee v. TeUer, 2 Paige, 511,556,559; 8 Wend. 207; Stewart 
 M. * D. ? 37. 
 
 11 Alex. Brit. Stat. 300, 301 ; ante, ? 6, 
 
 12 Vance, 21 Me. 3G4 ; ant^., ? G. 
 
 13 Co. Litt. 3fi & ; T.everin? ?•. Hughe, 2 Md. Ch. 81 ; Hastings v 
 Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34. 
 
 14 Gibson, 15 Mass. 106 ; 8 Am. Dec. 94 ; Hastings v. Dickinson. 7 
 Mass. 153; 5 Am. Dec. 34 ; Vance, 21 Me. 364 ; (Jelzer, 1 Bail. Eq 3S7 ; 
 Ball, 3 Muni 279 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 394. 
 
 15 Vernon, 4 Co. 2 a ; Caruthers, 4 Bro. C. C. 500. 513 ; Vance, 21 
 Me. 364; Gibson, 15 Miiss. 106; 8 Am. Dec. 94; Crain v. Cavana. 63 
 Barb. 410 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 395. 
 
 16 Vernon, 4 Co. 2 ft ; McCartee v. Teller, 2 Paige. 511, 500 ; Gelzer, 
 1 Bail. Eq. 387 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 397. 
 
 17 Hervey, 1 Atk. 561 ; Co. Litt. 36 6 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 399.
 
 §274 DOWER. 418 
 
 18 Bubicr v. Roberts, 49 Me. 460, 46o. 
 
 19 Vernon, 4 Co. 3 a ; Tinney, 3 Atk. 8 ; Charles i'. Andrews, 6 
 Mod. 152 ; Caruthers, 4 Bro. C. C. 500 ; Garthshore v. Chalie, 10 Ves. 
 Jr. 1, 20; Green v. Porter, 7 Port. 19; Tevis v. McCrearv, 3 Met. (Kv.) 
 151 ; Worsley, IB Mon. B. 4.5.5, 4.59 ; Bnbier v. Roberts, 49 Me. 4fiO, 4fi5 ; 
 Perryman, 1!) Mo. 469; Swaine ik Ferine, 5 Johns. Ch. 48'2; 9 Am. 
 Dec. 318; Liles v. Fleming, 1 Dev. Eq. 185; infra, n. 22; post ? 274. 
 But see Ambler v. Norton, 4 Hen. & M. 23. 
 
 20 2 Scribner Dow. 404, 428. 
 
 21 Martin,2r)AIa. 86 ; Rowe r. Hamilton, 3 Me. 63 ; Grain ?'. Cavana, 
 36 Barb. 410 ; Townsend, 2 8and. 711 ; Walsh v. Kelly, 34 Pa. St. 84. 
 
 22 Worsley, 16 Mon. B. 455, 459 ; stipra, n. 19 ; ])ost, i 274 
 
 23 Dvke r. Rendall, 13 Ens. h. & Eq. 404, 411 ; 2 DeGex, M. & G. 
 20:) ; Blaekniore, 16 Ala. (^Xi ; "Farrow, 1 Del. Ch. 4.57 ; Raines v. Cor- 
 bln, 24 Ga. 1>5 ; ( iarrurd, 7 Bush, 436 ; Tevis >\ SlcCrcarv, 3 Mot. (K y.) 
 151 ; Wentwcirtli, 69 Me. 247 ; Levering v. Hughr, 2 .Mil. Ch. 81 ; Hast- 
 ings V. Iiickhison, 7 Mass. 1.53, 1.55 ; 5 Am. Dec 34; Gib.son, 15 Mass. 
 156;' 8 Am. Dec. 94; McCartee v. Teller, 2 Paige, 511 ; 8 Wend. 267; 
 Tisdale v. .Tones, 38 Barb. .523; Grogan v. Garrison. 27 Ohio St. 50; 
 Jones, 62 Pa. .St. 324: Gangwere, 14 Pa. 8t. 417; Rudolph, 10 Pa. St. 
 34; Rose v. Reynolds, 1 Swan, 446; Dacy v. Anderson, 1 Swan, 445; 
 Parham, 6 Iluniph. 287 ; pout, H 274, 27.5. 
 
 24 Logan v. IMiillips, 18 Mo. 22 ; Johnson, 23 Mo. 561 ; 30 Mo. 72. 
 
 25 Co. Litt. 36 6 ; post, H 274, 275. 
 
 26 Rev. Stats, as follows : Ark. 1874. ?? 2218-2224 ; Conn. 1875. pp. .376, 
 377 ; Conn. Acts, 1877, p. 211, ? 4 ; Del. 1874, p. .5.33 ; HI. 1880, p. 426 ; Ind. 
 1881, §2.500; Kv. 1881, p. 530 ; Me. 1871, p. 7.57; Md. 1878, art. .50, ? 226 ; 
 Mass. 1882, p. 711 ; Mich. 1882, ?? .5746-.5749 ; Mo. 1879, ?? 2201, 2202 ; N. J. 
 1877, p. 3-22; N. Y. 1882, pp. 2197, 2198; Ohio WHO, §4189; Oreg. >S74, 
 p. .586 ; R. I. 18S2, p. 640 ; S. C. 18S2, p. 5:30 ; Va. 1873, p. 854 ; Vt. 1880, 
 i 2219 ; Wis. 1879, §§ 2169-2172. 
 
 27 Co. Litt. 36 6 ; Dyer, 3.58 6. 
 
 28 1 Greenl. Cruise, 208 ; Co. Litt. 36 b. 
 
 29 Gervoye, Moore C. P. 717; Beard v. Nutthall, 1 Vern. 427; 
 Garrard, 7 Bush, 436 ; Hastings v. Dickinson, 7 Mass. 153, 155 ; .5 Am. 
 Dec. 34 ; Gibson, 15 Mass. 106, 111 ; 8 Am. Dec. 94. 
 
 30 Hastings r. Dickinson. 7 Mass. 1.53, 1.55 ; 5 Am. Dec. 34 ; Comden 
 r. Jones, 23 N. J Eq. 171 ; Pierce, 9 Hun, M ; St. Clair v. Williams, 7 
 Ohio, 110 ; 30 Am. Dec. liM ; Ambler v. Norton, 4 Hen. & M. 23. 
 
 31 Beard v. Nutthall, 1 Vern. 427 ; Tew v. Winterton, 3 Bro. C. C. 
 489. 
 
 .32 Mannsfield, Co. Litt. .33 a, n. 8 ; 1 Greenl. Cruise, 200. 
 
 a3 Discussed ante, § 264. 
 
 .34 Fisher v. Forbes, 9 Vin. Abr. .373. 
 
 35 See Campion v. Cotton, 17 Ves. 267 ; Sterrv v. Arden, 1 Johns. 
 Ch. 271; 12 Johns. 536; 7 Am. Dec. 348; Herring v. Wickham, 29 
 Gratt. 628 ; Jones, 62 Pa. St. 324. 
 
 36 Fisher v. Forbes, 9 Vin. Abr. .37.3. 
 
 I 274. Equitable jointure — Devise in lieu of dower. — It 
 il a rule euforeod in equity that one cannot accojit the 
 benefit.s under an in.strument, and at the .same time
 
 419 DOWER. §274 
 
 defeat its provisions, so that if A transfers to B certain 
 lands, and by tlie same instrument transfers to C cer- 
 tain lands belonging to B, B must let his own lands go 
 to C if he accepts the lands transferred to him by A ; he 
 cannot have both, he must clioose between them — he is 
 put to an election.! Tliis rule applies to dower as well 
 as to other estates,^ and to widows as well as to other 
 persons ;* and a widow cannot have her dower and also 
 a provision made for her in lieu thereof by her hus- 
 band's deed * or will.^ For although the mass of cases 
 have arisen with respect to provisions in wills, there is 
 nothing to prevent the same rules, so far as tliej' depend 
 on tlie unwritten law and not on statutes, from apply- 
 ing equally to deeds.^ Tlie provision must be expressly 
 in lieu of dower,^ or the instrument must make a dis- 
 position of some part of the maimer's estate wliicli is 
 clearly inconsistent with the existence of dower there- 
 in,8 so that in claiming dower the widow would defeat, 
 interrupt, or disappoint, some provision in the instru- 
 ment.* No teclmical language is necessary,!*) but it has 
 been found diflficult to determine what provisions in a 
 will are inconsistent with dower." A devise of "all 
 ni}' estates" would not be,'- for dower is the wife's 
 estate and not the husband's ; '^ it is an encumbrance on 
 his property.'* So that by leaving a wife a part of his 
 property and disposing of tlie I'est to others, her hus- 
 band does not necessarily put her to an election, but she 
 takes the devise and dower in the balance ; '* nor does 
 a devise to her of all her husband's property prevent 
 her from holding part as dower and part under the 
 devise ; "^ nor does a devise of all the property to trust- 
 ees to sell and give her part of the proceeds put her to 
 an election ; " iioi does an annuity charged on the land, 
 unless the land, if subjected to dower, is not sufficient 
 to pay the annuity.'^ But if such a disjiosition of the
 
 I 274 DowicR. 420 
 
 estate is made as is inconsistent with tlie existence of 
 dower tlierein, slie must elect ; as wliere trustees are 
 directed to lease the whole of the land in possession ;^^ 
 so, if tlie instrument shows clearly his intention that 
 she should have nothing excepting the provisions of the 
 will ; '^^ as where he leaves her property during her 
 widowhood only,^^ or equally with others.^'^ gut tj^e 
 widow is favored,'-^ and the intent must be clear to ex- 
 clude her ; 2' and it must be ascertained from the instru- 
 naent, for, except in Virginia,® parol evidence thereof 
 is not admissable.^^ Such were the rules at common 
 law, but in most States they have been changed by 
 statute, 2' and any provision, generally of realty,* in a 
 will for a wife, is presumed to have been intended as in 
 lieu of dower, unless a contrary intent plainly appears 
 from the will itself,^ and the Avidow is required to elect 
 within a specified time whether she will take the pro- 
 visions in tlie will or her dower.^" But a will which 
 contains no provision in her favor does not put her to 
 an election,3i nor does a provision in a will in lieu of 
 dower require her to elect as to lands of which the hus- 
 band dies intestate,^^ for to take dower in such lands 
 would not affect the other provisions in the instru- 
 ment;^^ and the same applies to lands of the husband's 
 sold by him,^' or in execution against him,^^ during 
 coverture ; nor does a devise to her of lands in one 
 State require her to elect as to lands in another State,"^ 
 though this seems to be bad law.^' The statutes are 
 construed as favorably as possible to the widow, and 
 where a devise to her requires her to elect, although not 
 expressed to be in lieu of dower, a devise in trust for 
 her will not have the same effect.^^ The statutes of the 
 different States, liowever, differ in many and minute 
 ways, and should in all cases be carefully con- 
 sulted.
 
 421 Dowr.R. 2 274 
 
 1 Adams Equity 02, 221, notes ; 2 Scribner Dow. -!10 ; 1 Lead. Cas. 
 Eq. 3:j. 
 
 2 Eirniiiigham r. Kirwan, 2 Schoales & T,. 4 ! 1, 4o0. 
 
 3 Dixon V. itcCue, 1-4 Gratt. 540, 543. 
 
 4 Birmingham r. Kirwan, 2 Schoales <fc L. 4+4, 4il ; Parhara, 6 
 JIumpk. 267, 2i)~ ; 1 Bish. M. W. 38;J ; ante, § 273. 
 
 5 Adsit, 2 Johns. Ch. 44S, 459 ; 7 Am. Doc. 5":) ; cases cited infra. 
 
 6 1 Bish. M. W. i 383 ; ante, \ 273. 
 
 7 U. S. V. Duncan, 4 McLean, 93, 101 ; infra, n. 8. 
 
 8 Blrjnlngham v. Kirwan, 2 Schoales & L. 4 14, 452 ; U. S. v. Da;i- 
 can, 4 McLean, !t,i, 101 ; Green, 7 Port, l.i ; Apporso!i v. Bolton, 29 A r.c. 
 418, 428; Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 331 ; Ailing v. Chatlichl, 42 Conn. 27;.; 
 Worthen 1). Pearson, 33 Ga. 385, 387 ; Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; 
 Ostrander v. Spickard, 8 Elackf. 227 ; Kelly v. Stinson, 8 Blackf. 387 ; 
 Clarke v. Griliith, 4 Iowa, 405; Potter v. Worley, 57 Ga. 66, 67; 
 Van Guilder v. Justice, 56 Iowa, 63:); Kyne, 48 Iowa, 21; Wil- 
 son V. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, 54 4; Copp v. Hensev, 31 N. H. 317; 
 C olgate, 23 N. J. Eq. 372, 378 ; Freedla:;d v. MandervUle, 28 N. J. Eq. 
 6.J.) ; Van Arsdnle, 26 N. J. L. 407, 410 ; Stewart, 31 N. J. Eq. 398 ; Adsit, 
 2 Johns. Ch. 448, 459 ; 7 Am. Dec. 519 ; Jackson v. Churchill, 7 Cowen, 
 2^7; 17 Am. Dec. 514; Bets, 4 Abb. N. G. 317; Smith v. Kniskern, 4 
 Johns. Ch. 9 ; Wood, 5 Paige, 506 ; 28 Am. Dec. 451 ; Sandford v. Jack- 
 son. 10 Paige, 268 ; Havens, 1 Sand. Ch. 324 ; Tobias v. Ketehum, 36 
 Barb. 479 ; 32 N. Y. 319 ; Lingart v. Eipley, 19 Ohio St. 24 ; Sample, 2 
 Ycates, 433 ; Allen, 2 Pa. 311 ; Webb v. Evans, \ Binu. 5Gj ; Chapin v. 
 Hill, 1 R. I. 446; Gordon v. Stevens, 2 Hill, 46; 27 Am. Dec. 4-;5; 
 Brown v. Caldwell, 1 Spear Eq. 322 ; Cun'-.innrhani r. Shannon, 4 
 Bich. Eq. 135; Dixon v. McCue, 14 Gratt. 540, 54.); Higgiubotham v 
 Coruwell, 8 Gratt. 83, 85 ; 56 Am. Dec. 1"0. 
 
 9 Cornell v. Ham, 2 Clarke, 552, 558. 
 
 10 Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 331. 
 
 11 See collected cases in 1 Lead. Cas. Eq. 310, et se.q. 
 
 12 Sandford v. Jackson, 10 Paige, ?G3, 272, 270 ; Baxter v. Bowyer, 19 
 0:iio St. 490, 491. 
 
 13 Dixon r. McCue, 14 Gratt. 540, o:X 
 
 14 Barnett v. Gaines, 8 Ala. 373, 374 ; ante, U 262, 263. 
 
 15 Birmingham t>. Kirwan, 2 Schoales &L. 444,452 ; Colgate, 23 N. J, 
 Eq. 372, 379. See Lawrence, 2 Vern. 365 ; 3 Brov.n P..rl. C. 4.s3 ; Lemon, 
 8 Vin. Abr. " Devise," p. 3G6, pi. 45; Holdich,2 Younge & C. 18 ; Bend- 
 ing, 3 Kaj' & J. 257 ; Kellj^ v. Stinson, 8 Blac'.if. 357 ; Rahtbone r. Dyck- 
 man, 3 Paige, 9 ; Fuller r. Yat?s, 8 Paige, 325 ; Jackson v. Churchill 
 77 Cowen, 287; 17 Am. Dec. 514 ; Havens, 1 Sand. Ch. 324; Mills, 28 
 Barb. 454; Lingart v. Riplev, 19 Ohio St. 24; Baxter r. Bowver, 19 
 Ohio St. 490, 4111: Webb v. Evans, 1 Binn. o(i5; Brown ?'. Caldwell, 1 
 Spears Eq. 322; Cunningham v. Shannon, 4 Rich. Eq. 135. 
 
 16 Church v. Bull, 2 Denio, 430 ; 5 Hill, 206 ; 43 Am. Dec. 754 ; Lewis 
 r. Smith, 5 Seld. 502; 11 Barb. 152; Wis 'lev v. Findla.v, 3 Rand. 361, 
 372 ; 15 Am. Dec. 712. But see Stark v. llunton, 1 N. J. Eq. 216. 
 
 17 Ellis 1'. Lewis, 3 Hare, 310 ; French v. Davies,2 Ves. Jr. 572 ; Gib- 
 son, 1 Drew. 42; 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 34); Woiid, 5 P:iige, 596; 28 Am. 
 Dec. 451 ; Gordon i-. Stevens, 2 TliU Ch. 46 ; 27 Am. D-^c. 445. But s-e 
 Colgate, 23 X. J. Eq. 372, 361 ; Savage v. Burnham, 17 N. Y. 561 ; Hatch 
 V. Bassett, 52 N. Y. 359. 
 
 H. & W.-C6
 
 g 274 . DOWER. 422 
 
 18 Pearson, 1 Bro. C. C. 292. See Foster v. Cook, 3 Bro. C. C. 347 ; 
 
 Dawson v. Bell, 1 Keen, 761, 765 ; Arnold v. Hempstead, 2 Eden, 236; 
 Bradley I'. Dixon, 3 Russ. 198; Druce v. Dcnnisoa, 6 Ves. Jr. 385; 
 Greatorex v. Carey, 6 Ves. Jr. 615 ; Worthen v. Pearson, 33 Ga. ifSo, 387. 
 
 19 Parker v. Sowerbv, 1 Drew. 488 ; 27 Eng. L. <fc Eq. 145. Consult 
 Miall V. Brain, 4 Madd. 119 ; O'Hara v. Chaine, 1 Jones & L. 6R2 ; Pep- 
 per V. Dixon, 17 Sim. 200 ; Atliing v. Chatfleld, 42 Conn. 2';6 ; Worthen 
 V. Pearson , 33 Ga. 3So, 3'*7 ; Van Guilder r. Justice, 57 Iowa, GG'J ; Tobias 
 V. Ketchum, 32 N. Y. 319 ; 1 Lead. Cas. Eq..524, 561. 
 
 20 See 1 Lead. Cas. Eq. 300, 524, 561. 
 
 21 Wilson?'. Hayne, 1 Cheves Eq. 37. See Phillips' r. Medbury, 7 
 Conn. 568 ; Lord, 23 Conn. 327 ; Collins v. Wood, 63 III. 285 ; Smith r. 
 Bone, 7 Bush, 367 ; Stark v. Hunton. 1 N. J. Eq. 216 ; Lingart v. Ship- 
 lev, 19 Ohio St. 24 ; Taylor v. Bnrmiiigham, 29 Pa. St. 308 ; Hamilton 
 ti.'Buckwalter, 2 Yeates, 3s!) ; 1 Am. Dec. 350; Creacroft v. Dillo,3 
 Yeates,79; Caston,2I{ich. Eq. 1. But see Sully ?'. Nehorffill, "0 Iowa, 
 339 ; Sandford r. Jackson, 10 Paige, 266 ; Church v. Bull. 2 Denio, 430 ; 
 53 Am. Dec. 754 ; Lewis v. Smith, 5 Seld. 502 ; Lasher, 13 Barb. 106 ; 
 Webb V. Evans, 1 Binn. 563. 
 
 22 Chalmers v. Staril, 2 Ves. & B. 222 ; Jackson v. Robinson, Jacob, 
 503 ; Bailey v. Bovce, 4 Strob. Eq. 84 ; Carroll, 20 Tex, 731 ; Higsi:'- 
 botham v. Cornwell, 8 Gratt. 83, 88 ; 56 Am, Dec. 130. 
 
 '23 Hardy v. Scales, 54 Wis. 452, 455 ; ante, ? 245. 
 
 24 Dixon v. McCue, 14 Gratt. 540, 543. 
 
 25 Dixon v. McCue, 14 Gratt. 540, 649, by statute, 
 
 26 Stratton v. Best, 1 Ves. Sr. 285 ; Timber Lake, 5 Dana, SIS ; Hall, 
 8 Rich. 407 ; Chapin v. Hill, 1 R. I. 440 ; Dixon v. McCue, 14 Gratt. WO, 
 MS, &49. 
 
 27 Wilson V. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, 544 ; Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56, 76 ; 
 Hardy v. Scales, 54 SVis. 452, 455. 
 
 28 XJ. S. V. Duncan, 7 McLean, 00, 102 ; Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 4(M, 
 411; Wiseley v. Fiudlav, 3 Rand. 361, 372; 15 Am. Dec. 712. S<'e 
 Chandler I'. Woodward, . 3 Har. (DeL)428, 45;i ; Jennings r. Smith, 29 III. 
 116 ; Ostrander?!. Spickard, 8 Blackf. 227 ; Shaw, 2 Dana. "41 ; Fulton, 
 30 Miss. 586 ; Wilson j>. CoXe, 49 Mii?s. 538 ; Hall, S Uich. 407 ; Whilden, 
 Riley, 205. Compare Norris v. Clark, 10 N. J. Eq. ol. 
 
 29 See 3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 105 ; Ala. Code, 1876, ? 2292 ; Conn. H. S. 
 1875, p. 377, I 4 ; Del. Dig. 1874, p. 5:J4, ^ 5 ; Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 47.">, { 1 ; LI. 
 R. S. 1880, p. 426, (S 10 ; Ind. R. S. 18S1, i 2.505 ; Kv. R. S. 1881, p. 372, 
 ? 112; Me. R. 8. 1871, p. 757, i 10; Md. R. C. 1878, p. 46.5, ?| 227 -2::0. 
 Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 750, g 18 ; Mich. R. S. 1882, § 5749 ; Mo. R. S. 1S79, 
 a 2199; N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 322, ? 16 ; N. C. R. S. 1S73. p. 839, J 2 ; Ohio 
 R. S. 1880, ? 5963 ; Oreg. R. S. 1S74, p. 5S6, J I"* ; Ba. Dig. 1873, p. 529, i 4 ; 
 Tenn. R. S. 1871, § 2404 ; Wis. R. S. 1878, J 2171. 
 
 30 Discussed poi^ § 275. 
 
 31 Martin, S5 Ala. 560. 566 ; Daniel, 4 Dana, 361 ; Drummond, 40 Mp, 
 85, 39 ; Roberts, 34 Miss. 322. See McLaren r. Clarlv, 62 Ga. lOii ; 
 Simonton v. Houston, 73 N. C. 408. Contra, Lewis, 7 Ired. 72. 
 
 32 Hall, 2 McCord Ch. 269, 299, 301. See Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 
 404, 410 ; Hardy v. Scales, 54 Wis. 452, 455. 
 
 33 Which is the ground of election, supra, n. 1. 
 
 34 Braxton v. Freeman, 6 Rich. 35, 36 ; 57 Am. Dec. 773 ; Hlggln- 
 botham v. Cornwell, 8 Gratt. 83, 85 ; 56 Am. Dec. i:;0. S. P., Wi.^t- 
 brook V. Vanderburg, .S6 Mich. 30 ; Barland v. Ki'-hols, 12 P.'x. St. 3k ; 
 Gray v. McCune, 23 Pa. St. 447. Contra, Haynie v. L'ickens, 68 111.
 
 423 POWER. g 275 
 
 267, 2RS ; Ravlps i-. Corbin, 24 Ga. ISo; Allen v. Bay. 12 Me. i;H ; Steele 
 V. Fisher, 1 Eihv. Ch. 4H5. 
 
 35 Corriell v. Ham, 2 Clarke, 5o2, 557. 
 
 36 Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. I,. 404, 4U ; Wilson v. Cox, 4f) Miss. 536, .546. 
 See Apperson r. Bolton, 2J Arte. 418, 42S ; Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56, 76. 
 
 37 Consult also post, i 27.5. 
 
 38 Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 404, 40:). 
 
 g 275. Widow's election. — If a husband has exchanged 
 soine of his lands for others, his widow cannot have 
 dower both in the lands exchanged and in the lands 
 received in exchange, she must elect. ^ By the statute 
 of uses, a jointure made during coverture on the wife 
 in lieu of dower, jjut her to an election ;2 and this is 
 true of any such provision which is not a legal joint- 
 ure;^ and it applies especially to devises in lieu of 
 dower.* Generally, independently of statute, the elec- 
 tion of the widow — for an election cannot be made dur- 
 ing coverture' — is, if not expressed, implied from an 
 entry upon the lands or a suit for dower,^ or from the 
 use and enjoyment by the widow of the provisions 
 under the will.' But the implication from apparent 
 acquiescence in the provisions of the will is always re- 
 buttable, the longest acquiescence seems not to be con- 
 clusive ; ^ it may be shown, for example, that the widow 
 held the property by the consent of the heirs and not 
 in lier own right ;9 or that she really exercised no 
 elioice, either because she did not know that there 
 were two estates to choose between, i" or because she 
 was deceived,'! or mistaken,^'' or uninformed'^ as to 
 their respective values. But as to devises in lieu of 
 dower, which have given rise to most of the cases on 
 this subject, it is nearly everywhere provided by stat- 
 ute how and within what time the widow shall elect.'* 
 In New York, if she does not enter on her dower lands 
 or commence proceedings for dower within one year 
 after her husband's death, she elects to take under the
 
 ? 275 DOWER. -124 
 
 ■will.'* In Mississippi the time begins to run from the 
 date of probate,'^ still she may renounce before pro- 
 bate,^" and is bound by a defective probate in which 
 she has acquiesced.'^ In Delaware she must liave no- 
 tice before she is bound to elect, which is not tlie rule 
 independently of express provision. '* In Indiana no 
 time is fixed, and she miay elect without restriction of 
 time, as at common law.-'' In Maryland a written re- 
 nunciation must be filed %\ithin six months after the 
 husband's death.^ In Missouri the renunciation must 
 be acknowledged as a deed.'^ In Ohio she must be 
 called before the judge and have the matter explained 
 to her.^ In Arkansas she must make a regular convey- 
 ance to the husband's laeirs.^^ Taking and using the 
 property under the will is not an election if she re- 
 nounce the A\ill wthin the limited tlme,^ proAaded 
 that she return the devise,* and it seems that she be 
 not estopped by the intervention of riglits of third par- 
 ties.^ So, she may qualify as executrix Avithout de- 
 s;:roying her right to renounce the Avill.^ If a particular 
 mode of election is specified, as by filing a renunciation 
 of tlie will, anotlier will not take its place, as suing for 
 dower.® And few excuses will prevail, if tlie time for 
 renunciation lias been allowed to go by;3o thus it is 
 not an excuse that the executor gave erroneous infor- 
 mation as to the time for filing the renunciation;^* or 
 tliat she was a non-resident ;^'- or that slie did not know 
 her riglits ;^ or that she made a mistake as to the value 
 of the provision of the A\ill ; ^' but it is a ground for re- 
 lief, that she Avas prevented from filing her renun- 
 ciation, or made to file it, by misrepresentations of 
 interested parties,^ unless she had discovered the 
 fraud before the time for renouncing had elapsed ;^ or 
 that she had been unable to ascertain the respective 
 values of her dower and devise,*'^ owing, for example,
 
 425 DOWER. I 275 
 
 to pending suits.'^ Under circumstances like tMs, 
 equity may extend the time within which she must 
 elect.^ She may renounce conditionally, the renuncia- 
 tion to take effect if an event happens before the expir- 
 ation of the limited time.*** The widow musi elect in 
 person," she cannot by attorney,*^ except under special 
 statutes;^ no one can elect for her if she be insane,*' 
 except by statute ;*^ but if she elects while insane, she 
 may ratify her act in a lucid interval.'"^ If she dies bo- 
 fore electing, her representatives cannot, elect for her.*^ 
 If she is an infant, equity will elect for her,*^ or the 
 time for election will be extended till her majority ;*3 
 but where by statute her guardian is authorized to 
 elect, her election in person is void.^" The practice 
 when a widow has married again before election dif- 
 fers i^* such cases are rare. When she elects to take 
 under the will, she is a purchaser for valuable consid- 
 eration,5- for she gives up dower ;»^ and though her 
 rights are inferior to those of creditors, they are supe- 
 rior to tliose of any other devisee or legatee,^* and, if 
 the estate is solvent, she is not required to contribute 
 towards tlie payment of debts.^^ This is the better 
 view, it is said ;^® but it has also been held tliat she is a 
 creditor and comes against the estate pari passu with 
 otlier creditors ;'='' that she comes in ahead of creditors 
 to the extent of tlie value of her dower ; ^ and that she 
 stands in precisely the same i^osition as any other de- 
 visee.^* If she is evicted, she may have dower propor- 
 tionately, generally.*" If she renounces the will, the 
 l^roperty thus freed is a trust fund for the benefii of 
 the devisees who are disappointed by her taking 
 dower, or if there are none such, for her husband's 
 heirs.fii A widow's right to dower depends on the law 
 of the place where the lands lie,*- and the statutory re- 
 quirements as to election within a specified time apply
 
 2 275 EOWER. 426 
 
 properly only to domestic wills.ss still it is said that 
 the election should bo made in the place where the will 
 is originally probated,"^ in the place of the domicile,^^ 
 and such an election is everywhere binding,^ wliich is 
 also denied.^' 
 
 1 Stevens v. Smith, 4 Marsh. ,T. J. 64 ; 20 Am. Dec. 20o ; Mosher, S2 
 are. 4V2; Cass ?'. Thompson. 1 N. H. 65; 8 Am. Dec. 36; Wilcox v. 
 Randall, 7 Barb. 63.3 ; ante, i 2.54. 
 
 2 27 Henry VIII. ch. 10, ? 9 ; Co. Litt. .36 6 ; aiUe, i 273. 
 
 3 Parham, 6 Huiiiph. 287, 297 ; ante, U 273, 27-1. 
 
 4 Worthen r. Pearson, 33 Ga. 385, a87. 
 
 5 1 Bish. M. W. § 430 ; ante, | 267. 
 
 6 Rayner xk Capehart, 2 Hawks, 375, 377 ; infra, n. 7 
 
 7 Anderson, 36 Pa. St. 476, 406. See Brown v. Cantrell, 62 Oa. 257 ; 
 Sloan V. Whituker, ,58 G:i. 31') ; Sewall ?-. Smith, .54 Ga. 567 ; Collins v. 
 Woods, 63 111. 285 ; Clay v. Hart, 7 Dana, 1, 6 ; Smith r. Borie, 7 Bush, 
 367 ; Delay )■. Vinal, i Met. 57 ; Reetl v. Dickermaii, 12 Pick. 146 ; 
 Phelps, 20 Pick. 536; Stark v. Hunton, 1 N. J. Eq. 216; Davison, 15 
 N. .T. L. 2:« ; Thompson r. Hook, 6 Ohio St. 480 ; Bradfords r. Rents, 
 43 Pa. St. 474 ; CustMti, i Rich. Eq. 1 ; Wilson v. Havne, 1 Cheves Eq. 
 37 ; Craicr v. Walthall. 14 Gratt. 518 ; Blunt v. Gee, 5 Call, 481 ; Ambler 
 V. Norton, 4 Hen. & ^NI. 3S1. 
 
 8 Wak!>, I Ves. Jr. 335; Butriok v. Broadhurst, 1 Ves. .Tr. 171 ; 
 Beaulieu v. Cardigan, 3 Brown Pari. C. 277 ; Reynard v. Spence, 4 
 Beav. 103 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 9 Phelps, 20 Pick. 5.56. See O'Driscoll v. Roger, 2 Desau.s. 295, 299. 
 
 10 Dixon V. McCue, 14 Gratt. 540, 564. See Tooke v. Hardeman, 7 
 Ga. 20 ; McLaren v. Clark, 62 ua. 106 ; Smither, 9 Bush, 231 ; Grider r. 
 Eubanks, 12 Bush, .SIO ; Mil liken v. Wellever, 37 Ohio St. 460 ; Simon- 
 ton r. Houston, 78 N. C. 408. 
 
 11 Reed r. Dickerman, 12 Pick. 146, 1.51. See Morrison, 2 Dana, 13 ; 
 Light, 21 Pa. St. 407 ; Smart v. Waterhouse, 10 Yerg. 94 ; McDaniel ?•. 
 Douglas, 6 Humph. 220 ; Hathaway, 46 Vt. 234. 
 
 12 Hall, 2 McCord Eq. 269,280. See Ridney v. Cour.smaker, 12 Ves. 
 Jr. 136, 153 ; Dillon v. Parker, 1 Swanst. a81 n ; U. S. r. Duncan, 4 Mc- 
 Lean, 99; Adams. 39 Ala. 274; Steele, 64 Ala. 438, 461; Dabney r. 
 Bailev, 42 Ga. .521 ; Yandell )■. Pugh, 53 Miss. 2<)6 ; Adsit, 2 Johns. Ch. 
 448, 4.51 ; 7 Am. Dec. 539 ; Davis, II Ohio St. -386; Anderson, 36 Pa. St. 
 476, 496 ; Co.K V. Rogers, 77 Pa. St. 160 ; Pinckney, 2 Rich. Eq. 219, 
 2:J7 ; Upshaw, 4 Hen. & M. asi, 3<t0, 393. 
 
 13 Reaves v. Garrett, -34 Wa. 5-58 ; supra, notes 11, 12. 
 
 14 See statutes cited, ante, ? 274, n. 29. 
 
 15 Hawley v. James, 5 Paige, 318 ; N. Y. R. S. 1882, p. 2198. 
 
 16 Wilson V. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, .542. 
 
 17 Atherton v. Corliss, 101 Mass. 40. 
 
 18 Sanders, 14 Smedes & M. 81. 
 
 19 Del. R. S. 1874, p. .534 ; Palmer v. Voorhis, 35 Barb. 479. 
 
 20 Piercy, 19 Ind. 467.
 
 427 DOWER. § 275 
 
 21 M(l. R. C. 187S, ?? 226-223 ; Ilinkley v. House, 40 Md. 4fil ; 18 
 Am. Rep. 617 ; Durham v. Rhodes, 23 Md. 2.« ; Hanson v. Worth- 
 ington, 12 Md. 4.?8 : Power v. Jenkins, 13 Md. 4-13 ; Gough v. Manning, 
 26 Md. 348 ; Knighton v. Young, 22 Md. 360 ; Chew v. Farmers, 2 Md. 
 Ch. 232 ; Orriek v. Boehm, 43 Md. 72, 101 ; Stew. & Carey H. & W. pp. 
 55,56. 
 
 22 Mo. R. S. 1870, § 2194. 
 
 23 Ohio R. S. 1880, § SHGo ; Davis, 11 Ohio St. 386 
 
 24 Ark. Dig. 1874, ? 2223. 
 
 25 McCallister r. Brand, 11 Men. B. 370. 
 
 26 Steele, 64 Ala. 4;i8, 461. 
 
 27 Tibblts, 19 Ves. Jr. 663 ; English, 3 N. J. Eq. HM, 
 
 23 See McLaren v. Clark, 62 Ga. 106 ; Simon ton v. Houston, 78 N. C. 
 40S. 
 
 23 Shaw, 2 Dana, 341. But see Rayner v. Capehart, 2 Hawks, 375, 
 377 ; Cauffman, 17 Serg. & R. 16 ; Cox v. Rogers, 77 Pa. St. 160, 166, 167. 
 
 30 U. S. V. Duncan, 4 McLean, 99, 102 ; Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 
 504, 532 ; Smith, 20 N't. 270, 271. See Adams, 3!) Ala. 274 ; Apperson v. 
 Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, 429, 4:i0 ; Stephens v. Gibbws. 14 Fla. 331 ; Noswor- 
 thy ti. Blizzard, 5'i Ga. 66s ; Grider v. Eubanks, 12 Bush, 510 ; Shaw, 2 
 Dana, 341 ; Moore, 8 Miss. 665; Grant v. Hcnly, 64 Mo. 159, 161-163; 
 Dougherty v. Barnes, 64 Mo. 159 ; IMorcr, 92 Pa. St. 265; Morrow, 3 
 Tenn. Ch. rv.Vl ; Hathaway, 46 Vt. 234 ; Zoggel v. Kuster, 51 Wis. 31 ; 
 Wilber, 52 Wis. 298. 
 
 31 Waterbury v. Netheriand, 6 Heisk. 512. 
 
 32 Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, 429, 430. Or insane : Collins v. 
 Carman, 5 Md. 504, 532. 
 
 33 Palmer v. Voorhis, a5 Barb. 479 ; Macknet, 29 N. J. Eq. 54 ; 
 Light, 21 Pa. St. 407. 
 
 34 NcDauiel v. Douglas, 6 Humph. 220 ; Waterbury v. Netherland, 
 6 Heisk. 512. 
 
 .35 Light, 21 Pa. St. 407 ; supra, n. 11. 
 
 36 Hathaway, 46 Vt. 2134. 
 
 37 U. S. V. Duncan, 4 McLean, 99, 102. 
 
 38 Howland v. Heckscher, 3 Sand. Ch. 519 ; Dutch v. Ackerman, 
 IN. J. Eq. 40. 
 
 39 IT. S. V. Duncan, 4 McLean, 99, 102 ; Smither, 9 Bush, 231 ; Grider 
 V. Eubanks, 12 Bush, 510. 
 
 40 McCallister v. Brand. U Mon. B. 370. 
 
 41 Collins V. Carman, 5 Md. 503, 532 ; Boone, 3 Har. & McH. 95 ; 
 Sherman v. Newton, 6 Gray, .307; Welch v. Anderson, 28 Mo. 2j:> ; 
 Lewis, 7 Ired. 72 ; Hintou, 6 Ired. 274. 
 
 42 Hintou, 6 Ired. 274. 
 
 43 Del. R. S. 1S74, p. 534, § 7 ; N. C. R. S. p. 840, ? 6. 
 
 44 Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 501, 5:12. See Ileavenridge v. Nelson, 
 as Ind. 90 ; Newcunib, 13 Bush, 544 ; 26 Am. Rep. 222 ; Pinkerton v. 
 Sargent, 102 Mass. 5(W; Lewis, 7 Ired. 72 ; Kennedy c. Johnston, 65 Pa. 
 St. 451 ; 3 Am. Ri'p. 650; Wright )'. West, 2 Lea, 78. Qucei-e, as to 
 right of equity to elect for her : Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503, .527. 
 
 45 N. C. R. S. 1873, p. 840, ? 6 ; Ohio R. S. 1880, ? 5964. 
 
 46 Brown v. Hodgson, 31 Me. 65.
 
 § 276 DOWER. 42S 
 
 47 Collins i). Carman, 5 Md. 503, 527. S. P., Donald ?>. Porter, 42 Ala. 
 9!) ; Eltzroth v. Blnford, 71 Iiid. 455 ; Boone, 3 Har. & McH. 95 ; Sher- 
 man r. Newton, 6 Grav, 307 ; Milliken v. WelUver, 37 Ohio St. 4B0 ; 
 Crozier, DO Pa. St. 3S4, 386, 388 ; 35 Am. Kep. 666. Contra, Howland 
 V. lieclischer, 3 Sand. Ch. 519. 
 
 43 Addison v. Bowio, 2 Bland, 60fi, 62.3. 
 
 49 Boushton, 2 Vos. Sr. 12 ; Bor, 3 Brown Pari. C. 173. 
 
 50 Cheshire v. McCoy, 8 Jones, 376. 
 
 51 Gretton v. Howard, 1 Swanst. 413; Putteney v. Darlington, 7 
 Brown Pari. C. 51o ; Davis v. Page, 9 Ves. Jr. 350 ; Barrow, 4 Kay .t 
 J. 40J. 
 
 .52 Steele, 64 Al.a. 4.38, 462 ; Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 3.30 ; Hubbard, 6 Met. 
 50, 62 ; Tracey v. Mur/ay, 44 Mich. 109, 111 ; Isenhart i'. Bi'own, 1 Edw. 
 Ch. 411, 413. 
 
 53 Release of dower is a valuable consideration : Ante, ? 105. 
 
 54 Steele, 64 Ala. 438, 462 ; Isenhart v. Brown, 1 Edw. Ch. 411, 413. 
 
 55 Lord, 23 Conn. 327, 330. 
 
 .56 Steele, 64 Ala. 4-3,8, 462. Consult Norcott v. Gordon, 14 Sim. 2.?8 ; 
 Tevis V. McCrearv, 3 Met. 151 ; Dunham v. Rhodes, 23 Md. 233 ; Bowie 
 V. Berry, 3 Md. Ch. 3.59 ; Hall, 1 Bland, 2a3 ; Thomas r. Wood, 1 Md. 
 Ch. 296 ; Pollard, 1 Allen, 490 ; Leavenworth v. Cooney, 48 Barb. 570 ; 
 Williamson, 6 Paige, 298 ; Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56; Bard, .S8 Pa. St. 
 393; Loococls V. Clarkson, 1 Desaus. 471; Stuart v. Carson, I Desans. 
 500. 
 
 57 Tracy v. Murray, 44 Mich. 109, 111. 
 
 .58 Gibson v. McCormi'-k, 10 Gill & J. 65, 113 ; Thomas v. Wood, 1 
 Md. Ch. 296 ; Hall, 1 KUuid, 203 ; Guw v. Huffman, 12 Gratt. 628, 6:57. 
 
 59 Chambers v. Davis, 15 Mon. B. 722 ; Brant, 40 Mo. 266. 267 ; Pax- 
 son V. Potts, 3 N. J. Eq. 313 ; Howard v. Francis, 30 N. j. Eq. 444 ; 
 Bray v. Neill, 21 N. J. Eq. .•;43 ; Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56. 
 
 60 Hastings v. Clifford, 32 Me. 13? ; Mass. P. S. iaS2, p. 742. ? 1.^ ; 
 Thompson r. McGvw, 1 Met. 66; Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 50.3, 640; 
 Wis. R. S. 1878, i 2173 ; ante, i 273. 
 
 61 Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56, 80; Sandre, 65 Pa. St. 314, .316. S"o 
 Hanson v. Worthington, 12 Md. 418, 4;i8 ; Hiukley v. House, 40 Ml. 
 431, 469 ; 18 Am. Rep. 617. 
 
 62 Jennings, 21 Ohio St. 56, 76 ; ante, ? 248. 
 
 03 Wilson V. Cox, 49 Miss. 537, 542 ; Jennings, 21 Ohio St. ."'R, 7i, .80. 
 Cmfra, Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, 428 ; Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 
 404, 412. 
 
 64 Wilson v. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, 545. 
 
 65 Wilson v. Cox, 49 Miss. 538, 542. 
 
 66 Wilson V. Cox, 49 Miss. 5.38, .542. 
 
 67 Apperson ri. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, 42S ; Van Arsdale, 26 N. J. L. 
 494, 412. 
 
 ? 276. Estoppel as a bar to dower. — Xo act of a mar- 
 ried woman during ooverture can estop her from .set- 
 ting up her rights to doAver,^ except a release duly 
 executed according to the statute,'^ which estops her as
 
 429 DOWER. ? 276 
 
 to all parties holding tliereundcr.^ But after her hus- 
 band's deatli slie may be estoiiped, for she is sui Juris.* 
 At common law no collateral satisfaction would bar 
 dower,^ but in equity any provision accepted in lieu of 
 dower did."5 But it was necessary that the provision 
 should be expressed to be in lieu of dowerj or that it 
 sliould be such an estate in the dower lands as Avas 
 inconsistent with dower.^ By statute any devise in 
 lieu of dower, if accepted, is a bar at lavv.^ To illus- 
 trate : When, in accordance with an arrangement made 
 with her husband before marriage,!" or during cover- 
 ture,'! or with his heirs ^^ or a iiurehaseri^ after his 
 death, the widow accepts a provision instead of dower, 
 she is estopped froiu afterwards claiming dower ; and 
 such an arrangement may be inade by parol," pro- 
 vided that such part jaerformance has talcen iJlace as 
 will withdraw the case from the operation of the stat- 
 ute of frauds.'^ But if the husband, ^^ or purchaser," 
 or heir,i8 as the case may be, has failed to carry out the 
 arrangement, the widow is not barred. Moreover, if 
 the widow stands by and allows the lands of her hus- 
 band to be sold clear of her dower, she is estopijed 
 from af terwai'ds claiming her dower therein ; ^^ but it 
 is not every sale which she is aware of wliich renders 
 it her duty to assert her dower, but only such sales as 
 are alleged to be free of dower and with wliich she is in 
 some way connected.™ But if she convey her hus- 
 band's lands as administratrix, slie does not thereby 
 estop herself from claiming dower ,-'i unless she cove- 
 nants as to the title, ^'^ whicli she is not bound to do,^ 
 or conveys as individual as well.^' So, slae may in cer- 
 tain cases be estopped by the covenants of an ancestor.'^ 
 So, if she is made a party to a suit, and the joroperty is 
 sold under a decree, and she takes no appeal, she is 
 estopped by the record ;'^ though the complainant had
 
 g 276 DOWER. 430 
 
 had no right to make her a party at all.^ But if made 
 party as devisee in partition suit, she is not barred of 
 dower in balance.'-® Slie is not estopped by accepting 
 funds belonging to her husband,^ or by spending all 
 the monej' of his estate.^*' 
 
 1 Worthington r. Middleton, 6 Dana, 300, 302 ; Martin, 22 Ala. 86 ; 
 M^Farlanfl v. Febigc^r, 7 Ohio, 1!M, 1!I5 ; 28 Am. Dec. t>::2 ; ante, J J 269, 
 270 ; post, 40a-l-::o. Contra, Connolly r. Branstler, 3 Bush, 702, 703. 
 
 2 Roiff r. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; ante, I 270. 
 
 3 Chicago ?-. Kln.Me, 49 III. 289, 295 ; ante, ? 272. 
 
 4 Jones V. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. 1»1, 200 ; Stewart INI. <§: D. ? 452. 
 
 5 O'Brien v. Elliott, 15 Me. 125. 127; 32 Am. Dec. m. S. P., Ver- 
 non, 4 Rep. 1, 4; Conant v. Little, 1 Pi"k. IS"); Jones ?•. Brewer, 1 
 Pick. 314 : Keeler v. Tatnell, 23 >'. J. L. 62 ; Jones i'. Powell, 6 Johns, 
 Ch. 1!M, 200. 
 
 6 Mundv, 2 Ves. Sr. 122 ; Stoddard v. Cutcompt, 41 Iowa, 3?9, 333 ; 
 Warfield w Castleman, 5 Mon. 517, 51S ; O'Brien r. Elliott. 15 Me. 125, 
 127 ; 32 Am. Dec. 137 ; Camden v. Jones, 23 X. J. Eq. 171, 173 ; Jones r. 
 Powell, Johns. Ch. 144. 200 ; Simpson, 8 Pa. St. I'0, 216 ; Bullock v. 
 Griffin, 1 Strob. Eq. 60 ; Hunter v. Jones, 6 Rand. 541, 550 ; ante, H 273, 
 275. 
 
 7 Mitchell v. Ward, 60 Ga. 525, 531 ; O'Brien v. Elliott, 15 Me. 125, 
 129 ; 32 Am. Dec. 1.37 ; ante, U 273, 274. 
 
 8 Park Dow. 2S4 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 259 ; 1 Roper H. & W. 25;) ; 
 Perk, i ;i50. 
 
 9 Worthen v. Pearson, 33 Ga. .385, 3S7 ; ante, § 274. 
 
 10 Camden v. Jones, 23 X. J. Eq. 171, 173 ; ante, I 266. 
 
 11 Stodd.ird v. Cutcompt, 41 Iowa, 329, 333. 
 
 12 Shotwell V. Sedam, 3 Ohio, 5. 13. 
 
 13 Simpson, 8 Pa. St. 199, 208. 
 
 14 Warfield v. Castleman, 5 Mon. 5!7, 518; Shotwell v. Sedam, 3 
 Ohio, 5, 13. 
 
 15 Squire v. Harder, 1 Paige, 494 ; 19 Am. Dec. 446. 
 
 16 Dav V. West, 2 Edw. Ch. 592, .594. See Camden v. Jones, 23 X. J. 
 Eq. 171, 173. 
 
 17 Sargent v. Robert, 34 Me. 135, 138. 
 
 18 Rlchart, 30 Iowa, 465, 468. 
 
 19 O'Brien v. Elliott, 15 Me. 125, 12S ; .32 Am. Dec. 137 ; Moore v. 
 Tisdale, 5 Mon. B. .'WJ, 3.>S. See Ellis v. Diddy, 1 Cart. 561 ; Gatting r. 
 Rodman, 6 lud. 289 ; ConoUj- ■!'. Brantsler. 3 Bush, V02 ; Darnall r. 
 Hill, 12 GUI & J. ass ; Wood v. Seeley. 32 N. Y. 105 ; Smiley v. Wright, 
 2 Ohio, 506 ; Stoney v. Bank, 1 Rich. Eq. 27.5. 
 
 20 Lawrence r. Brown, 5 N. Y. .3<M, 401. S. P., Owen r. Rlatter, 2fi 
 Ala. .547 ; Wilson v. White, 2 Dev. Eq. 29 ; Smith v. Paysinger, 2 
 Mills, 59. 
 
 21 Shurtz V. Thomas, 8 Pa. St. 3.59, .362 ; ante, ? 272. 
 
 22 Maaree r. Mellon, 23 Miss. 5S.=i, 5S6. See Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 
 How. 2.5H ; McKee v. Brown, 43 111. 130; Johnson r. Van Velson, 43 
 Mifh. 20S; Elmdorf v. Lockwood, 57 X. Y. 322; Woodruff i'. Cook,. 
 2 Edw. Ch. 585.
 
 431 DowEii. 2 277 
 
 23 Magee v. Mellon, 23 iliss. 585, 586. 
 
 24 Styer. 21 Pu. St. 86, 89 ; Thomas r. Harri.s, -43 Pa. St. 2.;i, 2:i3. 
 
 26 Towey v. Miner, 1 Smedes & M. 4S9 ; Buss v. Perry, 49 N. H. 
 
 647. Of second husband : Porter, 1 R. I. 43. 
 
 26 Gardiner v. Miles, 5 Gill, 94, 100. 
 
 27 Lewis v. Smith, 9 X. Y. 502, 514 ; post, ? 280. 
 
 28 Walker v. Hall, 15 Ohio St. a». 
 
 29 0:Brien v. Klliott, 15 Me. 125 129 ; 32 Am. Dec. 137. 
 
 30 Caruthers v. Wilson, 1 Smedes & M. o'.7 ; Kennedy v. McAliley, 
 Rich, 395. 
 
 g 277. Limitations and laches as bars to dower. — Until 
 her husband's death a wife ha.s no ve.sted interest in 
 his lands,' and therefore in no case can she be barred 
 by an adverse possession against him during cover- 
 ture.* Tlie English Statute of Limitations ^ Avas held 
 not to apply to dower,^ because it makes the time run 
 from seisin, and a widow has no seisin until her dower 
 has been assigned.^ For the same reason and for other 
 reasons, for example, that there is a natural limitation 
 to claims for dower in the widow's deatli, and no need 
 of statutory limitation;^ dower has been held without^ 
 the operation of some statutes in the United States.' 
 But other general statutes have V)oon held to include 
 the widow's right to dower,^ and in many States the 
 statute expressly refers to this righi.^ These statute.} 
 are prospectively construed,'" and are either aj^plied 
 to no right where the husband has died before their 
 passage,'' or the limited period is made to begin only 
 from the time of their passage.'^ They do. not apply 
 generally, when the wife is beyond seas.'^ It is said, 
 too, tliat limitations do not run while the heir is in po •- 
 session and not claiming adversely ; '* and that the 
 widow is barred in any case by adverse possession 
 against the heirs.'» Limitations must be pleaded to bo 
 a bar.'* Even when Statutes of Limitations have no 
 application, the widow may be barred in equity by 
 laches."
 
 g 278 dowk:;. 4S2 
 
 1 Moore r. Mavor, S X. V. 110, ll.T ; 53 Am. Hec. -JT:! ; n;i^«, H 2fi0, 
 263. 
 
 2 Hart r. McCollum, 2S Ga. -ITS; Durham x: Aiigier, 20 Me. 2J2 ; 
 Moore v. Frost, 3 >i\ H. 126. 
 
 3 32 Henr.v VIII. ch. 2 ; 21 James I. ch. Ifi. 
 
 4 Park Dow. 311 ; 2 Scribuer Dow. bryx 
 
 5 Parker v. Obear, 7 :Met. 24 ; Barnari ?•. E lwiir;ls, 4 X. TT. 107 ; 
 17 Am. Dec. 403; Moore i'. Frost, 3 N. H. 123; Guthrie r. Owen, 10 
 Yerg. 330. 
 
 fi Conover v. Wright, 6 X. J. Eq. 412; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 
 Jones Eq. 3o7. 
 
 7 Wakeman v. Roache, Dudley, 423 ; Toobe v. Hardeman. 7 Ga. 
 20: Chapman v. Shroeder, 10 Ga. 321 : Phares v. Walters, 6 Clarke, 
 lOu; KoUs i: Hughes, 1 Dana, 407: Wells v. Beall, 2 Gill & J. 46.S ; 
 Riildall c. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143, 150 : May ;•. Rumney, 1 Mich. 1 ; 
 Littleton c. Patterson, 32 Mo. :ii7 ; Brown c. Moore, 74 Mo. 633 ; Spen- 
 cer V. Weston, 1 Itev. ct B. 21!: MoMullln r. Turner, 7 Jones, 435; 
 Siraonton v. Houston, 78 X. C. 403 ; supra, notes 5, 6. 
 
 8 Rice V. Xelson, 27 Iowa, US ; Kingsolving v. Pierce, 13 Mon. B. 
 7S2 : Dunham c. .\ngier, 20 Me. 212 ; Torre.v v. Minor, 1 Smedes & M. 
 Cli. 4s:» : Conover v. Wright. 6 X. .T. Eq. 613: Berrien v. Coiiover, in 
 X. J. L. 107; Jones v. Powell, 6 Johns. Ch. ISM; Tuttle i: Wilson, 10 
 Ohio, 24; Care v. Keller, 77 Pa. St. 4S7 ; Allen, 2 Pa. 311; Caston, 2 
 Rich. Eq. 1 ; Stone.v v. Bank, 1 Rich. Eq. 275. 
 
 9 Ga. R. C. 1S7'!, ? 1761 ; Mass. P. .S. 1SS2, pp. 742, ? U ; X. H. R. S. 
 1S78, pp. 510, 511 ; X. Y. R. S. 1S;>2, p. 2198. 
 
 10 Ante, II 17-20 ; Martin, 35 Ala. 560 ; infra, notes 11, 12. 
 
 11 Tooke r-. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20; Savre v. Wisner, 8 Wend, er,: ; 
 Ward V. Kilts, 12 Wend. 137. 
 
 12 Tooke !'. Hardeman, 7 Ga. 20. 
 
 13 Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 493. 
 
 14 Livingston v. Cochran, 33 Ark. 234 ; Sully v. Xebergill, ."0 
 Iowa, ;S3 ; Fetch v. Finch, 52 Iowa, 533 ; Rickard v. Talbird, Rice Eq. 
 
 \m. 
 
 15 Carmichacl, 5 Humph. 06. 
 
 16 Hitchcock I'. Harrington, 6 Johns. 230 ; 5 Am. Dec. 223. 
 
 17 Banksdale v. Garrett, 61 \h\. 277 : :McLaren >•. Clark, 6'2 Ga. 106 : 
 Robinson c. Miller, 2 Mon. H, 2s4. 2^7 ; Holls r. Uui^hes, 1 Dana, 407 : 
 Riddall !■. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. U:f. l.iO ; Steiger r. inilen,5Glll A J. 
 121 ; Chew v. Farmers, 9 Gill, ,561 ; Tuttla v. Wilson, 10 Ohio, 24 ; 2 
 Scribner Dow.-568. 
 
 I 278. Dedication to public usos, as a bar ta dowor. — If 
 the luisbaiur.s pi-operty is taken by right of eminent 
 domain, dower is defeated,^ and the husband's vohin- 
 tary dedication thereof to public uses has the same 
 effect ; - so that there is no dower in public streets, 
 parks, libraries,^ markets,* jails, court houses, offices, 
 etc.,^ or in property condemned for railroads,' etc., as
 
 433 DOWER. § 279 ' 
 
 there was none in a castle of oldJ But when a railroad 
 has bought proi^erty instead of taking it by right of 
 eminent domain, dower exists.^ If tlie property is 
 taken during coverture and damages are awarded, no 
 allowance will in general be made for the inchoate 
 dower;® but if the property is taken after the hus- 
 band's death, dower will be allowed out of the dam- 
 ages.'" 
 
 1 Bonner v. Peterson, 44 111. 2511. 25S ; Duncan v. Terre Haute, 85' 
 Ind. 104, 1!W; French v. Lord, 6l» Me. 5;J7, 541 ; Xve v. Taunton, n:j 
 Mass. 277, 279; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Eq. .5:J4, .53fi ; Moore r. 
 Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 114 ; 4 Sand. 4.56, 460 ; r,') Am. Dec. 473 ; Gwynne v. 
 Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24, 25 ; 17 Am. Dec. 516 ; Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio 
 St, 547, .519 ; Little v. Jones,' 5 Week. Law Gaz. 5, 7. 
 
 2 Gwynne v. Cincinnati, .3 Ohio, 24, 25 ; 17 Am. Dec. 516; Duncan ' 
 V. Terre Haute, a5 Ind. 104, 106. 
 
 3 1 Scribner Dow. 5S2. 
 
 4 French v. Lord, 63 Me. .537, 541 ; Moore v. Mayor, 8 X. Y. 1 10, 114 ; 
 59 Am. Dec. 473. 
 
 5 Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio, 24, 2.5. 
 
 6 Little V. Jones, 5 Week. Law Gaz. 5, 7. 
 
 7 Wheeler v. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Eq. 534, 538. 
 
 8 Nye V. Taunton, 113 Mass. 277, 279. 
 
 9 French v. Lord, 69 Me. .537, .541 ; Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 114 : 
 59 Am. Dec. 473. 
 
 10 Bonner v. Peters, 44 111. 253, 2.53 ; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537, 511. 
 
 g 279. Defeat of dower by determination of husband's es- 
 tate. — When the liusband hold.s or has held a defea.s- 
 ible title, and it is defeated, as where he or his heirs 
 are evicted by title paramount, i or a determinable 
 estate, and it is terminated, as a base fee,^ the wife's 
 dower also terminates,^ as her estate is but a part or 
 continuation of lier husband's ; * the possible exception 
 to this rule being the case of an estate determinable on 
 a conditional limitation or executory devise." 
 
 1 Toomey v. McLean, 105 Mass. 122 ; ante, U 252, 2.54. 
 
 2 Jackson v. Kip, 8 N. J. L. 241 ; ante, I 254. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, ? 254. 
 
 4 Norwood v. Morrow, 4 Dev. & B. 442, 443 ; ante, U 262-264. 
 
 5 Milledge %<. Lamnr, 4 Desaus. 617, 6';7, 645 ; ante, I 254. 
 
 H. & W. — 37.
 
 § 280 DOWER, 434 
 
 § 280. Barring of dower by legal proceedings and sale of 
 the property. — Whether a married woman has such an 
 interest through her inchoate dower right that she 
 must be a party to any suit respecting the lands In 
 which such right exists, seems to depend not only on 
 the nature of the suit and superioritj' or inferiority of 
 her right to the right of the suitor, but upon local prac- 
 tice and local etatutes.^ Any sale of her husband's 
 lands during coverture undfer a lien prior to dower, 
 passes the property clear of dower ; - and whether she 
 should be made a party, if the suit is in equity, and 
 should have a provision out of the surplus, if any, 
 seems to be disputed,^ the better opinion being that she 
 should not,* A sale during coverture under an inferior 
 lien has no effect on dower ; * nor can the holder of 
 such a lien drag her into court and have the property 
 sold clear of her dower.^ After the husband's death 
 the widow should be a party to all suits affecting the 
 lands subject to dower ;^ a sale under a prior lien 
 passes the property clear of dower, but she has dower 
 In the surplus, if the sale be in equity ; ^ and no sale 
 under a subsequent lien can affect her dower without 
 her consent,^ These questions commonly arise in fore- 
 closure suits and in partition suits. In the former, 
 whUe it is not always necessary it is generally proper 
 to make the vnie a party,!" As to the latter, when the 
 husband institutes partition proceedings it is the better 
 practice to make his wife a party defendant." When 
 the suit is instituted by one of his co-owners, the better 
 opinion is, that the liability to be partitioned is an inci- 
 dent to the estate to which the wife's dower is subject, 
 and that a sale in such a suit defeats dower whether 
 she be a party or not.'"' But, though it is settled that 
 her inchoate dower is not a sufficient estate to base par- 
 tition proceedings on,^* in many States the rule is that
 
 435 DOWER. § 281 
 
 she must be made a party or will not be barred.'* 
 When her husband sues in ejectment he need not join 
 her.i^ 
 
 1 Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige, 386, 390, 391, 3y2, 403, 403, 410, 413 ; 22 
 Wend. 4it8. 8ee Goodwin v. Keney, 4a Conn. 6ti;i ; Aiitliouy v. Nve, 30 
 Cal. 401; Leonard i'. Villars, 2J III. 37H; Stephens v. Bichnell,27 IIJ. 
 444 ; Rank v. Hanna, 6 Ind. 20 ; Martin v. Noble, 29 Ind. 21(j ; Kissel v. 
 Eaton, 64 Ind. 248; Tisdale v. Risk, 7 Bush, lay; Warren v. Twilley, 
 10 Md. 30, 01 ; Chambers v. Nicholson, ;50 Md. 349 ; Johns v. Reardon, 
 3 Jld. Ch. 57 ; Pritts v. Aldrich, 11 Allen, 39, 40 ; Lamb v. Mont;«uo, 
 112 Muss. 3o2, 353 ; Davis v. Wetherell, 13 Allen, 60, Ki ; Wisner v. Farn- 
 ham, 2 Mich. 472 ; Greiner r. Klein, 23 Mich. 12, 17 ; Byrne v. Taylor, 
 4ii Miss. 115 ; Deimiston v. Potts, U Smedos & M. 38 ; Thornton v. Pigg, 
 24 Mo. 249 ; Roddick v. Walsh, 15 Mo. 519, 5.a ; Worsham v. Collison, 
 4J Mo. 206 ; Lee v. Lindell, 22 Mo. 2j2, 206 ; Jordan v. Van Epps, 19 
 Hun, 526 ; 58 How. Pr. 3.';8 ; Wilkinson v. Parish, 3 Paige, 65 ! ; Denton 
 V. Nanny, 8 Barb. 6H, 622 ; Merchants v. Thompson, 53 N. Y. 7 ; Mills 
 V. Van Voorhis, 20 N. Y. 412 ; Trustees v. Roth, 18 N. Y. Week. Dig. 
 459 ; Matthews, 1 Edw. Ch. 535 ; Rosekrans v. White, 7 Lans. 4>6, 48j ; 
 Ripple V. Gilborn, 8 How. Pr. 456, 4fi0 ; Disbrow v. Folgcr, 5 Abb. Pr. 
 S», 54 ; Riker v. Darky, 4 Edw. Ch. 608, 66J ; Lewis v. Smith, 11 Barb. 
 152; 9 N. Y. 502; Raynor, 21 Hun, 36; Ross v. Boardman, 22 Hun, 
 527, .523 ; Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547, 5.50, 552 ; Swecsy v. Shadv, 
 22 Ohio St. a'ia ; Ketchum v. Shaw, 28 Oliio St. 503, 506 ; Parmentor v. 
 Binkley, 28 Ohio St. 32 ; McArthnr v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 4S5 ; 16 
 Ohio St. 41 ; Robinson v. Shacklett, 29 Gratt. 99, 107. 
 
 2 Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547, 552 ; ante, \ 258. 
 
 3 Compare Vreeland v. Jacobus, 19 N. J. Eq. 231, 232, with Fol- 
 som V. Rhodes, 23 Ohio St. 4i5, 438. 
 
 4 Titus V. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452, 457 ; ante,, U 253, 2GI. 
 
 5 Combs V. Young, 4 Yerg. 218, 226 ; 26 Am. Dec. 2?5 ; ante, ? 253. 
 
 6 Lewis V. Smith, 11 Barb. 152 ; 9 N. Y. 502, 514. 
 
 7 Holien )■. Baggess, 20 W. Va. 62, 74. See Helms v. Love, 41 Ind. 
 210 ; Kent v. Taggait, 68 Ind. 163; Blair, 45 Iowa, 42; 
 
 8 Mautz V. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202 ; ante, U -JS, 23L 
 
 9 Gardiner v. Miles, 5 Gill, 94, 100 ; ante, i 276. 
 10 Ante, i 261 ; Boone Mortgages, 5 179. 
 
 U Rosekrans v. White, 7 Lans. 486, 4S3. 
 
 12 Weaver i\ Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547, 552; Lee v. Lindell, 22 Mo. 232, 
 203. 
 
 13 Riker v. Darky, 4 Edw. Ch. 663, 663. 
 
 14 Rank v. Hanna, 6 Ind. 20 ; Greiner v. Klein, 23 Mich. 12, 17 ; 
 Jackson I'. Edwards, 7 Paige, 38S, 391, 410, 411; 22 Wend. 438; Van 
 Gelder v. Post, 2 Edw. Ch. 577. 
 
 15 Lee v. Lindell, 22 Mo. 202, 205. 
 
 § 221. Defeat of dowor by divorce. — A divorce a mensa 
 el'thoro has no effect on dower, but a divorce a vinculo 
 inatrimonii, in the absence of statute defeats dower.* 
 
 1 Discussed Ste\vart M. & D. 2 446. 
 
 k
 
 g 282-283 DOWEU. 436 
 
 I 2o2. Bankrupccj of husband as bar to dower. — Tlie 
 husband's bankruptcy defeats dower only where his 
 voluntary assignment would.^ As a rule, therefore, 
 the husband's assignee in bankruptcy takes his lands 
 subject to dower,^ and has no control over the dower- 
 right.* In some States a wife has the same rights on 
 her husband's bankruptcy as on his death.* 
 
 1 See Perkins v. McDonald, 10 Lea, 72, TH ; Rhea r>. Meredith, S 
 Lea, 6J.), 603. 
 
 2 Porter ?>. Layear, 109 U. S. ai, 83 ; 87 Pa. St. 5i:5 ; m Am. Rep 380; 
 Du-llpy I'. E.iston, 1(M U. S. 9.), 1U5 ; Bartenbiich, 11 Bank Reg. 61 ; 
 An-jier, 4 B ink. Re?. 619; Am. Law Rf?. X. S. l>i) ; Lawrence. -ll 
 Conn. -J'.!, 42 1; Dwizer i\ Garlou^h, 31 Ohio St. loS ; Kelso, 2 Week. 
 Notes, 475 ; Speak e v. Kinarcl, 4 S. C. 54. 
 
 3 Dudley v. Easton, 104 U. S. 90, 10.5. 
 
 4 Warford r. :Xoble, 9 BLss. C. C. 320, 32?. ; Lawrence, 40 Conn. 411, 
 ,424. 
 
 I Article III. — Assign .mkxt of Dower. 
 
 ? 23'5. Tlie widow's right to an assignment. 
 
 { 284. Who must assign. 
 
 { 28.5. ^V.sslgnment without suit — Of and again.st common right. 
 
 I 286. Assignment by suit — At common law. 
 
 I 287. Assignment by .suit — At law under statutes. 
 
 J 2S3. Assignment by suit — In equity. 
 
 { 281. Proof of right to dower. 
 
 J 200. Estoppels against defendant. 
 
 \ 201. Widow's right to dower in mansion house. 
 
 I 202. Assignment by metes and bounds. 
 
 { 203. Assignment in rents and profits. 
 
 8 294. .tVssignment in gross sum. 
 
 { 20). Widow's right in improvements. 
 
 { 206. Widow's right to damages in law. 
 
 \ 237. Widow's right to account of mesne profits in equity. 
 
 I 293. ESFect of assignment. 
 
 { 209. Effect of excessive assignment. 
 
 { 300. EfToct of e^'1?tion from assigned lands. 
 
 § 283. Tho v/iuow's rijht to an assignment of dower. — 
 The right to dower vests on the husband's death,i but 
 the A\iaow has no right to enter on her dower lands — 
 no estate in tliein^ — until assignment.^ She may re-
 
 437 IK) WER. §284 
 
 main in the family dwelling until dower is assigned — 
 this is lier quarantine;* and she has the right to have 
 her dower assigned as soon as practicable, a period 
 being usually fixed by statute.^ 
 
 1 Thornburg, 18 W. Va. 522, 527 ; ante, U 251, 262. 
 
 2 Blodget V. Brent, 3 Cranch C. C. 3W, 396 ; ante, U 262, 263. 
 
 3 Moore v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 110, 113, 114 ; 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; ante, 
 ii 262-264. 
 
 4 Discussed Stewart M. & D. J 453. 
 
 5 Consult post, ?? 20.5-207. 
 
 g 284. Who must assija dowor. — The tenant of the 
 freehold must assign dower,' thougli sometimes by 
 statute another maj', as a tenant for years,- or the hus- 
 band's executor.* And whoever is comi>ollable by 
 writ to assign dower may assign it without writ, and 
 vice versaJ The tenant need not have a good title, his 
 act being ministerial only,^ and the legal owner will 
 be bound if the assignment were of common right,^ 
 and be bound till he avoids it, if the assignment were 
 against common riglit,' And the same rule apiilied to 
 an assignment by a joint tenant.^ Tlie tenant must 
 assign, though an infant,^ and a guardian may make 
 the assignment.!* Of course when the assignment is 
 made by legal proceedings, the sheriff," or other officer 
 of tlie court makes it.'^ 
 
 1 Park Dow. 265, 266 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 75. 
 
 2 B. I. R. S. 1882, p. 637, I 5. 
 
 3 Harrow v. Johnson, 3 Met. (Ky.) 578. 
 
 4 2 Scribner Dow. 75. 
 
 5 Park Dow. 266. 
 
 6 2 Scribner Dow. 77; Park Dow. 266. "Unless obtained by col- 
 lusion : Co. Litt. 35 a. ; post, ? 285. 
 
 7 Rowe V. Power, 2 Bos. & P. N. S. 1, 33 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 78. 
 
 8 Perk. J 397 ; 2 Co. 67 a. ; 2 Scribner Dow. 79. 
 
 9 1 Roll. Abr. 137, 681 ; Jones ?'. Brewer, 1 Pic'.c. 314, 317. 
 
 19 Bovors 1'. Newbanks, 2 Cirt. 3S8 ; Robinson v. Miller, 1 Mon. 
 B. 88 ; 2 "Moil. B. 2.->4 ; Young v. Tarbell, 37 Me. 50.» ; Curtiss v. Hobart, 
 n M'\ 130: .lones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314, 317. See Mass. P. S. 18«2. p. 
 J87, 5 31 ; Wis. R. s. 1873, § 3984. Contra, Bonner v. Peterson 44 lil. 
 i>! ; finernsey, 21 11!. 4!'!.
 
 I 285 DOWER. 438 
 
 11 See past, ? 287. 
 
 12 See Barton v. Hinds, 48 JIc. i:i ; Miller, 12 Mass. 4.54. 
 
 § 285. Assignment without suit — Of and against com- 
 mon ri jht. — The party who is bound to make an assign- 
 ment of dower i may do so without legal proceedings, 
 and such an assignment if fairly made will be as valid 
 as if made under a decree of court.^ He may either set 
 ofi" to her by metes and bounds one third of the lands 
 and tenements,' or, if the husband's interest in the 
 lands be incorporeal One third of his interest,* thus giv- 
 ing her exactly what she is entitled to, which is an 
 assignment "of common right." ^ Or he may by an 
 agreement with her set off to some portion of the lands, 
 or some interest in the incorporeal hereditaments, in lieu 
 of what she is really entitled to,^ this being an assign- 
 ment " against common right."' If the assignment is 
 of common right it is binding thougli made by a 
 wrongful tenant,^ the widow holds the property clear 
 of all encumbrances inferior to dower,^ and, if it be 
 taken from her under prior encumbrances, she may 
 be endowed anew out of the balance of the estate ; "* 
 whereas an assignment against common right is not 
 binding unless made by the rightful tenant,ii the lands 
 are liable for the liusband's debts,^^ and if she is de- 
 prived of her enjoyment of them she has no remedy 
 against the balance of the estate.^^ The assignment 
 may be made without writing,^* for the widow's right 
 is not thereby created but only ascertained.^* And 
 where the widow and tlie heir made an agreement as 
 to the division between them of the rents and profits 
 of a mine, such an agreement was deemed an assign- 
 ment of dower and valid under the statute of frauds.'^ 
 In a case where the assignment is against common right 
 and the Avidow accepts a provision in lands instead of her
 
 439 DOWEK. § 286 
 
 legal dower, the tran:-,ac'aoii is taken out of the statute 
 of frauds by part performance.^^ 
 
 1 Ante, \ 28-1. 
 
 2 Hill V. Mitchell, 5 Ark. 608, 023 ; Menifee, 3 Eng. 9 ; Shelton v. 
 Carrol, 16 Ala. 148; Johnson v. Neil, 4 Ala. 166; Crocker v. Fox, 1 
 Root, 227 ; Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405 ; 24 Am. Rep. 2(i:j ; MeCormick 
 i>. Taylor, 2 Cart. 3;i6, 338 ; Robinson v. Miller, 1 Men. B. 88 ; 2 Mon. B. 
 284 ; Mitchell v. Miller, 6 Dana, 7'J ; Baker, 4 Me. 67 ; Young v. Tarbell, 
 37 Me. .50l» ; Austin, 50 Me. 74 ; Shattuck v. Gregg. 23 Pick. 88 ; Meserve, 
 19 N. H. 240 ; Clark 7'. Mussey, 43 N. H. 59 ; Rutherford v. Graham, 4 
 Hun, 706 ; NcLaughlin, 20 N. J. Eq. 190 ; Sutton v. Burrows, 2 Murph. 
 79. 
 
 3 Park Dow. 251 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 80 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. 223. 
 
 4 2 Scribner Dow. 80 ; Stevens, 3 Dana, 371. 
 
 5 See also Schnebly, 26 111. 116 ; Pierce v. Williams, 3 N. J. D. 703. 
 
 6 Johnson v. Neil, 4 Ala. 166; Beers v. Strong, Kirby, 1!); 1 Am. 
 Dec. 10 ; Robinson v. Miller, 1 Mon. B. 88 ; 2 Mon. B. 284 ; French v. 
 Peters, 33 Me. 396 ; French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381 ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 
 Pick. 314, 317 ; Draper v. Baker, 12 Cush. 288 ; Marshall v. McPherson, 
 8 Gill <fe J. 333 ; Welch v. Anderson, 28 Mo. 293 ; Pinkham v. Gear, 3 
 N. H. 163 ; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 2,58 ; 10 Am. Dec. 328 ; Fowler 
 V. Grifltin, 3 Sand. 385; Gown, 17 S. C. 532 ; Fitzhugh, 3 Call, 13 ; ante, 
 i 276. 
 
 7 Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314, 317 ; supra, n. 6. 
 
 8 2 Scribner Dow. 77 ; ante, | 284. 
 
 9 Scott V. Hancock, 13 Mass. 102 ; ante, I 258. 
 
 10 AVillett r. Beattv, 12 Mon. B. 172 ; Scott v. Hancock, 13 Mass. 
 162 : Pierson v. Williams, 23 Miss. 64. 
 
 11 Rowe V. Power, 2 Bos. & P. N. S. 1, 33 ; ante, § 284. 
 
 12 French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381 ; Mantz v. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202, 
 205 ; ante, 258. 
 
 13 Scott ■!'. Hancock, 13 Mass. 162 ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314 ; 
 Hollo wman, 5 Smedes & M. 559. 
 
 14 Rowe ?T. Power, 5 Bos. & P. 1, .33 ; Johnson v. Neil, 4 Ala. 106 ; 
 Curtis V. Hobart, 41 Me. 230 ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314 ; Meserve, 
 19 N. H. 240. 
 
 15 Conant v. Little, 1 Pick. 191 ; Shattuck v. Gregg, 23 Pick. 18J ; 
 Williams v. Bennet, 4 I red. 122 ; Co. Litt. 35 a. 
 
 16 Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405 ; 24 Am. Rep. 263. 
 
 17 Squire v. Harder, 1 Paige, 494 ; 19 Am. Dec. 446. 
 
 § 286. Assignment by suit — At common law. — The 
 legal remedy at common law to enforce an assignment 
 of dower is by writ of dower \mde nihil habet, or by writ 
 of riglit of dower, brought against the tenant of the 
 freehold ; upon which if judgment is obtained, dower 
 is assigned by the slieriff, and the widow may then
 
 §2 287-288 DOWER. 440 
 
 proceed in ejectment to get possession. Inasmuch a:s 
 the common law proceedings for dower are almost 
 obsolete — in Mr. Scribner's chaj)ter thereupon not one 
 American case is cited — the discussion thereof is 
 omitted.i 
 
 1 See 2 Scribner Dow. ch. v. 
 
 I 237 . Assignment by suit — At law under statutes . — In 
 many States statutes have somewhat modified the com- 
 mon law i^rocedure, and subject to such modifications 
 a writ of dower unde nihil habet may still be sued out.^ 
 One common modification is that demand is a prerequi- 
 site to the suit,^ whereas at common law it was not 
 necessary,^ except to enable the demandant to recover 
 damages.* It is also commonly provided by statute, 
 that where there is no contest, dower may be assigned 
 by the probate court in summary proceedings.^ But 
 procedure at law for dower is so much a local matter 
 that it will not be discussed herein. 
 
 1 See Lavton r. Butler, 4 Har. (Del.) 507 ; Waters ?'. Gouch, C 
 Marsh. J. J. 5Sb ; 22 Am. Dec. lOS ; Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 102:5 ; Rodgers 
 V. Potter, 33 N. J. Eq. 73 ; Vensel, 77 Pa. St. 71 ; 2 Scribner Dow. ch. G. 
 
 2 Crocker v. Fox, 1 Root, 227 ; Strown, .50 111. 256 ; McCrackeii ?•. 
 Kuhn, 7.J liid. 14J ; M^rriil r. Sliuttuck, 5> Me. 370 ; Luce ?'. Stubhs, :^5 
 Me. f>2, 95 ; Parkor v. Murph v, 12 Mass. -185 ; Davis v. Walker, 42 M. H. 
 482 ; Stevens v. Reed, 37 N. H. 49 ; Ellis, 4 R. I. 110. 
 
 3 Hitchcock v. Harrington, 6 Johns. 295, 296 ; 5 Am. Dec. 229. 
 
 4 Considered post, ? 206. 
 
 5 2 Scribner Dow. ch. fi ; 2 Kent, 72 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. 226 ; 1 
 Hill. Real Prop. 172. 
 
 I 2S3. Assignment by suit — In equity. — Equity fir.st 
 took jurisdiction in assigning dower, in cases where 
 discovery was prayed ;i and tlien this jurisdiction was 
 extended generally,^ principally becau.se dower can be 
 assigned by the same machinery which is used in par- 
 tition suits and in settling accounts,' until it became 
 commonly concurrent with the jurisdiction of law.* 
 Where dower in equitable estates is to be awarded,
 
 441 DOWER. g 288 
 
 equity ha.s exclusive jurisdiction.^ And courts of law 
 are bound to respect an assiprnnient of dower made by 
 a court of equity.^ The widow may join with the heirs 
 in a suit to have a contract of sale set aside and dower 
 awarded out of tlie property;' but whether she shall 
 join her second husband witli her in case she has mar- 
 ried again, depends on the local practice.* The tenant 
 of the freeliold alone is a necessary partj'^,* but all inter- 
 ested persons are proper parties ; i" and where dower ij 
 to be allowed out of several pieces of property, she may 
 either join all the tenants in one suit or bring a sepa- 
 rate suit against each," Tlie husband's administrator 
 need not be a party. ''■^ Tlie bill should allege substan- 
 tially the grounds of lier right. '^ If her right is admit- 
 ted, tlie court will proceed at once to make an assign- 
 ment," but if it is denied, unless it is a mere equitable 
 right, it must be first established at law,'^ and the prac- 
 tice of equity is to delay the case until this is done.^^ 
 All legal defenses are good,^' but in case of legal titles 
 no equitable defense will prevail, 's except that of 
 laches.^3 In England it was a good defense that the 
 tenant was a purchaser for value A\ithout notice,^ but 
 that is not a defense in this country,'''^ except Avhere 
 the husband by his sole deed can destroy dower.^"^ In 
 case of mere equitable title the rule is diflferent.^ The 
 assignment may be made by reference either to a mas- 
 ter or to commissioners,^^ but in either case the report 
 is not conclusive on the court.'^ The assignment may 
 be made by metes and bounds,^ or out of the rents and 
 profits.^ Or, in case of a sale under a prior lien, out of 
 the surplus ; '^^ and in such cases and other cases where 
 the realty is changed into personalty, a gross sum cal- 
 culated on the annuity tables may be awarded ; ^ in 
 some States this can be done only by the consent of all 
 parties,^" or the third part may be invested for the
 
 § 288 DOWER. 442 
 
 widow to receive the interest during her life.^^ And 
 when the property has been redeemed from a prior 
 encumbrance, the widow may be compelled to contrib- 
 ute i)roportionally.3^ Costs are within the discretion of 
 the court ; ^ when there has been no denial of the 
 widow's right, she should pay the costs ;^* but when 
 the defendants have delayed her or disputed her rights, 
 the costs should be borne by them.^^ 
 
 1 Wild V. Wells, 1 Dick. 3 ; Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 620 ; 2 Scribner 
 Dow. 145 ; Park Dow. 317, 318. 
 
 2 Mundy,4Bro. C. C. 294 ; 2 Ves.Jr. 122; Strickland, 6 Beav. 77, 81. 
 
 3 Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370. 
 
 4 2 Kent Com. 72 ; Powell i'. Monson, 3 Mason, 347, 359 ; Herbert 
 V. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370 ; Beavers ti. Smith, 11 Ala. 20 ; Slatter v. Meek, 
 35 Ala. 528 ; Boyd v. Hunter 44 Ala. 705 ; Menifee, 3 Kng. 9 ; Critten- 
 den, 5 Eng. Xi'i ; 6 Eng. 82 ; Lavton v. Butler, 4 Har. (Del.) 507 ; Far- 
 row, 1 Del. Ch. 457 ; Milton, 14 Fla. .369 ; Blair v. Harri.son, 11 111. ;»J ; 
 Osborne v. Harnie, 17 111. 535 ; Welles r. Sprague, 10 Ind. 305 ; Mar- 
 tin V. Coult, 4 Ind. 535 ; Wall v. Hill, 7 Dana, 173 ; Lawson v. Morton, 
 6 Dana, 471 ; Garton v. Bates, 4 Mon. B. 366 ; Wells v. Beall, 2 Gill & 3. 
 468 ; Sellman c. Bowen. 8 Gill & J. 50 ; 29 Am. Dec. 624 ; Scott v. Craw- 
 ford, 11 Gill & J. 365 ; Darnall v. Hill, 12 Gill & J. 3s8 ; Grove v. Todd, 
 45 Md. 252 ; 20 Am. Rep. 76 ; Mildred v. Neil, 2 Bland. Ch. 3iM, 3.56, 509, 
 512 ; Summons i'. Tongue, 3 Bland Ch. 341, .344 ; Brown ?'. Bronson, ;j5 
 Mich. 415; Davis, 5 Mo. 183 ; Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 349 ; Hinchman 
 V. Stiles, 9 N. J. Eq. :*1, 454 ; Rockwell v. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. 119, 384 ; 
 Ocean v. Brinlev, .34 N. J. Eq. 438 ; Hazen v. Thurber, 4 Johns. Ch. 
 604; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482; 9 Am. Dec. 318; Badgley t'. 
 Bruce, 4 Paige, 98 ; Bell v. Mayor, 10 Paige, 49 ; Campbell r. Murphy, 
 2 Jones Eq. 357 ; Whitehead v. Clinch, 1 Murph. 128 ; Pa. Purd. Dig. 
 1873, p. 5!l5; Woodward, 2 Rich. Eq. 23; Gibson v. Marshall, 5 Rich. 
 Eq. 2.>1 ; Miller v. Cape, 1 Desaus. 110; Tenn. R, S. 1871, i 2407 ; Blair 
 V. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 441. 
 
 5 2 Scribner Dow. 161-163. 
 
 6 Lawrence v. Miller, 2 Comst. 245. 
 
 7 Gray v. Sparrow, 3 Mon. B. 110 ; Johnson, 1 Munf. 549, 55.3. 
 Contra, Stewart v. Chadwick, 8 Clarke, 46.3. 
 
 8 Potierji. Barclay, 15 Ala. 439; post, H31. 
 
 9 Blair v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 441. 
 
 10 Badgley ?j. Bruce, 4 Paige, 98. 
 
 11 Barney v. Frowner, 9 A la. 901 ; Marshall v. Anderson, 1 Mon. B. 
 198 ; Allen v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 418, 463 ; Boyden v. Lancaster, 2 Pat. & H. 
 
 198. 
 
 12 Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. 357. 
 
 13 2 Scribner Dow. 1.56, 157 ; Wells v. Sprague, 10 Ind. -305 ; Wing v. 
 Ayer, 53 Me. 465 ; Darnall v. Hill, 12 Gill & J. 388 ; ante, I 249. 
 
 14 Mundy, 2 Ves. Jr. 122, 129 ; Scott v. Crawford, 11 Gill & J. 365, 
 366 ; Badgley v. Bruce, 4 Paige, 98.
 
 443 DOWER. § 239 
 
 15 Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 6S1, 633 ; D'Arcy v. Blake, 2 Schoales & L. 
 301 ; Muiidy, 2 Ves. Jr. 122, 128 ; Scott v. Crawford, 11 Gill & 3. 366, 366; 
 HartshoriKS 2 K. J. Eq. 34'.» ; Ocean v. Brinley, 34 N. J. Eq. 438; 1 
 Koper Husb. & W. 450 ; 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 1105. 
 
 16 Sellman v. Bowen, 8 GUI & J. 50, 55; 2!) Am. Dec. 524. See 
 Barnes v. Carson, 6i> Ala. 188 ; Eockwell v. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. 384 ; 
 Badgley v. Bruce, 4 Paige, 98 ; supra, n, 15. 
 
 17 2 Scrlbner Dow. 164 ; Shares v. Walters, 6 Clarke, 106. 
 
 18 Maybury v. Brien, 15 Peters, 21 ; O'Brien v. Elliott, 15 Me. 125 ; 
 32 Am. bee. 137 ; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. 357 ; 2 Scrlbner 
 Dow. 164. 
 
 19 Rolls !'. Hughes, 1 Dana,-407 ; ante, ? 277. 
 
 20 Williams v. Lambe, 3 Bro. C. C. 264 ; Walwynn v. Lee, fl Ves. 
 Jr. 24, 33 ; Joyce v. DeMolevns, 2 Jones & \j. 374 ; Gomni v, Parrott, 
 Cora. B. N. S. 47 ; 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. pt. 1, p. 43. 
 
 21 Dick. V. Doughton, 1 Del. Ch. 320 : Ridi^way ?'. Newbold, 1 Har. 
 (Del.) 385; Daniell v. Hollingshead, 16 Ga. I'JO; Blair v. Harrison, 11 
 111. 384 ; Gano v. GUruth, 4 G. Greene, 453 ; Wailes v. Cooper, 24 Miss. 
 208 ; Rankin v. Oliphant, 9 Mo. 23:» ; Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 403 ; 
 Reel V. Elder, 62 Pa. St. 308 ; Brown v. Wood, 6 Rich. Eq. 155. 
 
 22 See ante, \ 268. 
 
 23 Larrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 498 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 169. 
 
 24 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 1166 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 170 ; Mundv, 2 Ves. Jr. 122, 
 129 ; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 4H2, 496 ; 9 Am. Dec. 318. 
 
 26 Crittenden, 5 Eng. 333 ; Gibson v. Marshall, 5 Rich. Eq. 264. 
 
 26 Gibson v. Marshall, 5 Rich. Eq. 254 ; Tod v. Baylor, 4 I>eigh, 438 ; 
 post, \ 292. 
 
 27 Tod V. Baylor, 4 Leigh, 498 ; post, § 293. 
 
 28 Willett V. Beatty, 12 Mon. B. 172 ; Jennison r. Hapgood, 14 Pick. 
 345 ; 19 Am. Dec. 258 ; Hartshorne, 2 N. J. Eq. 34.) ; Warner v. Van 
 Alstyne, 3 Paige, 573; Tabele, 1 Johns. Ch. 45; Titus v. Neilson, 5 
 Johns. Ch. 4.52; Mills v. Van Voorhis, 23 Barb. 125, 126; Hawley t'. 
 James, 6 Paige, 318 ; Klutts, 5 Jones.Eq. 80 ; Thompson v. Cochran, 7 
 Humph. 72 ; ante, U 258, 261. 
 
 29 Brewer v. Van Arsdale, 6 Dana, 204 ; Slmonton v. Gray, 34 Me. 
 50; Goodburn ?>. Stevens. 1 Md. Ch. 441; Jennison v. Hapgood, 14 
 Pick. ;«5 ; 19 Am. Dec. 258 ; Garland v. Crow, 2 Bail. 24 ; post, i 2iH. 
 
 30 Herbert i<. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370 ; Francis v. Garrard, IS Ala. 794 ; 
 Lewis V. James, 8 Humph. 637 ; Harrison v. Payne, 32 Gratt. 337 ; 
 post, i 294. 
 
 31 Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618 ; Titus v. Neilson, 5 Johns. Ch. 452. 
 
 32 Carll v. Butman, 7 Me. 102 ; House. 10 Paige, 158. 164 ; 2 Scribner 
 Dow. 172. 
 
 33 2 Scribner Dow. 173. 
 
 34 Lucas v. Calcraft, 1 Bro. C. C. 134 ; Curtis, 3 Bro. C. C. 620 ; Hazen 
 t). Thurber, 4 Johns. Ch. 604 ; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 483; i) 
 Am. Dec. 318. 
 
 35 Morgan ?;. Rvder, 1 Ves. <fc B. 20 ; Hall v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 
 258 ; 10 Am. Dec. 328 ; Russell i>. Austin, 1 Paige, 192. 
 
 § 289. Proof of right to dower. — The widow must 
 prove her marriage, and the seisin and death of her hus-
 
 I 289 Dowrir.. 444 
 
 band.i The marriage may be proved by cohabitation 
 and repute,- and the time thereof, Avliieh is sometimes 
 of the utmost importance, may be proved by circum- 
 stantial e\adence.^ Nor is strict proof of the liusband's 
 death necessary ; it may be proved as in other cases.* 
 As to seisin, she must make out a prima facie case;^ 
 such a case is made out by proof that the defendant 
 holds under her husband, * or that her husband held 
 the property during coverture under claim of title and 
 collected the rents," or by tlie deed to her husband.^ 
 If the deed to the defendant from the husband has 
 other parties grantors, it is prima facie presunied that 
 the husband was tenant in common only.^ If the lius- 
 band obtained the jiroperty by descent, the seisin and 
 death of the ancestor and the heirship of the husband 
 must be proved.'* The identity of the property 
 described in a deod and the property in which dower 
 is claimed, may be ijroved by parol." 
 
 1 See 'J Scribnor Dow. 205 et seq. ; ante, { 249. 
 
 2 Stewart M. & D.{} 132, 138; on/e,§ 250. 
 
 3 2 Scribiier Dow. 212. 
 
 4 See Donelly, 8 ifon. B. 113; Kidder v. Blalsdell, 45 Me. 4r.'. ; 
 Spoars r. Burtu:i. 31 Miss. ."47 ; Jackson v. Claw. H Johns. 34(5 ; Kice 
 V. Lumlev. 10 Oliio St. 5 6 ; { hapnian »•. Cooper, 5 Rich. 4o2 ; 2 Scrib- 
 uer Dow. 219 ; Stewart il. & D. H 76, 126, 127, 161, 2*4. 474. 
 
 5 Dennis, 7 Blackf. 572 : Knisht v. MorrSs, 12 Mo. 41 ; War^ r. 
 Washington, 6 Sne'les ife M. 7 7: Gentry v. Woodson. 10 Mo. 224; 
 Stevens i: Reed, 37 2s . H. 4J ; Forrest v. Trammel, 1 Ball. 77. 
 
 6 Carnall v. Wilson. 21 .Ark. 62; GrifBth, 5 Har. rDeI.1 5 ; Davis v. 
 O'Ferrall, 4 Greene. iSS ; Wall v. Hill, 7 Dana, 172; Thorndike r. 
 Spear, 31 Me. 91 ; Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 41-1 : May f. Tillman. 1 
 3Iiph. 262; Hitchcock v. Harrinsrton, 6 Johns. 2\iO; 5 Am. Doc. 22 1; 
 Ward f. Mcintosh, 12 Ohio St. 231 ; Pickett v. Lyles, 5 S. C. 275 ; post, 
 {290. 
 
 7 McCuUers v. Haines. 3S Ga, 195 ; Becker v. Qulerg, 54 lU. .'90 ; 
 Mano V. Edson. 39 Me. 25 ; Torrence v. Casbry, 27 Miss. 617 ; Ran- 
 dolph V. Dors, 4 Miss. 20.1 ; Gentry v. Woodpon, 10 Mo. 224 ; Jacksou v. 
 Waltermlre, 5 Cowen, 299 ; Reed' v. Stevenson, 3 Rich. 66. 
 
 8 Bolster V. Cushman, M Me. 428 ; Carter v. P.arker. 28 M". .=i09 ; 
 Ward r. Fuller, 12 Pick. 1S5; James v. Rowan, 6 .Smodes & M. 3.13 ; 
 Griggs c. Smith, 12 X. J. L. 22 ; Evans, 29 Pa. St. 277. 
 
 9 Disbiel ?•. Colli?r, 4 Marsh. J. J. 601 ; Hamblin v. Bank, 19 Me. 
 68; Dolf V. B;isset, 15 Johns. 21. 
 
 10 Park Dow. sy> ii. 
 
 11 Keefer v. Young, 2 Har. & J. 5.3.
 
 445 DOWER. ? 290 
 
 ^ 290. Estoppel against defendant to deny husband's title. 
 — When the defendant has accepted a conveyance of 
 the property from the husband of the demandant, the 
 rule seems to be that, if he has no other title at all, he 
 cannot deny the husband's seisin, or set up the title of 
 a third party ;2 but that he can show that the hus- 
 band's seisin was not sufficient to permit dower to 
 attach,^ for example, that the husband was a mere 
 trustee,* or that the conveyance from the husband did 
 not give him any title, but that he procured the real 
 title from a third party,^ as where he took a mere quit- 
 claim deed from the husband.^ Main' of the cases 
 carry the estoppel much further, and hold that he can- 
 not deny the husband's title at all," or set up a better 
 title in himself from a third party ;* but this is objec- 
 tionable because an estoppel to be effectual must be 
 mutual,^ and because the estoppel in this case is based 
 on the acceptance of an estate from the liusband, and, 
 if the husband's title Avas not a good one, no estate 
 passed. 1" But no case allows the tenant to deny the 
 husband's title unless he himself liolds under a better 
 one.'^ In any case the widow makes out a prima fade 
 case by showing that the tenant holds a conveyance 
 from her husband.^- 
 
 1 2 Scribner T>ow. 231 ; Park Bow. 41 ; ITonley v. Webb, 5 Madd. 
 407 ; Bancroft v. White, 1 C'aiues, 18.5 ; Chapman v. Shroeder, 10 Ga. 
 321 ; Owen v. Rol)bins, 19 111. 54'); Davis v. 0'Fi'rrall,4 Greene, ."^oS; 
 Gullv V. Rav, IS Mon. B. 107; Kimball, 2 M •. 236 ; Xason v. Allen, 6 
 5Ie. 24:i ; Harris v. Gardner, 10 Me. 383 ; .Smith v. Ingalls, 13 Me. 
 2*4 ; Thorndike r. Spear, 31 Me. 91 ; Lewis v. Meserve, 61 Me. 374 ; 
 Wedge V. Moore, 6 Cush. 8; May v. Tillman, 1 Mich. 2fi2 ; Randolph 
 V. Dors, 4 Miss. 20.5 ; Thompson v. Bovd, 22 N. J. L. .543 ; Montgomery 
 1'. Brnere, .5 X. J. L 865 ; Moore v. Esty, 5 X. H. 47J ; Jewell v. Har- 
 rington, IDWend. 471, 474; Brown v. Potter, 17 Wend. ]fi4 ; Davis r. 
 Barrow, 12 Wend. 65; .Sherwood v. Vandenburgh, 2 Hill, 203 ; Hitch- 
 cock ?'. Harrington, 6 Johns. 290 ; 5 \va. De?. 22j ; Norwood ?•. Mor- 
 row. 4 Dev. * B. 442 ; Love v. Y.ites, 4 Dov. & B. 364 ; Shaw v. 
 Galbraith, 7 Pa. St. Ill; Pickett r. Lvles, 5 S. r. 275; Pledger v. 
 Ellerbee, 6 Rich. 266 ; 60 Am. Dec. 123 ; iGayle v. Price, 5 Rich. .5J5. 
 
 2 Carter v. Hallahan, 61 Ga. 314, 322 ; Evans, 20 Pa. St. 277. 
 
 3 P'oster ?■. Dwinel, 40 Me. 44, 47. .s. P., Edmondson 7'. Welsh, 27 
 Ala. 578 ; Shelton v. Carroll, 16 Ala, 143 ; EJmondsoa v. Montiigu j, 14 
 
 H. & W. — 3S.
 
 2§ 291-292 DOWER. 446 
 
 Ala. 370 ; Blakeney v. Ferguson, 20 Ark. 547 ; Crittendon, 6 Eng. 82 ; 
 Owen V. Robbins, 19 111. .545 ; Gully v. Ray, 18 Mo;i. B. 107 ; Gammon 
 V. P'reemaii, 31 Me. 24:?, 246 ; Small i\ Proctor, 15 Mass. 4.5; Moore v. 
 Estv. 5 N. H. 479; Hutchins r. Carlton, 1') N. II. 4'^7 ; Hill, 4 Barb. 
 419, 429 ; Averill v. Wilson, 413 Barb. 189 ; Plantt v. Payne, 2 Bail. 81J. 
 
 4 Plantt V. Payne, 2 Bail. 810. 
 
 5 .See Blieht v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. .535; Dashiel r. Collier, 4 Marsh. 
 J. J. 601 ; Smith v. Ingalls, 13 Me. 384, 287 ; Otis v. Parsliley, 10 X. II. 
 40'i ; Sparrow i'. Kingm.an, 1 Conist. 242 ; 12 Barb. 201 ; Coakloy v. 
 Perry, 3 Ohio St. 344 ; Gardner v. Greene, 5 R. I. 104. 
 
 6 Sparrow i'. Kingman, 1 Corost. 242 ; Fariiumy.Loomis, 2 Oreg. 
 29, 31. 
 
 7 Laboree, 33 Mp. 343 ; Brown v. Potter, 17 Wend. 164 ; Jewell v. 
 Harrington, 19 Wenci. 471, 474 ; Norwood v. Morrow, 4 Dev. ife B. 442. 
 Consult cases sujn-a, n. 1. 
 
 8 Jewell V. Harrington, 19 Wend. 471, 474 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 9 .Sherwood v. Vandenburgh, 2 Hill, 303 ; Osterhort v. Shoemaker, 
 3 Hill, 513. 
 
 10 Sparrow ■ii. Kingman, 12 Barb. 201. 
 
 11 Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461 ; ante, I 289. 
 
 12 Ante, ? 289, n. 6. 
 
 g 291. The widow's right to dower in the mansion house. 
 — At eoiniuon law the widow may remain in the family 
 home or mansion of her husband for forty days after 
 his "death, and similar provisions exist in the statutes 
 of many of the States : ^ but there was no right to dower 
 in this property at common law.^ Such right has been 
 very generally given in the United States,^ and is 
 especially regarded in the homestead laws.* 
 
 1 Discussed Stewart M. & D. J 4.59. 
 
 2 Denaugh, 19 Gratt. 536 ; Perk. J 4.56. 
 
 3 See Ark. Dig. 1874, {\ 2228, 2229 ; 111. R. S. 1880, p. 428, ? 27. 
 
 4 Discussed post, ?? 321-330. 
 
 I 292. Assignment by metes and bounds. — Whenever 
 the property in wliich the widow is entitled to dower i.s 
 capable of division, dower must be ret oft' by metes 
 and bounds.i Tliis was the rule at common law, but 
 its application lias iiroved so troublesome that such as- 
 signments are not common, and statutes have provided 
 for other means of giving a widow a fair tliird for her 
 life.2 "When an assignment bv metes and bounds is
 
 447 DOWER. § 292 
 
 about to be made, the tenant need no!, have notice 
 unless this is required by statute.^ The officer, sheriff, 
 or conimissionei's who makes the assignment is a mere 
 ministerial olficer,* and has no power excejit such as is 
 given him b}' tlie writ;^ he must strictly conform to 
 the law ; he cannot assign a portion of the lands in fee 
 in lieu of dower in the rest,' except by the consent of 
 all parties,^ nor can he give the Avidow rights of fire- 
 bote, etc., in part of the property not assigned for her 
 dower.3 His return should report that he has made 
 the assignment by metes and bounds, 'o and should 
 describe with reasonable definiteness the proi:)erty as- 
 signed." If he fails or refuses to act another may bo 
 apijointed,^" and if he acts vexatiously or maliciously, 
 as where he chalked off a third of each room in a 
 house," he may be punished.^' In making the di- 
 vision quantity is not to be considered alone, but the 
 value and productiA' eness of the land also ; '^ and such 
 a proportion of the i^roperty should be assigned to the 
 widow as is capable of producing one third as much 
 income as the whole income which tlie whole property 
 could produce.'® How far improvements made since 
 the husband's death or alienation are to be included in 
 such estimate is elsewhere discussed. >' The widow has 
 the right to have one third of each tract assigned, if 
 there are several tracts;'^ but in many States, if the 
 tracts are held by one heir, devisee, or alienee, the 
 whole assignment may be made out of any one tract, 
 for no one could be thereby injured ; '* and there are 
 some cases which hold that the husband's alienee for 
 value without notice has the riglit to compel an assign- 
 ment of the whole dower out of the lands given or de- 
 vised by the husband or descended from him.™ The 
 assignment need not ordinarily include the dwelling- 
 house,^' thougli dower may be assigned in a house by
 
 ? 292 DOWEK. 448 
 
 allowing the demandant certain rooms, with tlie right 
 to use in common tlie stairways and halls, etc.'''^ If 
 dower exists in leasehold estates by statute, it is as- 
 signed just as it is in fees.'-'^ Dower is assigned in es- 
 tates in common by metes and bounds if they have 
 been partitioned before the husband's doatli,^' or tlie 
 husband has conveyed his interest to his co-tenant,^ 
 but otlierwise in common. '■^^ j^ tlio case of mines,^' 
 mills,-^ ferries,^ etc., assignment by metes and bounds 
 is not practicable, and the Avidow may bo allowed the 
 whole for one third of the time, or one third of the 
 annual rental for her life.^" 
 
 1 Pierce v. Williams, 3 N. J. T,. 70:); Boiinor v. 'Evans, 3 Pa. 4,'j4 ; 
 Peik. S -114 ; Park i)o\v. ;;.")! ; 2 .ScribiuT Dow. .'isl ; 4 Kent Com. C2. 
 
 2 .See post, I 233, and statutes of different States. 
 
 ."? Ridgway v. Newhold, 1 Har. (Del.) .'iS.'; ; Watklns, !) .Tolins. 215 ; 
 Beaty v. Hearst, 1 McMull. 31. See Ga. 11. C. 1878, U 4(M1-J048; R. 1. 
 K. S. 1SS2, p. 038, I 12. 
 
 4 1 Roll. Abr. 038, pi. .3.5. 
 
 .5 Stewart v. Blease, 5 S. C. 433 ; Moore v. WjiUer, 4 Hand. 418. 
 
 Durham v. Mulkey, 50 111. 91. 
 
 7 Wilhelm. 4 Md. Cli. :i."0 ; .Simpson v. Ale.xander, Cold. 019. 
 
 8 Carriell v. Bronsoii, Clarke, 471 ; ante, I 285. 
 
 9 .Tones, Busb. 177. 
 
 10 Pierce v. AVilliams, 3 X. J. L. 703 ; Jones v. Fields, 5 TTelslc. 391 ; 
 Spain V. Adams, 3 Tenn. Ch. 31i) ; 2 Scribner Dow. 5S2. 
 
 11 Howard r. Cavendish, Cro. .Tac. 021, pi. 12 ; Paimer, 204 ; 1 Roper 
 H. <fe W. 31)4 ; Den v. Abingdon, Dong. 470 ; Teiiiiv v. Durraiit, 1 Barn. 
 & Aid. 40 ; Adams v. Barron, 13 Ala. 205 ; Myer v. Pfeffer, 50 III. 485; 
 •Stevens, 3 Dana, 371 ; Voung v. Gregory, 40 Me. 425 ; Pierce v. Wil- 
 liams, 3 N. J. L. 709 ; Patch v. Keeler, 27 Vt. 252. 
 
 12 McCormick v. Taylor, 5 Ind. 436 ; Lenox v. Livingston, 47 Mo. 256. 
 
 13 Abingdon, Palmer, 205. 
 
 14 2 Scribner Dow. 5S2 ; I>ark Dow. 272. 
 
 15 Coates v. Choever, 1 Cowen, 400, 470. S. P., .Scammon v. ramp- 
 bell, 75 III. 223; Walker, 2 JU. App. 418 ; Smith, 5 Dana, 179; I.awson 
 r. Morton, G Dana, 471 ; Tavlor v. I.usk, 7 Marsh. ,1. J. 030 ; Carter v. 
 Parker, 28 Mo. 509 ; Leonard, 4 Mass. 5:« ; Rilev v. Bates, 40 Mo. 408 ; 
 Strickler, 00 Mo. 405; Macknet, 24 N. .1. Eq. 449; Watkins, 9 Johns. 
 245 ; McDaniel, 3 Trod. 01 ; Stiner r. Cawthorne, 4 Dev. & B. .Wl ; 
 Oillgartner v. Gebhart, 25 Ohio St. 557 ; Gibson v, Marshall, C Rich. 
 Eq. 210. 
 
 16 Conner r. Shepherd, 15 Mass. 164, 167. 
 
 17 Post, 'i 29.5.
 
 449 DOWER. § 293 
 
 18 Litt. ? 3f. ; Hill v. Mitchell, 5 Ark. OOS ; Morrill t. Menifee, 5 Ark. 
 629; Schnebl)s,2(illl. IKi; O'Ferrall (^ Simplot,4Iowa, 381 ; Carriell r. 
 Bronson.fi Clarke, 471 ; Wood i>. Lee, .5 Men. .50 ; French v. Pratt, 27 
 Me. :<81 ; French v. Peters, Xi Me. 396 ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314 ; 
 Scott, 1 Bay, 504 ; 1 Am. Dec. G25. 
 
 IS 2 S"ril)MPr Dow. 003; Doe v. Gwinnell, 1 Q. B. 6S2 ; Coulter v. 
 Holland, 2 liar. (Del.) :TO; Milton, 14 Flu. :<(■. I ; Ga. Code 1S73, § 1767; 
 Rowland v. Carroll, 81 111. 224 ; Peyton v. JclDics, 50 111. 14:!; Reeves, 
 ,54 111. :«2 ; Scaninion r. Campbell, 7-5 111. 22;i ; Ky. R. S. 1881, p. 831 ; 
 Fosdick V. Gooding, 1 Me. 30; 10 Am. Dec. 25; Boyd v. Carlton, 0.) 
 Me. 200 ; Cook v. Fisk, Walk. (Miss.) 423; Thomas 7'.'Hpsse,.34 Mo. 13; 
 EUicott V. Mosier, 1 1 Barh. .574 ; Ohio R. S. 18S0, ? 5710 ; R. I. R. S. 1882, 
 p. 637; Tenn. R. S. 1871, i 2403 ; Anderson v. Henderson, 5 W. Va. 182. 
 
 20 Grlgly v. Cox, 1 Vcs. Sr. 517; Lawson v. Morton, 6 Dana, 471 ; 
 Wood V. Keyes, C Paige, 478. 
 
 21 Taylor v. Lusk, 7 Marsh. J. J. 6.36 ; ante, f 291. 
 
 22 Palmer, 264 ; Perk. ? ,342 ; Doe v. Gwinnell, 1 Q. B. 6S2 ; Lymmes 
 1'. Drew, 21 Pick. 278 ; White v. Story, 2 Hill, .543; Watkins, 9 Johns. 
 245; J'arkes r. Ilardey, 4 Bradf. 15; Stewart v. Smith, 20 Barb. 167; 
 Patch ?'. Keeler, 27 Vt. 252. 
 
 23 Rankin v. Oliphant, !) Mo. 239. 
 
 24 Rank v. Hanna, 6 Ind. 20 ; Lloyd v. Conover, 25 N. J. L. 47. 
 
 25 Blossom, 9 Allen, 2.54. 
 
 26 Ri Igwav V. Newbold, 1 Har. (Del.") 385; Potter v. Wheeler, 13 
 Mass. M-i ; Wilkinson v. Parish, 3 Paige, 053 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 5:i0. 
 
 27 Hoby, 1 Vern. 218; 2 Ch. Cas. 160 ; Sfoiighton r. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 
 402; Lenfers i\ Henke, 73 111. 405; 24 Am. ]{ ■)). 2ii:l ; Moore v. Rollins, 
 45 Me. 4113 ; Billings v. Taylor. 10 Pick. 400 ; 2ii A in. IH'C. 533 ; Rof^kwcll 
 V. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. 384, 3><9 ; Coates v. Cheever, 1 Cowen, 400. 
 
 23 Hyzer v. Stoker, 3 Mon. B. 117 ; Smith, 5 Dana, 179. 
 
 29 Ferry v. Stevens, 3 Dana, 371. 
 
 30 2 Scribner Dow. 5:;i ; Park Dow. 253 ; cases cited sunrn, notes 
 27-29. See })o.it, i 23.3. 
 
 § 293. Assignmont ia rents and profits. ^Whenever the 
 property i.s incori)oreal,i or i.s in its nature incapable of 
 fair division by metes and bounds, ^ the widow may be 
 allowed one third of the actual or estimated rents and 
 profits during her life.^ So that altliough a rent can bo 
 given in lieu of dower when the property is divisible, 
 onl}'^ by consent of all parties,* when tlie property' is not 
 divisible but its value consists in its rents and profits 
 as a wliole, as in the case of a tavern,^ amill,'' a forry,^ 
 a mine," a rent may be given as dower, distrainable of 
 common right.^ If the proi^erty is not actuall}- loa.sed, 
 it is very difficult to determine where its rents and pro-
 
 § 293 DOWER. 450 
 
 fits arc ; i" the j'early interest on its market value is by 
 no means always commensurate with its actual produc- 
 tive capacity.'! Generally, one third of tlie net actual 
 product of the land, whatever that may be, less a fair 
 allowance for the rental of such improvements as the 
 wife is not entitled to dower in,!^ is allowed ; ^^ but in 
 otlier cases one third of the legal interest on the esti- 
 mated market value of the lands, less such part as is 
 derived from trees, etc., tliereupon, in which, on 
 account of her liability for waste, a widow has no inter- 
 est,i' is allowed.'^ If the lands have been sold under a 
 prior right to dower,'* as where they have been sold 
 under an antenuptial judgment,'^ or a mortgage prior 
 to dower,'^ or a vendor's lien,'^ or for partnership pur- 
 poses, 2" or in partition proceedings,"' and tlie wife lias 
 therefore dower onU^ in the fund otherwise distributa- 
 ble to her husband or his assigns,^ it is the practice 
 either to allow lier a gross sum, or the interest for life 
 on one third.^ But where she consented to a sale after 
 her husband's death on the understanding that she 
 should be allowed for her dower, it was held that the 
 allowance should be made according to tlie estimated 
 rents and profits of the lands, and not according to the 
 price brought at the sale.-' 
 
 1 2 Scribner Dow. 039 ; Park Dow. 2o3. 
 
 2 2 Scribnpr Dow. 639 ; Chase, 1 Bland. 20fi, 233 : 17 Am. Deo. 277. 
 Oft-»n hv statute: 111. R. S. 1H80, p. 42.S ; Me. R. S. 1S71, p. 759 ; Mass. 
 P. S. 1882, p. 7-12 ; Mo. R. S. 1879, J? 2215, 221C ; M. H. R. 8. 1878. p. 474. 
 
 3 Discussed 2 Scribner Dow. 63'J, et seq. ; cases cited infra. 
 
 4 M'hite V. Story, 2 Hill, 543, 549. 
 
 5 Chase, 1 Bland, 200,233 ; 17 Am. Dec. 277. 
 Smith, 5 Dana, 173 ; ante, I 292. 
 
 7 Stevens, 3 Dana, 371 ; ante, ? 202. 
 
 8 Rockwell r. Morgan, 13 X. J. Eq. 384, 389 ; -ante, I 292. 
 
 9 Chase, 1 Bland, 203, 233 ; ante, ? 232 ; 17 Am. Dec. 277. 
 
 10 See Williams, 3 Bland, 186, 278 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 6.39 et xerj. 
 
 11 Williams, 3 Bland. l.SG, 278, 273 ; Addison v. Bowie, 2 Bland, 613. 
 
 12 Lewis V. James, S Humph. 537 ; post, I 295.
 
 451 DOWER. 2 294 
 
 13 Hyzor v. Stoker, 3 Mon. B. 117 ; Williams, 3 Bland, 186, 212, 243, 
 278, 229 ; Riley v. Clamorgan, l.i Mo. 331 ; Atkins v. Kron, 8 Irecl. Eq. 
 1 ; U. S. V. Dunseth, 10 OUlo, 18 ; Hillgartner v. Gebhart, 25 Ohio St. 
 557. 
 
 14 Bishop, 13 Law J. Ch. N. S. 302 ; 5 Jur. 931 ; Cassonave v. Brooke, 
 3 Bland, -U7, 2SS ; J£arker v. Christy, 5 N. J. L. 717. 
 
 15 Beavers v. Smith, U Ala. 20 ; "Wood v. Morgan, 56 Ala. .S97 ; Van 
 Gelder v. Post, 2 Edw. Ch. 577 ; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 258 ; 10 
 Am. Dec. 328. 
 
 16 See ante, U 258, 280. 
 
 17 Eobbins, 8 Blackf. 174 ; ante, ? 258. 
 IS Tabele, 1 Johns. Ch. 45 ; ante, § 261. 
 
 13 Thompson, 1 Jones, 430 ; ante, U 259, 261. 
 
 20 Goodburn v. Stevens, 5 Gill, 1 ; ante, U 257, 280. 
 
 2' Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547, 550, 552 ; ante, § 280. 
 
 22 The surplus usually : Ante, U 257, 261, 2S0. 
 
 2J Williams, 3 Bland, 186, 263 ; citations snpra, notes 16-21. 
 
 24 Williams, 3 Bland, ISO, 242, 243, 278, 279. 
 
 I 294. Assignment of gross sum in liou of dower. — 
 "When dower is not assigned out of the lands them- 
 selves,^ or out of the actual rents and i^rofits thereof,^ 
 interest on the estimated value of the proportion which 
 might have been assigned as dower is sometimes given, 
 as have been seen,^ or the value of the widow's life 
 estate may be calculated and given her at once in a 
 gross sum.* This was rarely done in England and the 
 English books contain little on the subject;^ but it is 
 quite common in the United States.^ Strictly, a court 
 has no right to award a gross sum in lieu of dower ; ' 
 still, it is said that a court of equity has this right and 
 may exercise its discretion to award a sum in lieu of 
 dower whenever the lands are converted into person- 
 alty under its jurisdiction;^ and this mode of award- 
 ing is provided for frequently by statute,^ and may 
 always be follov-ed by the consent of all parties.i*' It is 
 not infrequent that the parties agree that the widow 
 shall have the value of her dower paid to her in a gross 
 sum, and refer tlie matter to equity for the sole pur- 
 pose of having the said value estimated-'^ In estimat-
 
 \ 29j dower. 452 
 
 ing this value, tlie court considers the chances of life in 
 the widow and the probable value of her life interest ."^^ 
 Many different annuity tables have been in use, and 
 rougli formula for the determination of the value of 
 dower, an interesting history of which is given in Wil- 
 liams' Case by Chancellor Biand,'^ and which are dis- 
 cussed in many cases," but which cannot be discussed 
 herein. 
 
 1 AnteA^Sfl. 
 
 2 Ante, \ 293. 
 
 .3 Hale V. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 2.13, 260 ; 10 Am. Bee. 328 ; Gove v. 
 Cathei-, ii 111. 6.>1 ; ante, \ 29JS. 
 
 4 Williams, i Bland, 1.S6, 278, 279 ; cases cited infra. 
 
 5 Mole V. Smith, 1 Jacob & W. STiS. 
 
 6 Williams, 3 Bland, 1*5, 2&4. 
 
 7 Bonner v. Peterson, 44 III. 253. 
 
 8 Brewer >•. Van Arsdale, 6 Bana, 254 : VwUiams, 3 Bland, 186, 221; 
 Dorsey i-. Smith, 7 Har. & J. 3.53, 3G6 ; Atldns v. Kroa, 8 Ired. Eq. 1. 
 
 9 HiETbie v. Westlake, 14 X. Y. 3Sl ; Mentzer v. Menor, 8 Watts, 
 296 ; Summers v. Donuell, 7 Heisk. o6o ; Wis. K. S. 187S, a :?514, 38*5. 
 
 10 Herbert v. Wren, 7 Cranch, .370, 380 ; Hill v. Mitchell, 5 Ark. 60«i : 
 Francis i'. Garrard, 1^ Ala. 7:>4 ; Francisco r. Hendricks, 28 III. 64 ; 
 Mulford V. Hisrs, 13 X. J. £q. 13; McLoughUn, 20 X. J. Eq. IHO ; 
 Mathews v. Durzee, 45 Barb. 6d ; Fulton, 8 Abb. N. C. 210 ; Harrison 
 I'. Payne, .32 Gratt. 387 ; BUur v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 441. 
 
 11 Sherrard, 33 Ala. 4S.S ; Smiley, 1 Dana, 93 ; Simouton r. Gray. .31 
 M.i. .50 ; Houghton v. KapgooJ, 13 Pick. 1.54 ; Hazon v. Thurber, 4 
 Johns. Ch. 604; Hale v. James, 6 Johr.s. Ch. 263; 10 Am. Dec. 328; 
 Pollard V. Anderwood, 4 Hen. & M. 4.iJ. 
 
 12 2 Scribner Dow. ch. 24. For tables, sse 2 Scribner Dow. 
 Append. ; 7iJ Gx Appand. ; Brown v. Bro::isou, 35 Mich. 415 ; Gravigiie 
 V. McCJlare's '• Dower and Curtesy Tables." 
 
 13 Williams, 3 Bland, 186. 
 
 14 Pvle V. Brown, 6 Ex. 2a5 : Thistlewood, 19 Ves. Jr. 2.i0 ; Sher- 
 rard, .3;5 Ala. 4^^; McHenrv r. Yokura, 27 111. 160; Hazeling v. Hut- 
 saa, 18 Ind. 481 ; Alexender v. Bradlev, 3 Bush, 667 ; Rich, 7 Bush, .53; 
 Williams, 3 Bland, 18«, 242,24:i : Md. R. C. 1878, p. 6ol ; Dorsev r. Smith, 
 7 Har. & J. :«> ; Abercrombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. Ch. .320 ; Estabrook r. 
 Hapgood, 10 Mass. 31.3, 315; Brown r. Bronson, i5 Mich. 415 ; Cronk- 
 right r. Hanlenbeck, 25 N. J. Eq. .513, 515 ; Mulford v. Hiera, 13 X. J. 
 Eq. 13 ; McLoughlia, 20 X. J. Eq. IW ; Sauter v. X. Y. 66 X. Y. .V) ; 
 Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige, 386, 408; Atkins r. Kro:i, 8 Irod. Eq. 
 1 ; Shippen, 80 Pa. St. 39L 
 
 \ 295. "Widow's right to dower in improvements. — 
 When, before assignment, improvements are made, the 
 widow is entitled to the benefit thereof in case the hus-
 
 453 DOWER. I 295 
 
 band died seized, but not if he had aliened the lands 
 before his death. There seems to be little reason for 
 the distinction, but it exists nearly everywhere. ^ 
 
 1. As against the heir. As against the husband's heir 
 or devisee, it is Avell settled that the widow is entitled 
 to dower in the land as it stands when dower is 
 assigned including all- improvements ;^ though there 
 are some States where this rule has been changed by 
 statute.* 
 
 2. As against the alienee. As against the husband's 
 alienee, the same rule prevails in England ;^ but in the 
 United States generally,^ improvements made after the 
 husband has aliened the property are excluded in 
 assigning dower,' and either unimproved parts are 
 assigned or less is included in the assignment.^ This 
 is true whether the imjirovements have been made 
 before or after the husband's death,' whether the 
 alienee have notice of the claim for dower or not.'* and 
 oven in a case Avhere the husband had deeded the prop- 
 erty to a relative as a gift and had thereafter made the 
 improvements thereu^wn himself.^' A jaurchaser at 
 execution has in this respect the same rights as a vol- 
 untary -ilienee of the husband's.^^ The value of the 
 property is therefore estimated as of the time of the 
 alienation. The time of the alienation is determined 
 by the date of the deed if an absolute deed : '^ by the 
 da.e of the passing of the equity of redemption from 
 the husband in case of a mortgage, i* for the widow has 
 the right to improvements made by the husband after 
 mortgage but before foreclosure ; '^ by the date of the 
 bond of conveyance in accordance A\ith wliich the title 
 has been given. '^ The fact of imiorovements must be 
 specially pleaded,^" but not in bar ; '* and the value, 
 etc., thereof may be determined, in accordance with 
 different practice, by the sheriftV' or commissioners,™
 
 2 235 DOWER. 454 
 
 or by an issue before a jury,-' or by a writ of in- 
 quiry.^'' 
 
 3. What are improvements. Mere repairs are not im- 
 provements ; ^ but iilatting the land and prciJaring it 
 for a depot are ; '-'* so are crops sown,'^^ within the mean- 
 ing of this section ; so is everything added by the 
 money or sldll of the alienee ; ^^ but no improvement in 
 value due to improvement of adjacent lands is,^^ or to 
 the general prospei'ity,'^ or to accretions, ^9 or to any 
 extrinsic cause ; ^^ tliough in some States increase of 
 value from whatever cause is regarded as an improve- 
 mcnt,^' within the moaning of tliis section. 
 
 4. Depreciation. If tlie property has diminished in 
 value before assignment, as against the heir, dower is 
 assigned according to its value at the time of the as- 
 signment,^- unless the heir has been guilty of waste, 
 in which case he is liable in damages.^^ But if im- 
 provements have burnt down and tlie heir has re- 
 ceived the insurance money, the widow is entitled to 
 a i^ortion thereof.^' As against tlie alienee, the value of 
 the land is taken at the time of assignment so far as 
 diminution has been due to natural causes,^^ or to waste 
 before the husband's death j-**^ but tlio widow must be 
 allowed her waste after the husband's death. ^'' In New 
 York, however, dower is assigned according to the 
 value of tlio property at the time of the alienation.^8 
 
 1 Powell V. Monson. 3 Mason, 347, 365-367. 
 
 2 Powell V. Monson, 3 Mason, 347, 365, 363 ; Price v. Ilobbs, 47 Md. 
 35:), 3S6. 
 
 3 Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 35;>, 3S6. S. P., PowoH v. Monson, 3 Mason, 
 347, 3G5, 36.); Way, 42 Conn. .sJ ; irustinl, 34 C<inii. 4,-iS ; Ilalston, 3 
 Greene, 53! ; Chase, 1 Ulanrl, 'JUii, 2:iJ ; 17 Am. Dee. i;77 ; Walsh v. Wil- 
 son, 131 Mass. 535; C'atli'i v. Ware,!) Ma.s.s. 218, '221 ; 6 Am. Dec. 66; 
 McGeliee, VI Miss, 'il ; Humjihrey !•. Phinney, 2 Johns. 484 ; Hale r. 
 James, 6 Johns. Cli. L'.js, 260 ; 10 Am. Dec. 32S ; Larrowe v. Beam, 10 
 Ohio, 4!).S; Thomps<in v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. 283,2^0; 9 Am. Dec. 
 35S ; Plummer r. John,son, 15 S. 0. 158, 160. 
 
 4 See Kv. R. S. ISSl, p. 530 ; N. Y. R. S. 18S2, p. 2190 ; Walker v. 
 Schuyler, 10 Wend. 4S4.
 
 455 DOWER. 1 295 
 
 5 Doe V. Gwinncll. 1 Q. E. 6S2; 41 Eng. C.L. 723,735; 2 Scribuer 
 Dow. C04 ; Park Dow. 2^5. 
 
 G But see Va. Code 1S73, p. 85.5, § 11. 
 
 7 Summ'^rs v. Babb, 13 III. 483, 4S5. S. P., Powell v. Monson, 3 
 Mason, 347, 'So7 ; Barney v. Frowncr, 9 Ala. 901 ; Beavers v. Smitli, U 
 Ala. 20 ; Spriiigle v. Shields, 17 Ala. 2:!5 ; Francis v. Garru;vl, IS Al.i. 
 7J4 ; Wood V. Morgan, 56 Ala. 397 ; Stooliy, 8J 111. 40, 42 ; Heammon v. 
 Campbell, 75 111. 223; Wilson v. Oatman,2 Blac::f. 2:3; Smith v. 
 Addleman, 5 Blackf. 406; Throp v. Joh:;son, 3 Ind. 3-13; Carrioll v. 
 Bronson,6 Clarke, 471; Felch, 52 Iowa, 503, 505; Dashiel v. Collier, 4 
 Marsh. J. J. 601 ; Waters v. Gooch, 6 Marsh. J. J. e^.r, ; 22 Am. Dec. 103 ; 
 T.aylor v. Brodiek, 1 Dana, 345 ; Mayhoney v. Young, 3 Dana, 583 ; 
 I^awson V. Mort in, 6 D.ana, 471 ; Wall, 7 Dana, 172 ; Mosher, 15 Mo. 
 371 ; Hobbs V. Ilarvoy, 16 Me. 80 ; Carter v. Parker, 2S Me. .509 ; Man- 
 ning V. Laboroe, 33 Me. 343 ; Boyd v. Carltoi, 6.) Me. 200 ; 31 Am. 
 Bop. 2S8 ; Bowie v. Berry, 1 Md. Ch. 452, 4>J ; Price r. Hobbs, 4" 
 Md. 353, 3^7; Gore v. Brazier, 3 Mass. 51\ M3 ; 3 Am. Doc. V/i; 
 Ayer r>. Spring, 9 JIass. 8 ; 10 M.ass. 80 ; Stciirns v. Swift, 8 Piok. 5;:2 ; 
 Johnston v. Van Dvke, 6 McLean, 422 ; Guerin v. Moore, 25 Minn. 
 482, 404 ; McGehee, 42 Miss. 747 ; Wooldridge v. Wilkins, 4 Miss. 3GD ; 
 Markh.ara v. Morrett, 8 Miss. 437 ; McCIan:ihan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 74G; 
 O'Flaherty v. Sutton, 49 Mo. 583 ; Coxe v. Ilig'jee, 11 N. J. L. 395 ; Van 
 Don, 3 N. J. L. 513 ; Johnson v. Perloy, 2 N. II. 5fi, 53 ; 9 Am. Doc. 35 ; 
 Hale V. James, 6 Jolin.s. Ch. 25S, 200; 10 Am. Dec. 323; Walker v. 
 Schuyler, 10 Wend. 430 ; Raynor, 21 Hun, 36 ; Van Gclder v. Post, 2 
 Edw. Ch. 577 ; Coates v. Cheevor, 1 Cowen, 460 ; Dolf v Basset, 15 
 Johns. 21 ; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. 357, 3G2 ; Dunseth v. 
 Bank, 6 Ohio, 76; Allen v. McCoy, 8 Ohio, 413; Obio B. S. 18S0, 
 ? 5716; Farrowe v. Beam, 10 Ohio, 438; Oreg. G. L. 1874, p. 585; 
 Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. 2SJ, 2.0; 9 Am. Dec. 353; 
 Shlrtz, 5 Watts, 2.;5 ; Winder v. Little, 1 Yeates, 152; Leggett v. 
 Steele, 4 Wash. C. C. 305 ; Westcott v. Cimpbell. 11 E. I. 378 ; Bussell 
 V. Gee, 2 Milk Const. 251 ; Brown r. Duncan, 4 McCord, 346 ; Phinnoy 
 V. Johnson, 15 S. C. 153, IGO ; Alexander v. Hamilton, 12 S. C. 3d ; Lewis 
 V. James, 8 Humph. 537 ; Wis. B. S. 1878, 5 2166. 
 
 8 See Leggett v. Steele, 4 Wash. C. C. 305 ; Coates v. Cheever, I 
 Cowen, 460. 
 
 9 Powell V. Johnson, 3 Mason, 347, 369. 
 
 10 Powell V. Johnson, 3 Mason, 347, 369. 
 
 11 Stookey, 89 111. 40, 42. 
 
 12 Price V. Hobbs, 47 Md. 353, .388. S. P., Summers i\ Babb, 13 IlL 
 4S3 ; McClanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 743 ; Ayer v. Spring, 9 Mass. 8. 
 
 13 Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 258, 2G0 ; 10 Am. Dec. 328. 
 
 14 Hale V. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 253,230 ; 10 Am. Dee. 328; infra, n. 15. 
 
 15 Purrington v. Pierce, 38 Me. 447. 
 
 16 Wilson V. Oatman, 2 Blackf. 223. 
 
 17 Taylor v. Brodrick, I Dana, 345 ; Ayer v. Spring, 10 Miss. 80 ; 
 Allen V. Smith, 1 Cowen, 181, 185; Humphrey v. Phinney, 2 Johns. 
 484. But see Yates v. Paddock, 10 Wend. 528 ; Leonard v. Steele, 4 
 Barb. 20. 
 
 18 Coxe V. Higbee, 11 N. J. L. 395. 
 
 19 Dolf V. Basset, 15 Johns. 21. 
 
 20 Johnson v. Van Dyke, 6 McLean, 422, 430 ; Coxe v. Higbee, H 
 N. J. L. 395. 
 
 21 Taylor v. Brodick, 1 Dana, 345.
 
 § 296 DOWER. 456 
 
 22 Dolf V. Basset, 15 Johns. 21. 
 
 23 Walsh V. Vv'Kson, 121 Mass. 535. 
 
 24 Felch, 52 Iowa, 5G3, 5Go. 
 
 25 Ralston, 3 Greene, 6S3. 
 
 2a Price i'. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 3S7 ; infra, n. 30. 
 
 27 Doyd V. Carlton, 63 Me. 200 ; 31 Am. Rep. 203. 
 
 23 Gore v. Brazier, 3 Mass. 523, 544 ; 3 Am. Rep. 132 ; infra, n. 30. 
 
 23 Lombard r. Kinzie, 73 111. 446 ; Gale v. Kinzio, 80 IlL 132. 
 
 30 Price V. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 3S7. S. P., Powell ?-. Monson, 3 Mason, 
 347 ; Green v. Tennant, 2 liar. (Del.) 3;;6 ; Summers r. Bubb, 13 IlL 483 ; 
 Smith V. Addlemau, 5 Blackf. 406 ; Throp v. Johnson, 3 Ind. 343 ; 
 Carriell v. Bronson, 6 Clarl'.e, 471; Dashiel v. Collier, 4 Marsh. J. J. 
 691 ; Taylor v. Brodrick, 1 IJana, 345 ; Wall v. Hill, 7 Dana, 172 ; Man- 
 ning V. Laboree, 33 Mo. 343; Boyd v. Carlton, 69 Me. 2.iO ; 31 Am. 
 Rep. 268; Stearns v. Swift, 8 Pick:. 532; Johnston v. Van Dyk", 6 
 McLean, 422; McGohee,42 Miss. 747; Woollridge v. Wilkins, 4 Miss. 
 3C0 ; McCIanahan v. Porter, 10 Mo. 746 ; Coxe v. Higbee, 11 IST. J. L. 
 395 ; Campbell v. Murphv, 2 Jones Eq. a57 ; Alien v. McCov, 8 Ohio, 
 418; Thompson v. Jlorrow, 5 Serg. & R. 2S », 2 0; 9 ^m. Dec. 35j ; 
 Westcott V. Campbell, 11 R. I. 378 ; Lewis v. James, 8 Humph. 5o7. 
 
 31 See Beavers v. Smith, 11 Ala. 20; Francis r. Garrard, 18 Ala- 
 794 ; Thrasher v. Pinkard, 23 Ala. 616 ; Marble v. Lewis, 6.i Barb. 4:i2 ; 
 Dorchester i'. Coventry, 11 Johrs. 570 ; Shaw v. AVhite, 13 Johns. 179 ; 
 Hale V. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 25S, 2(!1 ; 10 Am. D"c. 32S ; Walker v. 
 Schuyler, 10 Wend. 480 ; Oreg. G. S. 1S74, p. 585; Phinney v. Johnson. 
 15 S. C. 158 ; Brown v. Duncan, 4 McCord, SA") ; Russell v. Gee, 5 
 Mill. Con. 254 ; Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh. 498 ; Va. Code 1873, p, 855 ; 
 Wis. R. S. 1878, 5 168. 
 
 32 Powell V. Monson, 3 Mason, 347, 368; Hale v. James, 6 Johns. 
 Ch. 258, 2t;0 ; 10 Am. Dec. 328 ; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. 357, 
 362 ; Westcott v. Campbell, 11 R. I. 378. 
 
 33 Co. Litt. 32 n. ; 2 Scribner Dow. 508. 
 
 34 Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones Eq. ."57, 362. 
 
 35 Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. 289, 231 ; 9 Am. Dec. 358 ; 
 infra, n. 36. 
 
 35 Powell V. Monson, 3 Mason, 347, 375 ; Fritz v. Tudor, 1 Bush, 28 ; 
 McCIanahan i\ Foster, 10 Mo. 743; Dunseth v. Bank, 6 Ohio, 76; 
 Thompson v. Morrow, 5 Serg. & R. 28), 2)1; 9 Am. Dec. 358; West- 
 cott V. Campbell, 11 K. I. 37S ; Braxton v. Coleman, 5 Call, 433; 2 Am. 
 Doc. 592 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 6:35. 
 
 37 See 2 Scribner Dow. 635 ; infra, n. 36. 
 
 33 Hale v. James, 6 Johns. Ch. 251 ; 10 Am. Dec. 328. 
 
 g 296. Widow's rijht to damages at law. — At common 
 law, no matter how much time elap.sed before the as- 
 signment of dower, the widow could not recover dam- 
 ages for the detention ;i but by the statute of Merton,'^ 
 which has been held in force in the United States,^ she 
 is entitled to the whole value of her dower from the
 
 457 BOWER. g 237 
 
 time of her husband's death to the thne of the recovery 
 of the dower ;^ and similar statutes are in force in the 
 United States.^ Under the statute of ^Slerton the hus- 
 band must die seized," and there can be no damages 
 against his alienee;' but in most States by statute she 
 may recover damages against an alienee from the time 
 of demand of dower.^ Inasmuch as suits at law for 
 dower have not been discussed in this volume,^ and 
 inasmuch as the widow has fuller relief in equity than 
 in law,^" a further discussion of this subject is omitted. 
 
 1 Price V. Hobbs, 47 Md. 35!), SSfl. See 2 Scribner Dow. 611 ; Park 
 Dow. 301 ; 10 Co. 110 ; 1 Roper H. & W. 437 ; Magruder v. Smith, 79 
 Ky. 512, 513. 
 
 2 20 Hen. IIL ch. 1 ; Alex. Brit. Statutes, 20. 
 
 3 Alex. Brit. Statutes, 20 ; Layton v. Butler, 4 Har. (Del.) 507 ; 
 Darnall v. Hill, 12 Gill & J. 333. Not in South Caroliua: Hey ward v. 
 Cuthbert, 1 McCord, 3»6. 
 
 4 Co. Litt. 32 6, n. 4 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 704-707. 
 
 5 See Statutes (collected 2 Scribner Dow. 700, 701). 
 
 6 The statute so states : See Thym, Stvle, 61 ; Beavers v. Smith, 
 11 Ala. 20 ; McElroy v. Wathen, 3 Mon. i^. 105 ; Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 
 359, 389. 
 
 7 Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 350, 330. Soe 1 Roper H. <fe W. 440 ; 2 
 Scribner Dow. 710 ; Sellnaan v. Bowen, 8 Gill &. J. 50 ; 29 Am. Dec. 524 ; 
 Embree v. Ellis, 2 Johns. 119. 
 
 8 See 111. R. S. 1880, p. 428 ; Mo. R. S. 1879, ? 2206 ; N. H. G. L. 1873, 
 p. 560 ; R. I. R. S. 1882, p. 637. 
 
 9 A}ite, I 286. Discussed 2 Scribner Dow. ch. 25. 
 10 Price V. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359, 389. See post, ? 297. 
 
 ? 297. Widow's right to an account of tho mosne proHts 
 in equity. — Equity has full jurisdiction over proceed- 
 ings for the assignment of dower ; ^ and may award 
 mesne profits even when dower has been assigned at 
 law.2 A judgment at law is conclusive as to the mar- 
 riage, and as to the seisin and death of the husband ; ^ 
 but if it also decides on the merits tliat the widow is not 
 entitled to mesne profits, tliis question is also res adju- 
 dicata.*^ Whether equity will entertain a suit for mesne 
 profits when dower lias not been assigned and assign- 
 ment is not prayed, is doubtful.^ The widow is entitled 
 
 H. & W. — 39.
 
 g 297 DOWER. 458 
 
 to mesne profits in equity indcpendenlly of the statute 
 of Merton,^ and she may recover from the husband's 
 alienee,' as well as from the heir or devisee ;* for a ten- 
 ant receiving the rents and j^rofits after the husband's 
 death is regarded as a trustee for the widow to the ex- 
 tent of her interest.^ As against tlie heir or devisee no 
 demand is necessary,'" and the heir's alienee stands in 
 the same position a^ the heir himself," except that in 
 one case he \va.H held liable for profits only from the 
 time of the purchase.'^ As against the husband's 
 alienee, demand is necessary and profits can be recov- 
 ered only from the date thereof.'* If the tenant die 
 pending the suit, this does not affect the widow's right 
 to mesne profits;'* and if slie die pending suit, her 
 personal representatives can recover sucli profits;'* 
 but if the widow die witliout instituting suit, it is said 
 in Maryland that her right is gone,'* though the con- 
 trary is elsewhere held.'' And in one case it is held 
 that if she die ponding the suit, her representatives can 
 recover only from the heir, not from the husband's 
 alienee.'* Tlie mesne profits are tlie actual profits from 
 the time of demand or the husband's death, as the case 
 may be," — a part of the rent if the property has been 
 leased,'^'* a share of the crop,-' or, if dower is assigned 
 in money, interest on the amount.^- A release of dower 
 includes a release of rents .and profits ; -^ and the widow 
 will not bo allowed to receive mesne profits if she has 
 occupied the land meanwhile,^' or has been comi^en- 
 sated for the delay in the assignment of dower.^^ 
 
 1 Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143, 146 ; ante, ? 283. 
 
 2 PnVe V. Hohhs, 47 Md. .359, .389 ; Bullock v. Griffin, . Strob. Kq. 
 60. But see Whitehead v. Clinch, 1 Murph. 128. 
 
 3 .SoUmati v. Boweii, 8 Gill & J. 50 ; 20 Am. Dec. 524 ; Turner r. 
 Morris, 7 Miss. 783. 
 
 4 Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143, U\ But see Darnall v. Hill, 
 12 Gill & J. 388. 
 
 .5 I^ro, Harper v. Archer, 28 Miss, 2:2, Cmtra, Kiddall v. Trimble, 
 1 Md. Ch. 143, 149, 150.
 
 459 DOWEK. 2 298 
 
 f. Kpftli 71. Trapier, I Bail. Eq. 6^, 74. But see Kendall v. Honey, 5 
 Mon. 2S2 ; Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh, 4'J8. 
 
 7 Price „. Hobbs, 47 Md. a53, 389. But see McElroy v. Wathen, 3 
 Mon. B. 135. 
 
 8 Harper v, Archor, 2S Miss. 212. 
 
 9 Sellman v. Bowcn, 8 Gill & J. 50 ; 29 Am. Dec. 524. 
 
 10 Slatter v. Mpek,n5 Ala. 52S ; Chase, 1 Bland, 206; 17 Am. Dec. 
 277; Darnall v. Hill, 12 Gill & J. SSS ; Johnson v. Thomas, 2 Paige, 
 377; Russell v. Austin, 1 Paige, 11)2; Ilazen v. Thurber, 4 Johns. 
 Oh. 601 ; Swaine v. Periiie, 5 Johns. Ch. 4^2 ; 9 Am. Dec. 318. Contra, 
 Tod V. Baylor, 4 Leigh, 498. 
 
 11 Russell V. Austin, 1 Paige, i:r2 ; Campbell v. Murphy, 2 Jones 
 Eq. 357. 
 
 12 Russell V. Austin, 1 Paige, 192. 
 
 13 Price v. Hobbs. 47 Ml. 3.i1, 3S1 ; Steiger v. Hillen, 5 Gill & J. I2t ; 
 Sellman v. Bowen.SGill cfe J. 50 ; 2)Am. Dec. 524 ; Chiswell d. Morris, 
 15 N. J. Eq. 101 ; Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh, 498. 
 
 14 Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. fi:0; Steiger r. Hillen, 5 Gill ife J. 121 ; Park 
 Dow. 220 ; 2 Scribnor Dow. 742. But see Whitehead x\ Clinch, 1 Murph. 
 128. 
 
 15 Kiddall ?-. Trimbl", 1 Md. Ch. U\ 147 ; Lindsav v. Gibbon, 3 Bro. 
 C. C. 495 ; Hamilton r. Mohun, 1 P. Wms. 118, 122 ; Magruder i>. Smith, 
 79 Kv. 512, 515, 517. Contra, Turney v. Smith, 14 111. 242; Miller v. 
 Woodman, 14 Ohio, 518. 
 
 16 Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 143, 147. 
 
 17 Harper v. Archer, 28 Miss. 212 ; McLaughlin, 20 X. J. Eq. 190: 
 Sandbacl<; r. Quigley, 8 Watts, 4(!0 ; Paul, 36 Pa. St. 270; Tibbita v. 
 Langley, 12 S. C. 465. 
 
 18 Johnson v. Thomas, 2 Paige, 377. 
 
 19 Keith v. Trapier. 1 Bail. Eq. e."?, 71. 
 
 20 Chase, 1 Bland, 206 ; 17 Am. Dec. 277. 
 
 21 Darnall r Hill, 12 Gill & J. 388,3 16. 
 
 22 Keith v. Trapier. 1 Bail. Eq. 61, 74. 
 
 23 Morrison. 11 III. App. 60r>. 
 
 24 Springle v. Shiplds, 17 All. 205 ; Smith v. Addleman, 5 Blackf. 
 406. 408; Rackliff 1'. Look, 63 Me. 516; McLaughlin, 22 N. J. Eq. 60o ; 
 Talbot, 13 R. I. 336. 
 
 25 Woodruff v. Brown, 17 N. J. L. 246. 
 
 I 298. Effect of assi»nmon.t. — When dower i.s assigned 
 without suit, fairly and of common right, it satisfies and 
 bars dower ; ' but if the assignment be against common 
 right, it does not avail as a defense for any one not 
 a party or privy to the agreement.^ When assigned 
 'bj suit the lands not assigned are freed ;3 but, as if 
 the title to the assigned lands fails, the widow ha.s a 
 right to a new assignment.* It is necessary that one
 
 g 299 DOWER. 460 
 
 who takes title in lands out of which dower lias been 
 assigned should be sure that the widow's title to the 
 lands assigned is good.^ 
 
 1 2 Scribner Dow. 7-17 ; aiite, ? 285. 
 
 2 Co. Litt. 35 a ; 2 Scribner Dow. 747 ; ante, ? 276. 
 
 3 2 Scribnor Dow. ch. 27. 
 
 4 Pjst, i TOO. 
 
 5 P-xrk Dow. 283 ; 2 Ssribner Dow. 750. 
 
 ^ 233. Eaj3t of 0233331 V3 assijnmsnt. — ^If an assign- 
 ment has been mada without suit by an adult tenant, 
 lie can have no relief.' If he were an infant, a court of 
 law will grant him a writ of admeasurement of dower, ^ 
 now almost obsolete,^ unless he has ratified his assign- 
 ment after coming of age;* but he cannot treat his 
 assignment as void and enter against the widow.^ If 
 the assignment has been made in legal proceedings by 
 the officer of the coui't, and is defective in that it as- 
 signs lands not covered by the judgment, the tenant 
 may recover possession by ejectment ;8 if the assign- 
 ment has been too great, the tenant may by scire facias 
 have an assignment de novo,'' or perhajis equity will set 
 the assignment aside. ^ But though the proper court in 
 AS'hich to object to the assignment of dower is the court 
 in which the assignment was made,' and the proj^er 
 time is when the officer has made his return,'" yet 
 equity will sometimes set aside an assignment made at 
 law,'' and a petition for a new assignment may in the 
 proper case be filed long after the report of the officer 
 and the ratification thereof,''^ and if it appear that there 
 has been fraud or mistake a new assignment will be 
 ordered.'^ This was done in a case where long after 
 assignment the heirs were ousted by title paramount 
 of the lands set off to them while the widow had re- 
 ceived propertj^ to wliich the title was good.'* But if 
 the widow is deprived of lands once assigned to her in
 
 461 DOWER. ? 300 
 
 dower, she must bo allowed for the improvements 
 meanwhile put thereupon by her.'^ 
 
 1 Stoughton V. T.pig^h, 1 Taunt. 404, 412 ; Gilb. Dow. 330; 2 .Scribiipr 
 Dow. 751 : 1 Roper H. & W. 407. 
 
 2 Sep McCormick v. Taylor, 2 Cart. (lud.) 336 ; Young v. Tarbell, 
 37 Me. 509. 
 
 3 Park Dow. 270. 
 
 4 1 Roper H. & \V. 407. 
 
 5 McCormick v. Taylor, 2 Cart, find.) .3.36. 
 
 6 2 Scribner Dow. 753. 
 
 7 Park Dow. 271 ; 2 .Scribner Dow. 7.54 ; 1 Roper H. & W. 406, 400. 
 
 8 .Sneyd, 1 Atk. 442 ; Park Dow. 272 ; 1 Roper H. fe W. 40a 
 
 9 2 Scribner Dow. 7.5.5. 
 10 2 Scribner Dow. 755. 
 
 • 11 See citations supra, n. 7. 
 
 12 Singleton, 5 Dana, 87. 
 
 1.3 See Chapman )'. Shroedor, 10 Ga. 321, 328 ; Donahue v. Chicago, 
 57 III. 233; Loyd v. Malone, 23 III. 43; Cove v. Gather, 23 111. G.34 ; 
 Throp V. Johnson. 3 Ind. 343 ; Singleton, 5 Dana, 87 ; Rawson v. Clark, 
 :W Me. -223 ; Wilhelm, 4 Md. Ch. 330 ; Stiner v. Cawthorne, 4 Dev. & B. 
 .561 ; Eagles, 2 Hayw. 181 ; Shirtz, 5 Watts, 2.55 ; Benner v. Evans, 3 
 Pa. 456, 457; Hawkins v. Ilall, 2 Bav, 440; Williams i'. Lanneau, 4 
 2 Strob. 27; Douglass v. McDill, 1 Spear, 1.3!); Gibson v. Marshall, ,5 
 Rich. Eq. 254 ; Beaty v. Hearst, 1 McMull. 31 ; Payne, Dud. Eq. 124. 
 
 14 Singleton, 5 Dana, 87. 
 
 15 Pierson v. Hitchner, 25 N. J. Eq. 129 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 758. 
 
 § 300. Effect of eviction from dower. — When, after 
 dower has been assigned, the widow is evicted and 
 loses her dower, if the assignment were of common 
 right and she had received only wliat her legal rights 
 entitled Iter to,^ she may proceed for a new assignment 
 out of the remainder of the lands subject to dower,^ 
 just as if no assignment had been made.^ But it seems 
 that this rule does not apply as against the hiisband's 
 alienee at common law.* If the assignment were 
 again.st common right and she had agreed to take lands 
 in assignment instead of the lands she Avas legally 
 entitled to,' she liad no remedy if evicted.^ But mere 
 acquiescence in a defective assignment by the sheritr 
 is not an assignment against common right in this con-
 
 § 300 DOWER. 462 
 
 nectionJ This matter has been in maiiA' States the 
 subject of legislation. 8 
 
 1 Ante, I 285. 
 
 2 French v. Peters, 33 Me. 306 ; French r-. Pratt, 27 Me. 831 ; Mantz 
 V. Buchanan, 1 Md. Ch. 202 ; Scott v. Hancock, 13 Mass. 162, 168 ; 
 Jones V. Brewer, 1 Pick. 314, .SI"; Holloman, .5 Sniedes & M. 559; 
 St. Clair V. Williams, 7 Ohio, 110 ; 30 Am. Dec. 194 ; Park Dow. 275 ; 2 
 Scribner Dow. 761. 
 
 3 French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381, 3:)6, 397. 
 
 4 BecUngfleld, 9 Co. 17 6. ; Park Dow. 275 
 
 5 Ante, i 285. 
 
 6 French v. Pratt, 27 Me. 381, 396, 397 ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. 
 314, 317 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 764 ; Park Dow. 242. 
 
 7 Perk. ? 330 ; 2 Scribner Dow. 764 ; Park Dow. 292. 
 
 8 See Mass. P. S. 1882, p. 442 ; Vt. B.. S, 1880, i 2225 ; Wis. R. S. 1878. 
 i 2173.
 
 463 wife's estate. § 301 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 wife's estate in husbaxd's personalty. 
 
 5 301. Generally. 
 
 2 301. Wife's estate in husband's personalty, generally. 
 — In some States by statute a wife has dower in lease- 
 hold property and other personalty, but at common 
 law the wife has during coverture no right in her hus- 
 band's personalty,^ except her right to have inainten- 
 ance^ or alimony* out of it, in a proper case, and her 
 right to dispose of it if abandoned.^ He may give it 
 away and do witli it as he pleases if his act takes effect 
 during coverture.^ But in most States he cannot leave 
 it all away from her by will — she has her thirds.' 
 
 1 Ark. Dig. 1874, ? 2230 ; Mo. K. S. 1879, ? 2187 ; ante, ? 254. 
 
 2 Padfleld, 78 111. 16, 18 ; Hays v. Henry, 1 Md. Ch. 3.37, 340. 
 
 3 Discussed Stewart M. & D. § 179. 
 
 4 Discussed Stewart M. & D. ?? 383-397. 
 
 5 Eawson v. Spangler, 18 Cent. Law J. 29, 30 ; Iowa, 1883 ; ante, 
 
 ! 90. 
 
 Padaeld, 78 111. 16, 19 ; Stewart M. & D. ^ 462. 
 Discussed Stewart M. & D. § 462.
 
 §§ 302-303 ESTATES OF HUSBAXD AND WIFK. 464 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE IN PROPERTY OF BOTH 
 OF THEM. 
 
 i 302. Property owned by both before marriage. 
 
 I 303. Property vesting in them after marriage. 
 
 I 304. Tenancy by the entirety at common law — Creation of. 
 
 i ;J05. Tenancy by the entirety at common law — Property subject to. 
 
 'i 306. Tenancy by the entirety at common law — Incidents of. 
 
 J 307. Effect of statutes referring to joint estates. 
 
 i 303. Effect of married women's separate property acts. 
 
 J 303. Effect of divorce. 
 
 ? 310. Joint and common estates of husband and wife. 
 
 i 3U. Personal property belonging to both, 
 
 ^ 302. Estates of husband and wife in property owned by 
 them both before marraige. — When two tenants in com- 
 mon or two joint tenants many, the character of the 
 estate held bj^ them is not changed,' thongh each has 
 in the interest of the other the same estate as he or she 
 would if the otlier Avere a tenant in common or a joint 
 tenant with some third party instead of with him or 
 her.2 
 
 1 1 Wash. Real. Prop. •124 ; Moociv, Amb. ^49 ; Bevfne v. Cline, 2T 
 ind. 37; Chandler v. Chenov, 37 Ind. 3!)I ; Den v. Hardenberg^h, 10 
 N. J. L. 4-2, -ir, : 18 Am. Dec. 371 ; McDermolt v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78, 
 80 ; Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed, 69G. 
 
 2 Beeante,P/l-iS,ir>7,2a4. 
 
 I 303. Estates of husband and wife in property vesting- 
 in them both during coverture. — Husband and wife are 
 at common law one person,' so that when realt}'^ or 
 personalty^ vests in them both equally with a third 
 party, they together take but one share, a moietj^ 
 and the third party takes the other moiety.* That 
 moiety, or in case the Avhole property A'ests in them 
 alone, the whole, they take as one person ;5 "they take 
 but one estate as a corporation would take."^ In the
 
 465 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. g 303 
 
 case of realty they are seized, not per mi/ et per tout, as 
 joint tenants are J but simply pe?" tout ;^ both are seized, 
 of the whole, and eacli being thus seized of the en- 
 tirety, they are called tenants by the entirety, and the 
 estate is an estate by entireties.^ In the case of per- 
 sonalty there is strictly no tenancy by the entirety,'" 
 because personal property is not subject to estates at 
 common law," and the husband has the absolute right 
 to the wife's chattels,'- which right liis part ownership 
 of the chattels would not interfere with.'^ But entireties 
 are said to exist in chattels real, etc." In Ohio the 
 common-law estate by entii'eties has never been recog- 
 nized, but husband and wife are tenants in common or 
 joint tenants, according to the wording of the instru- 
 ment through which they hold;'^ so it is in Connec- 
 ticut.''' In Kentucky estates by entireties have been 
 expressly abolished by statute,'^ and though the gen- 
 eral rule is that such estates continue to exist unless 
 expressly abolished,'^ in some States they have been 
 held to be abolished by statutes referring to joint es- 
 tates,'^ and by married women's separate property 
 acts.^ In some States property vesting in husband 
 and wife after marriage is "community property," ^i 
 and they may also acquire a homestead in most 
 States.22 
 
 1 H.irciing v. Springer, 14 Me. -«T7, 408 ; ante, \ 39. 
 
 2 Sha-w f. Hearsay, 5 Mass. 521, 523 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 3 Bricker v. Whalley, 1 Vern. 233 ; ante, § 302 ; Infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 Litt. ? 2ni ; Bricker v. Whnllev, 1 Vern. 233 ; Back v. Andrews, 2 
 Vern. 120 ; Wvkle, 2 DeGex, M. & G. 724 ; Atclieson, 11 Beav. 485. 491 ; 
 IS Law J. N. S. Ch. 230; Gordon r. Whieldon, IS Law R. N. S. Ch. 5 : 
 
 11 Beav. 170; Doe ?'. Wilson, 4 Barn. A AUl. 303 ; Shaw r. Hearsav. 5 
 Mass. .521, 522 ; Den v. Tlardenhereh, 10 X. J. L. 42, 45 : IS Am. Dec. 371 : 
 Barher v. Harris, 15 Wend. fi15 ; .Tolmson r. Hart, 6 Watts <fe S. 31!) ; 
 40 Am. Dee. 585. Contra, Warrington, 2 Hare, .54 ; Paine v. Wagner, 
 
 12 Sim. 184. 
 
 5 Den v. Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. L. 42, 45 ; 18 Am. Dec. 371 ; infra, 
 n. 9. 
 
 6 Paul V. Campbell, 7 Yerg. 310; 27 Am. Dec. 508,
 
 g 303 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 466 
 
 7 Topping V. Sadler, 5 Jones, 357 ; post, ? 307. 
 
 8 2 Blackst. Com. 180-182. 
 
 9 See Bafk »'. Andrews, 2 Vern. 120 ; Prec. Ch. 1 ; Green v. King, 
 2 Blackst. liU ; Doe v. Parrott, 5 Term, 652 ; Doe r. Wilson, 4 Barn. & 
 Aid. 303 ; Shaver, 31 U. C. Q. B. 605 ; Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 103 U. S. 544 ; 
 Myers v. Reed, 17 Fed. Rep. 401 ; Robinson v. Eagle, 29 Ark. 202 ; 
 Boggs, 54 Ga. 95, 97 ; Maurler v. Saunders, 5 Gilni. 124 ; Lux v. Hoff. 47 
 111. 425, 428; Almond v. Bonnell, 76 111. 536; Cooper, 76 111. 57, 64 ; 
 Riggin V. Love, 72 111. 5.53 ; Hulelt v. Inlow, 57 Ind. 412; 26 Am. Rep. 
 64 ; Davis v. Clark. 26 Ind. 424 ; Anderson v. Tannerhill, 42 Ind. 141 : 
 Abshire v. State, 53 Ind. 64,66; Mc( onnell r. 5rartin,52 Ind. 434; Barnes 
 V. Lloyd, 37 Ind. 523; Carver •!•. Smith, 90 Ind. 215 ; Dodge v. Kinzey, 
 (Ind. 1SS4), 18 Cent. L. J. 173 ; Hoffman v. Stigers.28 Iowa, :«)2, 307 ; Elli- 
 ott V.Nichols, 4 Bush, 502, 503; Banton v. Campbell, 9 Mon. B. 587; 
 Cochrane r. Kerne ,'. 9 Bush, 199 ; Moore, 12 Mon. B. 651 ; Harding v. 
 Springer, 14 Me. 407,408; Greenlaw, 13 Me. 186; Fladung v. Rose, 58 
 Md. 13,24; Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402, 413; 33 Am. Rep. 266; Craft 
 V. Wilco.x, 4 Gill, 504 ; Brinton v. Hook, 3 Md. Ch. 477 ; Lowell, 22 Pick. 
 215, 221 ; Shaw r. Hearsav, 5 Mass. 521, 523 ; Kennedv, 119 Mass. 211 ; 
 Abbott, 97 Mass. i::6 ; Water v. Coffin, 13 Allen, 217; Fox r. Fletcher, 
 8 Mass. 274 ; Varnum v. Abbott. 12 Mass. 474, 479; Fisher i'. Rovin, 25 
 Mich. .W7 ; Jacobs v. Miller, 50 Mich. 119 ; Wart v. Bovee, 35 Mich. 425, 
 428 ; Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. 1 ; 2 Am. Rep. 5S6 ; Duff v. Bean- 
 champ, 50 Miss. .531 ; Allen 1'. Tate, 58 Miss. 5S5 ; Gilson v. Zimmerman, 
 12 Miss. 385 ; Hali i'. Stephens, ft5 Mo. 670 ; 27 Am. Rep. Pm ; Garner v. 
 Jones, 52 Mo. 68 ; Thornton v. Exchange. 71 Mo. 221 ; Wentworth v. 
 Remlck, 47 N. H. 226 : Carter v. Boals, 44 N. II. 407 ; Brown r. (Sale, 5 
 N. H. 416 ; Clark, 56 N. H. 105, 110 ; Lee r. Zabriskee, 28 N. J. Eq. 422, 
 428, notes ; 35 N. J. Eq. 135, i;!6, notes ; Bolles v. Trust, 27 N. J. Eq. .308 ; 
 Don V. Hardenborgh, 10 N. J. T,. 42, 45 ; 18 Am. Dee. 371 ; Den v. Gnrd- 
 nor, 20 N. J. L. .5-56, .562 ; Kipp, ;« N. J. Eq. 213; Thomas v. De Bauni, 
 14 N. J. Eq. 37, 40; McDermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78, SO ; Bertles 
 r. Noonan, 92 N. Y. 152 ; 44 Am. Rep. 361 ; Meeker v. Wright, 70 N. Y. 
 202 ; Wright 7-. S.adler, 20 N. Y. 320, 323 ; Torre v, 14 N. Y. 4:iO ; Farmers' 
 V. Mechanics', 4:» Barb. 162 ; Miller, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 444 ; Baker r. 
 Lamb, 18 N. V. Snpr. 519 ; Jones v. Potter, 89 N. C. 220, 222 ; McCurd v 
 V. Canning, ri Pa. St. 39, 40 ; French ?'. Neehan, .56 Pa. St. 286 ; Bates 
 V. Seelv, 46 Pa. Si. 248; Clark v. Thompson, 12 Pa. St. 274 ; Stuckev v. 
 Koefe, 26 Pa. St. .307 ; Gillan v. Dixon, 6.5 Pa. St. .395 ; Tnpper r. Fuller, 
 7 Rich. Eq. 170 ; Bomar i'. Mullins, 4 Rich. Eq. 80 ; Ames v. Norman, 
 4 Sneed, 692 ; Berrigan v. Fleming, 2 Lea, 271 ; "Taul r. Campl)ell, 7 
 Yerg. 319; 27 Am. Dec. 508; Thornton, 3 Rand. 179; Brownson v. 
 Hull, 16 Vt. 309 ; Ketchum v. Walsworth. 5 Wis. 95 ; Allie v. Schmetz, 
 17 Wis. 16) : B'^nn'-tt v. Child, 19 Wis. 364. Cases collected: 18 Cent. 
 L. J. 183, 236, 326 ; 28 N. J. Eq. 422, notes ; 35 N. J. Eq. 135, notes. 
 
 10 Wart V. Bovee, 35 Mich. 425, 428 ; post, ? 311. 
 
 11 Discussed ante, ? 136. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, §? 163-183 ; post, ? 311. 
 
 13 Atcheson, 11 Beav. 485, 491 ; Polk v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467, 468 ; jjo«<, 
 ?311. 
 
 14 2 Preston on Abstracts, 39 ; post, § 305. 
 
 15 Sergeant i\ Steinberger, 2 Ohio, 305 ; 15 .\m. Dec. 553 ; Wilson f. 
 Fleming, 13 Ohio, 68 ; Penn v. Cox, 16 Ohio, 30. 
 
 16 Whittlesey, U Conn. 340 ; Taylor i: Knapp, 25 Conn. 513. 
 
 17 Elliott V. Xlcholls, 4 Bush, .502, 503. 
 
 18 Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402, 413 ; 33 Am. Rep. 266 : post, ? COS.
 
 467 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AXD WIFE. § 304 
 
 19 Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, S02, 307 ; post, I 307. 
 
 20 Clark, 58 N. H. 105, 110 ; posf, 303. 
 
 21 Discussed i50.s<, ?§ 312, 313. 
 
 23 Barber ?>. Bahel, 36 Cal. 16; Chase v. Abbott, 20 Iowa, 151. Dis- 
 cussed i)o.s«, II 320-330. 
 
 I 304. Tenancy by entireties, creation of. — Estates by 
 entireties may be created by will,^ by instrument of 
 gift or purchase,^ and even by inheritance ;3 nor need 
 the man and woman be husband and wife at the time 
 the instrument is executed or the descent is cast, if 
 only they be married at tlie time the estate vests.* 
 There is no question but that words vesting the prop- 
 erty in husband and wife without qualification and 
 without even referring to them as husband and wife,^ 
 create an estate by entireties;^ but though it is con- 
 stantly said the same words which would vest an 
 estate in common or a joint estate in other persons vest 
 an entirety in the husband and wife,' and that a deed 
 to them as joint tenants,^ or as tenants in common,^ is 
 simply a solecism, their relation preventing any estate 
 but one by entirety arising in them,!" it is acknowl- 
 edged that they may hold property vesting in them 
 before marriage as tenants in common, etc.;" and the 
 prevailing view is that, especially under modern stat- 
 utes, they may, by express words, be made joint ten- 
 ants or tenants in common. i- And there are cases 
 where the husband is joined with the wife simply as 
 trustee," or where one of the parties has some special 
 estate inconsistent with a tenancy by entireties i* in 
 which this estate does not exist. If two persons are 
 described as husband and wife, an estate by entireties 
 is created whether they are validly married or not.i» 
 
 1 1 Preston Estates, 131. 
 
 2 2 Blackst. Com. 1S2. 
 
 3 Gillan v. Dixon, 6o Pa. St. 39.5.
 
 §§ 305-306 ESTATES OP HUSBAND AXD WIFE. '1G8 
 
 4 See Jickling, Legal & Eq. Estates, 252 ; Nicholls, Vin. Ahr, 
 Baron et Feme ; Co. Litt. 187 ; Plowd. Comm. 4S3 ; Freeman on Co- 
 tenancy, J 63. 
 
 5 Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. 577. 
 
 6 Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402, 412; 33 Am. Itep. 2G6 ; Hamm i'. 
 Meisenhelter, 9 Watts, 350 ; ante, 'i 303, n. i). 
 
 7 Den r. Hardenbergh, 10 X. J. L. 42, 45 ; IS Am. Dec. 371. See 
 Green v. Kmg, 2 Black, W. 1213; Doe v. Purrott, 5 Term Rep. 6-52; 
 Farmers v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 155 ; Goelet v. Gori, 31 Barb. 314 ; .Stueky 
 V. Keefe, 26 Pa. St.'3J7 ; Martin v. Jackson, 26 Pa. St. 504 ; ante, { 303, 
 n. 9. 
 
 8 Pollock V. Kelley, fi I. R. C. L. ?67. 
 
 9 Brun i-. Glover, 1 IToX Ch. 71. 
 
 10 See Clark, 56 N. H. lOr,, 110 ; post, i 30S. 
 
 It Den i\ Hardenbergh, 10 X. J. I.. 42, 4> ; 13 Am. Dec. 371 ante, 
 I 302 ; post, i 310. 
 
 12 Fladung v. Rose, 53 Md. 13, 22-25 • j^ost, i 310. 
 
 13 See Moore, 12 Mon. B.. 634 ; Babbitt v. Scroggin, 1 Duval, 27:5 ; 
 ante, ? 132. 
 
 14 See Edwards v. Beall, 75 Ind. 401. 
 
 15 Jacobs V. Miller, 50 Mich. 119, 125. 
 
 ^ 305. Tenancy by entirety at common law — Property 
 Bubjoct to. — A tenanc}' b}^ entireties may exist in an 
 estate " in fee, in tail, for life,^ or for years, or other 
 chattels real."'^ It may exist in an estate in posses- 
 sion, remainder, or reversion;^ in legal or equitable 
 estates ; * in a customary estate ; » in a copyhold estate ; ^ 
 and in incorporeal as well as corporeal property,^ 
 Properly speaking, personaltj' cannot be held by the 
 entirety .8 
 
 1 Jones V. Potter, 89 X. C. 220, 222. 
 
 2 2 Preston on Abstracts, 31 ; Wiscot, 2 Co. 6Q; 5 Bac. Abr. 244 ; 
 Dovvniiig v. .Seymour, Cro. Eliz. yi2. 
 
 3 Purefoy v. Rogers, 2 Saund. 3S2. 
 
 4 See Korman v. Cunningham, 5 Gratt. 70. 
 
 5 Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves. I'Jo. 
 
 6 Doe V. Parrott, 5 Term. Rep. 052. 
 
 7 See Kingdom r. Bridges, 2 Vern. 56. 
 
 8 Abshire v. State, 53 Ind. 64, 6S ; post, i 311. 
 
 § 306. Estates by entireties — Incidents of. — The essen- 
 tial characteristics of estates by entireties are : each 
 tenant is seized of the whole ; ^ the estate is inseverable
 
 469 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AXD WIFE. § 306 
 
 — cannot be partitioned ; - neither husband nor wife can 
 alone affect the inheritanc3 — the survivor's right to the 
 whole ; ^ the alienation by one of the tenants does not 
 change the nature of the estate, as with joint estates;* 
 on the death of either, the other has the whole estate,^ 
 continuing alone his or her former holding, and not 
 taking by survivorship in the sense that a surviving 
 joint tenant does ;^ on absolute divorce they become 
 tenants in common or joint tenants ;'' both may assign 
 the inheritance absolutely or by way or mortgage,* 
 although in Indiana, under a statute forbidding con- 
 tracts of married women as sureties, a mortgage of the 
 estate for a debt of the husband was held void as to the 
 wife ;^ they may divide it by consent,'" and sometimes 
 statutes expressl}'' authorize partition i^roceedings." 
 During coverture, the husband has at common law his 
 estate jure uxoris,'^'^ with the right to the rents and pro- 
 fits ; 13 he holds the property subject to his control, use, 
 and possession ; '* only this estate for their joint lives 
 can be aliened by him,'^ or taken for his debts,'* or 
 charged by him with a mechanic's lien.'' This estate 
 of the husband during coverture has probably been 
 abolished by separate property acts, even where these 
 acts are held not to destroy estates by entireties.'^ If 
 husband conveys and survives he is bound.'* 
 
 1 Bertles v. Noonan, 92 N. Y. lo2, 15G ; 44 Am. Rep. 361 ; ante, 
 J SOS. 
 
 2 MoCurdy v. Canning, 6 Pa. St. 3n, 40. S. P., Baggs, 54 Ga. 95, 97 ; 
 Chandler v Chenev, 37 Inrt. 391 ; Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302 ; 
 Elliott V. Nichols, 4 Bush, .502, .505 ; Marburg v. Cole, 49 Md. 402, 4U : 
 33 Am. Rep. 26fi ; Frizzle r Bozier, 19 Mo. 408; Den r. Hardenbergh, 
 10 N. J. L. 42, 45 ; 18 Am. Dec. 371 ; D.'ii r. Gardner, 20 N. J. L. o.56, 562 ; 
 Moore, 47 X. Y. 4P8 ; 7 Am. Rep. 400; Miller, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 443; 
 Thornton, 3 Rand. 179 ; Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 30.5. 
 
 3 Hemingway )'. Scales, 46 Miss. 1, 17 ; 2 Am. Rep. .586 ; Den v. 
 Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. I.. 42,45; 18 Ami Dec. .^71; McUermott v. 
 French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78, SO ; Farmers r. Gregory, 49 Barb. 1.55, 162 ; 
 Dias c. Glover, 1 Hoff". Ch. 71, 70 ; Torrey, 14 N. Y. 4:», 432 ; Bennett 
 V. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 365. 
 
 4 Shaw V. Hearsaj', 5 Mass. 521, 522 
 
 H. & W. — 40.
 
 § 337 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AXD WIFE. 4T0 
 
 5 Marbourg v. Cole, 49 Mel. 402, 411 ; 33 Am. Rpp. 26fi. S. P., Mvers 
 V. Reed, 17 Fed. Rep. 401, 403 ; McDermott i'. French, 15 X. J. Eq. TS, 
 80; Den v. Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. L. 42, 46 ; 18 Am. Rep. :i71 ; Dias v. 
 Glover, 1 Hoff. Ch. 71, 76 ; Bertles v. Nooiian, 92 N. Y. 152, 156 ; 44 Am. 
 Rep. 361 ; French v. aiehan, 56 Pa. St. 286, 28<J. 
 
 6 Washburn v. Burns, 34 X. J. T>. IS, 10, 20. .S. P., 2 Blackst. Com. 
 182 ; Hoffman v. Stigers, 2S Iowa, 302, 306 ; sujyra, n. 5. 
 
 7 Discussed post, ? 300. 
 
 8 McDuff ?'. Beaucbamp, 50 Miss, sr.l, o-ie ; Thomas v. DeBaum, 14 
 N. J. Eq. 37, 40. 
 
 9 Dodge I'. Kinzy (Ind. 1S*^), 18 Cent. L. J. 173, 2:». 
 
 10 Washburn v. Burns, 34 X. J, L,. 18, 13. 
 
 11 Bertles v. Xooaan, 92 X. Y, 152, J60 ; 44 Am. Rep. 361. 
 
 12 Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. I, 16; 2 Am. Rep. 5S6; Hall v. 
 Stephens, 65 :Mo. 670, 679; 27 Am. Rep. 302; Washburn v. Burns, 34 
 N. J. L. 18, 20 ; Farmers v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 1.5.5, 1G2 ; Bertles v. 
 Noonau, 92 X. Y. 152, 156 ; 44 Am. Hep. 861 [ Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 
 362, 365 ; ante, U 146-150. 
 
 13 Farmers i\ Gregory, 49 Barb. 155, 163 ! tupra, n. 12. 
 
 14 Bertles v. Noonan, 92 N. Y. 152, 156 j 44 Am. Rep. 361 ; gup rn 
 n. 12. 
 
 16 Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 36.5. Bee Whedon v. Gorham, 30 
 Conn. 408 ; Almond v. Bonnell, 76 111, 6;>i ; Chandler r. Cheney, 37 
 Ind. 391 ; Davis v. Clark, 26 Ind. 424 ; McTighe v. Bringhoff, 42 Iowa, 
 455; Cochran i'. Kernev, 9 Bush, 199: (ianier v. Jones, 52 Ho. 68; 
 Brown r. Gale, 5 X. H. 416 ; Carter v. Reals, 44 N. II. 407 ; Thomas v. 
 Deliaum, 14 X. J. Eq. 37, 40 ; Jackson v. McConnell, 19 Wend. 175, 178 ; 
 Gentry v. Wagstair, 3 Dev. 270 ; Stoebler v. Knerr, 5 Watts, 181 ; 
 French r. Mehan, 56 Pa. St. 286 ; Ames v. Xorman, 4 Sneed, 683, 697 ; 
 Roanes v. Archer, 4 Leigh, 550 ; Brownson v. Hill, 16 Vt. 309 ; Howe 
 V. Blanden, 21 Vt. 315 ; liennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362. 
 
 17 Washburn v. Burns, 34 X. J. L. 18, 20. 
 
 18 McClurg V. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 39, 41 ; post, i 308, 
 
 19 Kip, 33 X. J. Eq. 213, 216. S. P., Wales v. CofHn, 13 Allen, 213 ; 
 Shroyer r. Wickell, 55 Mo. 264; Berrigan v, Fleming, 2 Lea, 271, 
 275. 
 
 15 Den v. Gardner, 20 X. J. L. 556, 560 ; aupra, n. 12 ; infra, n. 19. 
 
 ^ 307. Effect of statutes referring to joint tenancies upon 
 tenancies by entireties. — Statutes providing tliat a deed 
 to one or more persons shall not, as it did at common 
 law, create a joint tenancy, but sliall create a tenancy 
 in common, unless it expressly creates a different one, 
 have no application to tenancies by entireties, ^ because 
 husband and wife are one person, ^ because a joint es- 
 tate is not an estate by the entirety,^ and because a 
 general act will not modify the special law of husband
 
 471 ESTATKS OF HUSUAXD AND WIFE. § 308 
 
 and wife unless it expressly so provides.* In a few 
 States a contrary rule prevails.^ 
 
 1 Robinson v. Eaarle, 11 Ark. 202, 20f; ; Arnold, 30 Ind. 305, 306; 
 Lowell, 22 Pink. 215. 221 ; Saaw r. Hearsay, .5 ;\Iass. 521, 52.'{; Fladung 
 V. Rose, 58 Md. 13, 20; Marburg v. Colo, -10 Md. -102, 412; 33 Am. Rep. 
 266; McDuff V. Beauchamp, 50 Miss. 531, 5"5; Heniingwav v. Scales, 
 42 Miss. 1, 17; 2 Am. Rep. .536; Den v. Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. Eq. 42, 
 47 ; 18 Am. Dec. 371 ; Thomas v. DcBaum, 1-t N. J. Eq. 37, 40 ; MnDer- 
 mottii. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 7^ 80; Wright v. Saddler, 2i> N. Y..320, 
 323; Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johns. 110, li.i, 116 ; Jackson v. Carey, 16 
 Johns. 301, ;505 ; McCurdy v. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 30, 40. 
 
 2 Shaw V. Hearsay, 5 Mass. 521, 523 ; ante, ?§ 39, 303. 
 
 3 Den v. Hardenbergh, 10 N. J. L. 42, 45, 48 ; 18 Am. Dec. 371 ; ante, 
 i 304. 
 
 4 Hemingway v. Scales, 42 Miss. 1, 17 ; 2 Am. Rep. 536; ante, ? 13. 
 
 5 Walthall v. Goree, 36 Ala. 723 ; HolTman r. Stigers, 23 Iowa, 302, 
 ."07 ; Clark, 56 N. H. 105, 110. Consult post, i 308. 
 
 g 308. Effaot of married women's separate property acts 
 on estates by entireties. — It is a general rule that married 
 women's separate property acts do not affect the rela- 
 tion and unity of husband and wife except so far as 
 they expressly refer thereto or as is necessary to ren- 
 der them efficient ;' and since estates by entireties are 
 not injurious to married women, or within the scope of 
 these acts,^ it is in accordance with this rule and the 
 better view, that it is held in the United States court 
 for the district of Oregon, etc., in Arl^ansars, Indiana, 
 Mainland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Now York, 
 Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and elsewhere, that these 
 separate property acts do not destroy estates by entire- 
 ties.^ But in England, Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, and 
 New Hampshire, it is on the other hand hold that es- 
 tates by entireties depend on the unity of liusband and 
 wife, and that the separate property acts have destroyed 
 this unit J' as far as property is concerned, and that with 
 the existence of this unity estaters by entireties have 
 cfeased to exist,* and husband and wife hold property 
 vesting in them both as tenants in common or as joint 
 tenants,^ with the same rights in their respective inter-
 
 I 308 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AXD WIFE. 472 
 
 ests of each other as they would have if such other were 
 co-tenant with a stranger.^ Tliese statvites are prospect- 
 ively construed,' and affect only such property as is 
 situate in the State where they have been passed.^ 
 Where it is , settled that separate property acts do not 
 destroy estate':! b;,' entireties with their essential inci- 
 dents of inseverableness and survivorship, how far 
 they affect the husband's riglits over such estates dur- 
 ing coverture is a different question.^ For the hus- 
 band's right to the rents and profits during coverture, 
 and to assign them for the period of his life, and the 
 liability of the rents and profits of his debts, are not 
 essential incidents of the estate by entireties,^" but are 
 incidents of the husband's estate in liis Avife's propertj^ 
 Jure uxoris during coverture ; '' and as this latter estate 
 is no doubt destroyed by separate property acts,'"-' and 
 the wife is secured in lier propei'ty acquii'ed by grant, 
 etc.," it would seem that the husband's control of the 
 estate by entireties is destroj'-ed ; '* that the husband 
 and wife have each the right to all the rents and jn-o- 
 fits ; '5 that only |iy agreement can tliere be an appor- 
 tionment;'*' and that the rents and profits can be 
 assigned during coverture onh^ by their joint act,"^ and 
 are liable during coverture only for the joint debts of 
 husband and wi.'o,'* and after the dissolution of the 
 marriage only for tlie debts of the survivor.'" But 
 these questions are surrounded witli difficulty and ha\o 
 not often been the subject of judicial determination. 
 
 1 Bertles v. Jfoonan, 02 N. Y. I.'i2, 157, 165 ; 44 Am. Rep. SGI ; nnfe, 
 iU. 
 
 2 Diver, 56 Pa. St. lOf!, 100. 
 
 3 Mvers v. Ree<1, 17 Fofl. R^p. 401, 402, 40^ ; Robinson r. Eag-Ic. 21 
 Ark. 202, 207 ; Carver i\ Smith, !)0 Itul. 222, 225 ; Hnlett v. Iiilow, 57 
 Incl. 412, 414; 2f. Am. Rep. C4, <w : Cliaiullcr v. C'heenev, 37 IikI. 301, 
 414; Marhoiirg v. Cole, 49 Mtl. 4fr2, 4i;{ ; 3:t .-Vm. Rep. 2G(i; FlacUing r. 
 Rose, 5s :\i.i. Hi, 24 ; Fisher ?•. Perriii. 2.5 Mich. M7, :V>i ; Duff r. Be.tu- 
 c'lunip, 50 ."Miss. 531, .535 ; Hnll ?•. .Stephens, 05 Mo. 670, 681 ; 27 Am. Rep. 
 f02 ; Bertles v. Noonan, 02 N. V. 152, 15S ; 44 Am. Rep. 361 ; Mntteson 
 V. N. Y. Ceiitrai, 02 Barh. 373 ; Farmers v. Gregory, 49 Barb. 155, 1G2 ;
 
 473 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. ?§ 309-310 
 
 Goelet V. Gori, 31 Barb. 314, 319; Beach ■;'. Hollister, 3 Hun, 519; 
 Feeley v. Buckle, 28 Hun, 451 ; Wood v. Conin, 54 How. Pr. 95, 96 ; 
 McCurdv V. Canning, fi4 Pa. St. 39, 41; Diver, 56 Pa. St. 106, 109; 
 French v. Mahan, 56 Pa. St. 2^9 ; Bates v. Seelev, 46 Pa. St. 248, 249 ; 
 Bennett v. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 365, 366 ; 1 Bish. M. W. 438. See 18 Cent. 
 h. J. .326. 
 
 4 Mander v. Harris, Law E. 24 Ch. D:v. 222. 227, 230 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 fiSO ; Walthall v. Goree, 36 Ala. 728 ; Cooper, 70 til. 57, 64 ; Hoffman v. 
 Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302, 307 ; Ciark, 66 N. H. 105, 110. See 18 Cent. X,. J. 
 326. 
 
 5 Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302, 307 ; supra, n. 4. 
 
 6 Cooper, 76 111. 57, 64 ; sxipra, n. 4 ; post, § 310. 
 
 7 Myers ?'. Reed, 17 Fed. Rep. 401, 403 ; Elliott v. Nichols, 4 Bush, 
 502, 503 ; wUe, I 20. 
 
 8 Myers v. Reed, 17 Fed. Rep. 401, 404 ; ante, ?? 33, 248. 
 
 9 Bertles v. Noonan, 92 N. Y. 152, 159, 164 ; 44 Am. Rep. 3fil. 
 
 10 See ante, ? 306. 
 
 11 Discussed o!!<e, ?? 146-150. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, § 150. 
 
 13 Discussed ante, i'i 217-243. 
 
 14 MrCurdy v. Canning, 64 Pa. St. 39, 40. But see Hall r. Stephens, 
 r,.i 3Io. 670, 67.S-681 ; 27 Am. Rep. 302. 
 
 15 See Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 222, 227. 
 
 16 See Atcheson, 11 Beav. 48.5, 491 ; Washburn v. Burns, 34 X. J. L. 
 18, 19 ; witc. i 30b. 
 
 17 See Bertles v. Noonan, 92 N. Y. 1.52, 1.56, 1.59, 164 ; 44 Am. Rep. 361, 
 
 18 But see Goelet v. Gori. 31 Barb. 314, 319. 
 
 19 See Pringlev. Allen, 1 Hill Ch. 1.3.5. 
 
 g 309. EiFect of divorce on estates by entirotios. — A 
 divorce a vinculo matrimonii renders husband and wife 
 tenants in common in their estates by entireties/ ex- 
 cept, it seems, as against a purchaser before the di- 
 vorce ; - but if the property be conveyed to them ex- 
 pressly as joint tenants, even though they should be 
 deemed to liold it during coverture as tenants by en- 
 tireties, in ca.se of divorce tliey liold it as joint tenants 
 still.3 
 
 1 Discussed Stewart M. & D. 1 441. 
 
 2 Ames v. Norman, 4 Sneed, 683, 692, 
 
 3 Lash, 68 Ind. 52R, 528. 
 
 § 310. Joint and common estates of husband and wife. — 
 If joint tenants or tenants in common marry, they con-
 
 g 311 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. 474 
 
 tiniie joint tenants or tenants in common. i If a hus- 
 band or wife is a joint tenant or a tenant in common 
 with a third party, and tliat tliird party conveys his 
 interest in the common or joint estate to the husband 
 or wife of his co-tenant, tlie husband and wife become 
 tenants in common.^ And in the case of devises and 
 conveyances to husband and wife together, though it 
 has been said tliat they can take only as tenants by the 
 entirety,^ the prevailing rule is, that if the instrument 
 expressly so i^rovides, they may take as joint tenants 
 or as tenants in common ; * the married women's sep- 
 arate property acts, even when they do not destroj^ 
 tenancies by entireties,^ give the wife the capacity to 
 take as a separate person.^ So under statutes, husband 
 and wife may be tenants in common or joint tenants.^ 
 In all cases where husband and wife are joint tenants 
 or tenants in common, each has in the interest or 
 estate of the other tlie same marriage rights as he Oi 
 she would have if such other were co-tenant with some 
 third party .8 
 
 1 MeDermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78, 80. 
 
 2 Moore, 47 N. Y. 467 ; 7 Am. Rep. 466. 
 
 3 Brun v. Cover, 1 Hoff. Ch. 71, 76. See Pollock v. Kellv, fi Ir. 
 C. L. S67 ; Green r. King, 2 Black. W. 121 ; Barber »'. Harris, lo Wend. 
 617; Jackson t. Stevens, 16 Johns. 115; Rogers v. Benson, 5 Johns. 
 Ch. 479 ; Stiickey v. Keefe, 26 Pa. St. 397. 
 
 4 Fladnng r. Rose, 51 Md. 13, 22-2.\ See 4 Kent Com. 363 : Preston 
 on Estates, 131, 132; Chandler v. Cheney, 37 Ind. 391 ; HofTnian r. 
 Stivers, 28 Iowa, 302,310; Marbours v. Cole, 49 Md. 402,412; 33 Am. 
 Rep. 263 ; MeDermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 7S, 81 ; Hicks v. Coch- 
 ran, 4 Edw. Ch. 107. 
 
 5 Discussed ante, ? 308. 
 
 6 Fladnng v. Rose, 58 Md. 13, 24. 
 
 7 HofTman v. Stigers, 28 Iowa, 302, .307. 
 
 8 Den v. Hardenbergh, 10 X. J. U 42 ; 18 Am. Dec. 371. 
 
 § 311. Rights of husband and wife in personalty belong- 
 ing to them both. — Personal property could never have 
 been said to have been lield by entireties, ^ for at com- 
 mon law any personalty of the wife belonged to her
 
 475 ESTATES OP nUSBAMD AND WIFE. § 311 
 
 husband if he reduced it to his possession during cov- 
 erture,2 and there is no reason why this should not 
 apply to property in which he is jjartly interested. 
 And yet a bequest to husband and wife and a third 
 party equally, gave husband and Avife only one share, 
 a moiety; ^ and any chose in action standing in their 
 joint names went absolutely to the survivor.^ Even 
 now, as at common law, unless some special circum- 
 stances manifesting a different intent are shown to de- 
 feat the right,* the surviving husband or wife takes the 
 whole of a joint promissory note,^ no matter who paid 
 the consideration therefor^ (unless, of course, creditors 
 are affected) ; ^ so of a bond ; ^ or a fund standing in 
 their joint names ; i" or a joint deposit ; ^^ unless the 
 presumption of an intended gift or equal interest is re- 
 butted ; ^^ or joint naortgage ; ^^ or stock standing in their 
 joint names ; " or joint judgment, '^ recognizance,'^ de- 
 3ree,'^ or joint interest in the property of their deceased 
 child.'^ But under married women seprxate property 
 acts, the husband has no longer the right during cov- 
 erture to use up or reduce to his own possession and 
 ownership the personalty of his wife ; ^^ though it has 
 been said that separate property acts do not apply to 
 property held bj'^both ; ^^ so, he can not alone release an 
 obligation to them botli.^i If they jointly make an in- 
 vestment, they are tenants in common thereof,^'^ either 
 equally,'^ or to the extent to which they have each con- 
 tributed,^' and there is no survivorship ; ^^ but if by 
 their joint efforts they increase the separate property of 
 the wife, such increase belongs to her alone.^ When 
 an income is settled on them jointly, she has during 
 coverture the right to a share thereof,^' and if need be, 
 as in the case of a separation, a court of equity will 
 apportion it.'^^ At common law, the interest during 
 coverture in a joint fund, etc., was not affected even by
 
 2 811 ESTATES OF H;US3A>'D axd -svife. 476 
 
 divorce.^ An assignment by the husband of the Avhole 
 joint chose in action during coverture passes a good 
 title if he survives his Avife.^" The usual question in 
 the case of joint investments, etc., is one of the intention 
 of the parties.^! Husband and wife are liable jointly 
 for the obligations of their property .^^ 
 
 1 Abshiro i: State, 53 Ind. &4, 66 ; Wait v. Bovee, Jo Mich. 425, -128 ; 
 Polk V. Allen, 19 Mo. 467, 46S. 
 
 2 Polk !'. Allen, 19 Mo. 467, 46S ; ante, 55 IB-VIS.'?. 
 
 3 ■ Atcheson, 11 Beav. 4So, 4S8 ; Bricker v. Whallev, 1 Vern. 2M ; 
 Atty.-Gen. v. Backus, 9 Price, 30 ; 11 Price, .>17 ; Atty.-Gen. v. 
 Burney, 3 Younge & J. 531 ; ante, ? 303. 
 
 4 Abshire v. State, 53 Ind. 64. fiS ; Pender v. Bicken, 27 Miss. 2.52 ; 
 Sandford, 45 X. Y. 723, 726 ; Hill r. Saunders, 7 Serg. *; R. 17 ; Rich- 
 ardson V. Daggett, 4 Vt. 3.36, 344 ; ante, H 128, 123, 231 ; infra, notes 6-18. 
 
 5 See Shields v. Stillman, 48 Mo. 82, 86 ; Marshall v. Cnitwell, 
 Law R. 20 Eq. 328, 339. See infra, notes 22-26. 
 
 6 Abshire v. State, 53 Ind. 64, 68 ; Draper r. Jackson, 16 Mass. 480, 
 486 ; Work V. Glaskins, 33 Miss. 539, 513 ; Shields v. Stilluian, 48 Mo. 
 82, 86 ; Sandford, 45 X. Y. 723, 726 ; Scott v. Simes, 10 Bosw. 314 ; John- 
 son t'. Lusk, 6 Cold. 113, 119; McMillan v. M;ison, 5 Cold. 263; Rich- 
 ardson V. Daggett, 4 Vt. 3:56, Mi ; Richard.son i . Slade, 30 Vt. 191. 
 
 7 Abshire v. State, 53 Ind. M, 6.8; Sandford, 45 X. Y. 723, 726; 
 supra, n. 6. Presumedly paid by him: Work v. Glaskins, 33 Miss. 
 53J, 513 ; ante, i 119. 
 
 8 Johnson v. Lusk, 6 Cold. 113, 119 ; ante, 5? 113-118. 
 
 9 Coppin, 2 P. Wms. 497 ; Dunstan v. Burwell, 1 Wils. 224 ; Lapri- 
 mandage v. Teissier. 12 Beav. 206; Pike v. Collins, 33 Me. 38, 43; 
 Briggs V. Beach, 18 Vt. 11.5, 118. 
 
 10 Batstone v. Salter, Law R. 10 Ch. 431, 4.33. 
 
 11 Orphan v. Strain, 2 Bradf. .^1 ; ante.. ? 128. 
 
 12 Marshall i'. Crutwell, Law R. 20 Eq. 328, 330. 
 
 13 Deare v. Carr, 3 X. J. Eq. 313, 317. 
 
 14 Dummer v. Pitcher, 5 Sim. 35, 43 ; Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. 76. 
 
 15 Oglander V. Baston, 1 Vern. 316: Deare v. Carr, 3 X. J. Eq. 513, 
 516 ; Schoonmaker v. Elmeudorf, 10 Johns. 49. 
 
 16 Lodge V. Hamilton, 2 Serg. & R. 49L 
 
 17 Adams r. Lavender, McClel. & Y. 41, 57. 
 
 18 Frankenfeld v. Gruver, 7 Pa. St. 448. 
 
 19 Discussed ante, U 165, 170, 176. 
 
 20 Goelet v. Gori, 31 Barb. 314, 319 ; ante, 5? 231, .308. 
 
 21 Trimble v. Rels, 37 Pa. St. 44S; MoKinney v. Hamilton, 51 Pa. 
 St. 63, 65. 
 
 22 Chambovet v. Cogney, 35 X. Y. Super. 474, 486 ; Wait v. Bovee, 
 35 Mich. 425, 429. 
 
 23 Wait I'. Bovee, 35 ilich. 425, 428. 
 
 24 McTighe r. Briaghofif, 42 Iowa, 4m, 458.
 
 477 ESTATES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. g^-J. 
 
 25 Wait V. Bovec, 35 ilich. -iZo, 423. 
 
 26 Norton v. Craig, &S Me. 275, 276 ; ante, ?§ 87, 203, 227. 
 
 27 Lee V. Zabriskie, 28 X. J. Eq. -122, -123, 429. 
 
 2s See Atcheson, II Beav. -ISS, 488, 491 ; Lee v. Zabriskie, 2S N. J 
 Eq. 422, 428, 429. 
 
 23 Bullonk V. Zillev, 1 N. J. Eq. 489, 493; Vreeland r. Kyno, 26 
 N. J. Eq. 160 ; 27 N. J. Eq. 522 ; Beach v. Hollister, 5 Thomp. & C. 
 5")^ ; S Hun, 519 ; Ames r. Norman, 4 Sneecl, 6S3 ; McCollum, 1 Heisk. 
 665; Stewart M. & D. 441. 
 
 30 Slavmaker v. Genvsbursr, 10 Pa. St. 373, 376. See Knimbaar -J. 
 Burt, 2 Wash. C. C. 406 ; Outcalt c. Van Winkle, 2 N. J. Eq. 5i:!. 
 
 31 Consult Traxsaotioxs Bktwkex Husb-axd and Wife, ante. 
 
 S2 Keinian v. Hamilton, 111 Mass. 245, 247.
 
 g 312 COMMUNITY .^ROPEKTT. 478 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 COMMUNITY PROPERTY. 
 
 i 312. Characteristics, origin, and history of community system. 
 
 J 313. Statutes relating to community property. 
 
 J 314. What is and is not community property. 
 
 i 315. Rights of liusband during coverture over. 
 
 1 316. Rights of wife during coverture over. 
 
 2 317. Rights of creditors of husband and wife over. 
 g 318. Disposition of, on divorce or death. 
 
 J 319. Conflict of laws a.s to. 
 
 § 312. Charact9ristics, origin, and Mstory of community 
 system. — The central idea of the coiiiui unity system is 
 that marriage creates a partnershiiJ in property between 
 husband and wife, and that all property resulting from 
 the labor of both or either of them, and all property 
 vesting in them or either of them, except by gift, devise, 
 bequest, or descent, enures to the benefit of both of 
 them ; ^ and though community property has not all 
 the incidents of partnership property, it has many of 
 them, and is commonly spoken of as partnership prop- 
 erty.* This system belongs to the civil law and not to 
 the common law,^ it prevailed in France,* Spain,^ and 
 Mexico,® and was brought into those States ^rhich were 
 colonized from these countries ; ® it now exists under 
 statutes in California,^ Louisiana, Nevada, Texas,^ and 
 Idaho ; ' and it formerly existed in Missouri, i" 
 
 1 See discussions, po«<, U 314-318. 
 
 2 Buchanan, S Cal. 507, 503 ; La. Civ. Code 1875, J 2399 ; Wilkinson, 
 20 Tex. 242, 244 ; Cartwright v. Hollis, 5 Tex. 163. 
 
 3 See Cartwright, 18 Tex. 628 ; 1 Burge Col. & For. Laws, 202, 263, 
 et seq., 277, et seq. ; ante, i 7. 
 
 4 LeBreton i'. Miles, 8 Paige, 261, 266-269. 
 
 5 Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 CaL 247, 251 ; Childress v. Cutler, 16 Mo. 
 24, 41. 
 
 6 Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, 510 ; Fuller v. Furguson, 26 Cal. 546. 
 
 7 Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, 510 ; Childress v. Cutler, 16 Mo. 24, 41.
 
 479 COMMUNITV PROPKRTY. § 313 
 
 S See statutes, post, I 313. 
 Ray, 1 Idaho, X. S. 5G6. 
 10 Childress v. Cutler, 18 Mo. 24, ■». 
 
 § 313. Statutes relating to community property. — In 
 California by statute a husband and wife may hold 
 property as joint tenants, tenants in common, or as 
 community property .^ All property of the husband or 
 wife, owned by him or her respectively before mar- 
 riage, and that acquired after marriage by gift, bequest, 
 devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits 
 thereof, is respectively his or her separate property; 
 all other property acquired after marriage, by either 
 husband or wife, or botli, is community property.'' 
 The husband has the management and control of the 
 community projierty, with the like absolute power of 
 disposition (other than testamentary) as he has of his 
 separate property.* When alimony is allowed the 
 wife, resort must be had first to the community.* 
 When the husband and wife are divorced, the com- 
 munity is distributed in different ways depending on 
 the grounds for the divorce and the respective inno- 
 cence and guilt of the parties.^ The wife cannot dis- 
 pose of the community or any part thereof, except 
 such as has been awarded her as alimony, by will, but 
 the husband succeeds to the whole of it without admin- 
 istration;^ the husband can disjjose of half of it by 
 will, and the whole of it is subject to his debts, the bal- 
 ance goes to the wife,^ The statutory provisions in 
 Nevada* ani Texas* are almost identical with those of 
 California. But the provisions of the Louisiana Civil 
 Code are somewhat different. This Code i^rovides, that 
 by marriage a community or partnershij) of acquets or 
 gains is created,'" to which belong all the profits of all 
 the effects of which the husband has control, all i)ro- 
 ducts of joint labor, all estates acquired during cover-
 
 g 314 COMMUNITY PROPERTY. 480 
 
 tiire, all the fruits and increase of separate property or 
 labor/^ but not such increase in value of separate prop- 
 erty as is due to extrinsic causes ; '•' and which is sub- 
 ject to all the debts of husband and wife during 
 coverture; ^3 provided that the wife may escape tlie 
 liabilities of the partnershii) by renouncing the benefits 
 thereof ; '^ and after the death of one of the parties, the 
 net community is divided between the survivor and 
 the heirs of the deceased.'^ These statutes are to a 
 great extent deciaratoiy of previously existing law,'* 
 and are construed alike in these several States.'' 
 These statutes take efFoct only in the absence of agree- 
 ment between the parties, as these may establish their 
 property rights by contract. '^ 
 
 1 Hart's Cat. Civ. Code, 1331, ? 181 ; Mario w v. Barlew, 53 Cal. 45f>, 
 453 ; :Nev. C. L,. I87J, { 153. 
 
 2 Hart's Cal. Civ. Co'-lc, 18S1, U 162-104, 637. See Buclianan, 8 Cal. 
 507 ; Johnson, 11 Cal. 201 ; Meytr v. K^iuzlt 12 Cal. 2-17 ; .Sinitli, 12 Cal. 
 21G ; Tompkins, 12 C.il. 114; Pixloy v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127 ; Mott r>. 
 8-.;iith, 16 Cal. SXi; Burton v. Lies, 21 Cal. 87 ; Adams v. Knowlton, 22 
 Cil. 2S3 ; Riloy v. Pehl, 23 Cal. 70 ; Donald v. Badger, 23 Cal. 3U3 ; Ful- 
 ler V. Furguson,2fi Cal. 546; Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. 37 ; Poclc v. 
 Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440; Ewald v. Corbett, 32 Cal. 4:)3; Hussey t'. 
 Castle, 41 Cal. 23J ; Althof v. ConUeim, 38 Cal. 230 ; post, I 314. 
 
 3 Hart's Cr.l. Civ. Code, 1881, ? 172 ; post, § 315. 
 
 4 Hart's Cal. Civ. Code, 1881, ? 141. 
 
 5 Hart's Cal. Civ. Code, 1881, §? 146-148 ; post, I 318. 
 
 6 Hart's C.-.I. Civ. Code, 1881, \ 1401 ; post, § 318. 
 
 7 Hart's Cal. Civ. Code, 1881, J 1402. See Beard v. Kno.x, 5 Cal. 
 252. 
 
 8 Nevada, C. L. 1S73, ?? 151, 153, 153, 160-162. 
 
 9 Texas, R. S. 1379, U 1633, 16.54, 2857, 2851-2853, 2867. 
 
 10 La. Civ. Code, 1375, I 23J3 ; post, I 314. 
 
 11 La. Civ. Code, 1875, H 2402, 2404 ; post, J 314. 
 
 12 L.a. Civ. Code, 1875, ?§ 2407, 2408. 
 
 13 La. Civ. Code, 1875, ? 2403 ; post, ? 317. 
 
 14 La. Civ. Code, 1875, \ 2410. 
 
 15 La. Civ. Code, 1875, i 2406 ; post, \ 318. 
 
 16 See Buchanan, 8 Cal. .507, 510 ; ante, i 312. 
 
 17 Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 224 ; Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 2.52, 
 
 18 Marlow v. Barlew, 53 Cal. 4.56, 459 ; La. Civ. Code, 1878, ? 2424 ; 
 Nev. C. L. 1S73, § 170 ; LeBreton v. Miles, 8 Paige, 261, 2G8.
 
 4S1 COMMrXITY PKOPEKTY. ? 314 
 
 J 314. What is and what is not community property. — 
 The fundamental idea of the community system is that 
 marriage makes the man and woman partners,^ and 
 that all property acquired after marriage is therefore 
 partnership property ;2 that the separate property 
 owned by each at the time of marriage, and suc!i other 
 as is acquired after marriage by either in some mode 
 in wliich the other has no part, as by gift, descent, dis- 
 tribution, bequest, or devise, is the contribution of each 
 to the firm, for which tlie firm must account to each 
 separateh'.^ And though by the statutes property ac- 
 quired before marriage and after marriage, in the 
 modes above specified, is kept separate and is not 
 subject to the control of the other partner,* the general 
 rule is, that all the increase of separate property, 
 whether interest of money ,^ crops and rents of lands,^ 
 or ofi'spring of animals,^ is community property.^ 
 Children of slaves have always been an exception to 
 this rule,^ and the California Code now expressly ren- 
 ders the increase of separate property also separate 
 property.!" still, it is doubtful even in California 
 whether the profits of an investment of separate prop- 
 erty are not community property, '^ and it is settled 
 that the profits of the husband's separate business are 
 sei^arate property there '^ as elsewhere ; '^ and all the 
 products of the labor of either the husband or the wife 
 are everywhere community property ; " for example, 
 the accumulations of his salary .^^ A woman not mar- 
 ried to the man cannot claim community property,!^ 
 and there is no community in property really acquired 
 before marriage, though the title has been perfected 
 after marriage." Property acquired by the compro- 
 mise of an antenuptial claim is community property ;!8 
 so is propertj- acquired by colonists ;'9 headright certi- 
 ficates ; '" title acquired by set'lcrs,"! though the djcd 
 
 H. & W.-41.
 
 § 314 COMMUNITY PROPERTY. 482 
 
 was obtained by the husband after the wife's death ; " 
 so are improvements on separate lands,^ tliough for 
 these the community must be a debtor only, as they 
 cannot be seized and sold separately ; ^' so property 
 acquired by the husband while the wife is in another 
 State with his consent,''^ or after he has abandoned his 
 wife,^^ or while he is living apart from her in adultery 
 with another Avoman,-^ for it is not a question what part 
 each actually took in the acquisition. ^^ All projperty 
 acquired by husband and wife or either of them during 
 coverture is 'prima facie community property ,^^ whether 
 it stands in the name of both of them,3" or of the hus- 
 band ^^ or the wife*' alone ; it seems that an acquisition 
 in the names of both is conclusively community ; ^ and 
 all property held by them or either of them A\ithout 
 written title is likewise presumed to be community 
 property.** But, except in the case above mentioned, 
 this presumistion is rebuttable,*^ and the pro])erty may 
 be shown to be separate property by clear and satisfac- 
 tory proof *^ that the jDroperty was acquired in one of 
 the modes named by statute for the acquisition of sep- 
 arate property,*' or that it was exchanged for separate 
 property,*^ or was given in paj^ment of a separate debt,-* 
 or was purchased with separate funds.''" If part of the 
 consideration was separate propertj^, the acquisition is 
 separate property pro tanto,*^ or the community is in- 
 debted to tlie husband or wife, as the case maj' be, to the 
 extent that his or her sei^arate funds have been used." 
 It is not sufficient in order to show a separate purchase 
 by a husband, to prove that at the time of the marriage 
 he had considerable property and his wife had none.'* 
 The question is, however, one for the jurj-,** and the 
 burden of proof is on the party alleging that the prop- 
 erty is separate ; *'^ and even in the case of a deed, it 
 maybe proved by parol that the property, though in 
 
 |t
 
 4S3 cojiMUNixy pkopkrty. g 314 
 
 the nanio of 0113 of the si^ouses, is really separate prop- 
 erty,** except as against a bona fide purchaser for value 
 from the community.*^ The fact that a deed is to a 
 Avife alone, is not even j^rinia facie evidence that the 
 property is her separate property ;*^ it must be shown 
 that her funds paid for it,*^ or that it was a gift from 
 her husband ; '•'^ and to prove a gift from her husband, 
 it is not sufficient to prove, as at common law,^' that 
 the deed was made to her alone at his reqviest.^^ It is 
 doubtful whether a deed between husband and wife 
 dividing the community destroys the community.^ 
 The homestead is not coinmunity proiDerty.** 
 
 1 De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 2S. See Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, "01 ; 
 Wilkinson, 20 Tex. 242, 244 ; Cartwright v. Ilollis, o Tex. 1G3 ; Jones, 15 
 Tex. 143, 147 ; Woodley v. Adams. 55 Tex. 526, 531 ; ante, I 312. 
 
 2 De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 28, 29. 
 
 .3 This idea is not logically carried out, but as to its existence, see 
 Palton, Mvr. Prob. 241, 245; Durham ,>i. Williams, 32 La. An. 162; 
 Deiiegre, 30 La. An. 275 ; Rice, 21 Tex. 5-i, Gfi. 
 
 4 See Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 102 ; ante, § 313. 
 
 5 See Cartwright, 18 Tex. 626, 633 ; infra, n. 8. 
 
 G Harrall, 12 La. An. 549, 5.50 ; De Blane v. Lvnch, 23 Tex. 25, 27 ; 
 Forbes v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 611, 612 ; White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195, 196 ; 
 infra, n. 8. 
 
 7 Bonner 7-. Gill, 5 La. An. 623, 630 ; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670, 
 672 ; infra, n. 8. 
 
 8 George v. Ransom, 15 Cal. 322, 323 ; Lewis, 18 Cal. 654, 65") ; Borie, 
 
 5 La. 89 ; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. An. 62,1, 6:10 ; Prondergast v. C.issidv, 8 
 La. An. 96, 97 ; Glenn v. Elam, 3 La. An. 611, 015 ; Childers v. Johnson, 
 
 6 La. An. 634 ; Harrall, 12 La. An. 549, .550 ; Dodd v. OrlUson, 14 La. An. 
 C3, OJ; De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 27-2); Forbes v. Dunham, 24 
 Tex. 611, 612 ; White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195, l:)6 ; Christmas v. .smith, 10 
 Tex. lii, 126, 130; Yates v. Houston, 3 Tex. 433, 4",2; Cartwright. 18 
 Tex. 626, 62S, 033 ; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670, 672 ; Scott d. Maynard, 
 Dall. ^8, SriO. 
 
 9 Goner, 11 Rob. (La.) 526, 527 ; Young, 5 La. An. 611, 612 ; Cart- 
 wright, IS Tex. 626, 644. 
 
 10 George ?>. Ransom, 15 Cal. 322, 323; Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 
 lO: ; ante, i 313. 
 
 11 Martin, 52 Cal. 2m, 237. 
 
 12 Lewis, 18 Cal. 654, 659. 
 
 13 Prendergast v. Cassidy, 8 La. An. 96, 97 ; infra, n. 14. 
 
 14 Higgins v. Johnson, 20 Tex. 389, ,394. S. P., Stans, Myr. Prob. 5, 
 6; Lewis, 18 Cal. 6'Ji, 65); Isaacson v. Mertz, .33 La. An. 595 ; Yates v. 
 Houston, 3 Tex. 433, 455 ; De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25, 28 ; Chapman 
 V. Allen, 15 Tex, 278, 283.
 
 g 314 COMMUXITY PI'.OPIiKTY. 484 
 
 15 Stans, Myr. Prob. 5, 6. 
 
 16 AViaters, Myr. Prob. i:il, V-il. 
 
 17 Lake, 52 Cal. 428, 430. 
 13 Pancoast, 57 Cal. C20. 
 
 13 Yates )'. Houston, 3 Tex. 4.3.3, 452. 
 
 20 Yates v. Houston, 3 Tex. 43:3, 4-34-4.i6 ; Parker v. Chance, 11 Tex. 
 513, 517. 
 
 21 Cannon r. Murphy, 31 Tex. 403 ; E'lwurds r. James, 7 Tex. .372, 
 3's2. Xot if husband migrates alone: Mcilasters r. Miils, 30 Tex. 591, 
 5J5. 
 
 22 Hodge v. Donald, 55 Tex. 344. But see Caudle t». Welden, 32 Tex. 
 355, 356. 
 
 23 Palton, Myr. Prob. 241, 246 ; Whiteman v. Blanc, 28 La. An. 4:!0 ; 
 Rice, 21 Tex. 58, 66. 
 
 24 Rice, 21 Tex. 58, 67 ; svpra, n. 23. 
 
 25 Moore v. Thibodeaux, 4 La. An. 74, 76. 
 
 26 ^\■inters, Myr. Prob. 131, 133. 
 
 27 Ronth, 57Tex. 533, 507. 
 
 28 De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25. 23. 
 
 29 Althof V. Conheim, .38 Cal. 230, 233 ; Planchet, 29 La. An. 520, 522 ; 
 Chapman v. Allen. 15 Tex. 278, 283. S. P., Martin, 52 Cal. 2:i5, 237; 
 Hnssey v. Castle, 41 Cal. 239, 241 ; Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 
 445; Ewald V. Corbett, 32 Cal. 493, 498; Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, 509; 
 ■Tohnson, 11 Cal. 201, 205 ; Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 224 ; Mever r. Kinzer, 12 
 Cal. 247, 252 ; Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124 ; Pixley r. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 
 130; Burton v. Li^^s, 21 Cal. 87, 91 ; Adams v. Knowlton. 22 Cal. 283, 
 283 ; Riley v. Pehl, 23 Cal. 70, 74 ; Repplier t\ Gow, 1 La. 478 ; Bostwick 
 V. Gasquet, 11 La. 537 ; Ford, 1 La. 207 ; Forbes, U La. An. .326 ; Webb 
 1'. Peck, 7 La. An. 92; Troxler v. CoUev, 33 La. An. 425: Smallev i'. 
 Lawrence, 9 Rob. 211 ; Tex. R. S. 1879, ? 28-53; Love r. Robertson, 7 
 Tex. 6, 11 ; 56 Am. Dec. 41 ; Lott v. Keach. 5 Tex. 3!H, 3,% ; Houston v. 
 Civil, 8 Tex. 240, 242 ; Galliard v. Chesnev, 13 Tex. 3.37 ; Zorn v. Barber, 
 45 Tex. 5!3 ; Wheat v. Owens, 15 Tex. 243 ; Storv v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 
 307 ; Smith v. Boguet, 27 Tex. 323 ; Routh, 57 Tex. 589, 597. 
 
 30 Ramsdoll v. Fuller, 28 Cil. 37, 42 ; Tally v. Heffner, 29 La. An. 
 533, 5S4 ; Houston v. Civil, 8 Te.x. 240, 242 ; supra, n. 29. 
 
 31 Buchanan, 8 Cal. 607, 503 ; Planchet, 29 La. An. 520, 522 ; Zimpel- 
 man v. Robb, 53 Tex. 274, 2S1 ; sttj)ra, n. 29. 
 
 .32 PLxley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 130, 131 ; Donald !•. Badger, 23 Cal. 
 303, 398 ; Riley v. Pcdil, 23 Cal. 70, 74 ; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 5;». 557 ; 
 Troxler t\ Collov, Si La. An. 4i5 ; Love v. Robertson, 7 Tex. 6, 10; 
 \Vells V. Cochran, 13 Tex. 127, 128 ; siijyra, n. 29. 
 
 .33 Tally r. Hefifner, 29 La. An. 583, .584. Unless, of course, the deed 
 makes them joint tenants or tenants in common, ante, ^313; or a 
 trust is proved, as at common law, ante, H 132, 311. 
 
 .31 Lott V. Keach, 5 Tex. 334, 396. .S. P., Meyer v. Tvinz?r, 12 Cal. 
 247,252; Repplier v. Gow, 1 La. 47S ; Bostwick v. (iusquet, 11 La. .537 ; 
 Le Gierse v. Moore, 59 Tex. 470, 471 ; Edrington r. Mayfield, 5 Tex. 36:1, 
 368 ; sxipra, n. 29. 
 
 as Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 224 ; infra, n. 36. 
 
 36 Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. 37, 42 ; Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 
 443, 447 ; Ford, 1 La. 207 ; Troxler v. Colley, 33 La. An, 425 ; Houston r. 
 Civil, 8 Tex. 240, 242 ; Chapman v. Allen, "l5 Tex. 278. 233 ; supra, n. 29.
 
 485 COMMUNITY PROPERTY. ? 315 
 
 37 Mevpr v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 252 ; Smith, 12 Cal. 2IG, 224 ; Hous- 
 ton V. Civil, 8 Tox. 24,1, 2-12. 
 
 38 Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 253 ; Parker v. Chance, U Tex. 513. 
 517. 
 
 39 Love V. Robertson, 7 Tex. 6, 9. 
 
 40 Mott V. Smith, 16 Cil. 5.53, 557 ; Ramsdell v. Fuller, 23 Cal. 37, 42 ; 
 Lavenant v. Le Breton, 1 La. 520, 52.5; Troxler v. Colley, 33 La. An. 
 425 ; Love V. Robertson, 7 Tex.. G, 11 ; Claiborne v. Tanner, 18 Tex. G9, 
 71 ; sujiva, n. 2y. 
 
 41 Claiborne v. Tanner, 13 Tex. 63. 77. See Evvald v. Corbett, 32 
 Cal. 41)3, 4!KS; Webb, Myr. Prob. 'J3 ; Lawson v. Ripley, 17 La. 238; 
 Denegre, 30 La. An. 275 ; Durham v. Williams, 32 La. An. 162 ; Braden 
 r. Gos9. 57 Tex. 37 ; Mitchell v. Jlarr, 2S Tex. 320 ; Parker v. Chance, 
 11 Tex. 513, 518 ; Wells ?'. Cochran, 13 Tex. 127, 128 ; Rice, 21 Tex. 5S, Gti. 
 
 42 See Durham v. Williams, 32 La. An. 162 ; Rice, 21 Tex. 58, C7. 
 
 43 Schmeltz v. Garey, 49 Tex. 43. 
 
 44 Rice, 21 Tex. 58, G6. 
 
 45 Donald v. Badger, 23 Cal. 393, 338 ; Meyer v. Kinzer. 12 Cal. 247, 
 251; Ramsdell v. Fuller. 23 Cal. 37, 42; Adams i'. Knowlton, 22 Cal. 
 2o3. 288 ; Smith. 12 Cal. 2i6, 224. 
 
 46 Peck V. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 448 ; Ramsdell t'. Fuller, 28 Cal. 
 37, 43 ; Higgins v. Johnson, 20 Tex. 389, 394. 
 
 47 Tallv V. Heffner, 29 La. An. 583. 585; Kirk v. Houston, 43 Tox. 
 213 ; Tavlor v. Murphy, 50 Tex. 2J1, 300 ; Wallace v. Campbell, 54 Tex. 
 b;.89. 
 
 48 Wells V. Cochran. 13 Tex. 127, 128. It is, of course, if the deed 
 shows it to be acquired in one of the ways prescribed by statute for 
 the acquisition of separate property : ,Supra, n. 4. 
 
 43 Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 131 ; Meyer rt. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247, 
 253 ; suj)ia, n. 40. 
 
 50 Peck V. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 445 ; Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 
 307: Braden v. Gose, 57 Tex. 37 ; Parker v. Chance, 11 Tex. 513, 517 ; 
 Higgins u Johnson, 20 Tex. 389, 395 ; 2)osl, ? 315. 
 
 51 Parker v. Chance, 11 Tex. 513, 519 ; ante, U 1-8, 129, 132. 
 
 52 Parker v. Chance, 11 Tex. 513, 518. 
 
 53 Marlow v. Barlew, 53 Cal. 456, 4G1. 
 
 54 Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124. 
 
 2 315. Eights of husband during coverture, over commu- 
 nity property. — Though the husband and wife have 
 equal interests in the coininunity,i during the cover- 
 ture her rights are passive,^ and he has full manage- 
 ment and control of the propertj',^ and may deal with 
 it almost as if it Avere his own.^ He is its solo represen- 
 tative.^ It is liable for his separate debts.^ He has 
 full power to dispose of it absolutely Avithout her con- 
 sent :' his sole deed passes communitA^ realty,^ his sole
 
 I 315 C03CMUN1TY PROPERTY. 486 
 
 signature assigns community promissory notes,^ thougli 
 standing in lier name ; '^ in his sole name he sues in 
 ejectment," and enforces a promissory' note.^^ He may 
 give the property away,'^ but not with the intent to 
 defraud her of lier riglits," in view of divorce'^ or of 
 death,'" thougli lier remedy in such case seems con- 
 fined to a bill quia timct.^'' So he maj'" give community 
 jiroperty to liis Avife to be her separate propertj-,'^ 
 where no fraud on creditors exists.'^ And tlie prop- 
 erty and his widow are bound by his estoppel.'^'' But 
 lie cannot aflect tlie interest of the wife by will,^' or by 
 any instrument to take etlect after his deatli.'^ And 
 after her death lie cannot dispose of the community 
 except to pay the debts thereof,-^ or to the extent of 
 liis own interest.-* Divorce proceedings alone do not 
 atleet his rights,'^^ though his abandonment of his wife 
 may give her important powers.^^ 
 
 1 De Godev, 3n Cal. 157, Ifi-J ; Wright v. Havs, 10 Tex. 130, 13T ; 
 00 Am. Dec. 200 ; ZimpL'lman v. Robb, 5a Tex. 274, 281. 
 
 2 Wright V. Hays, 10 Tex. 130, 133 ; CO Am. Dec. 2u0 ; jiost, ? 31G. 
 
 3 Mott V. Smith, 16 Cal. .>«, .=>.57 ; Peck ?•. Brnmma^ini, 31 Cal. -l-IO; 
 447 ; AUhuf J'. Conheim, ;J8 Cal. 2:{0, 2:J;{ ; Cheek r. IJeliows, 17 Tex. (ili, 
 61G ; ante, i 313. 
 
 4 Lord r. Hough, 43 Cal. 5S1, 585; Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 
 131 ; s>ii»a, n. 3. 
 
 5 Kelly I'. Robertson, 10 L.i. An. 313. 
 
 6 Forbes v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 611, 612 ; post, § 317. 
 
 7 Pixlev i>. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 131 ; Althof v. Conheim, as Cal. 
 230,23!; Walters v. Jewett, 2-i Tex. 192, l'J9, 201; Berry v. Wright, U 
 Tex. 274 ; Brewer v. Wall, 23 Tex. .iSS ; supra, n. 3. 
 
 8 Poe ?'. Brownrigg, 55 Te.x. 1.33, 137. Not the homestearl : Mabry 
 V. Harrison, 44 Te.x. 2o«. 
 
 9 Herdmingway v. Matthews, 10 Tex. 207, 20S. 
 
 10 Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, 130, 131 ; ante, \ 214. 
 
 11 Mott V. Smith, 16 Cal. .KS, .V>7. 
 
 12 Wells V. Cochrum, 13 Tex. 127, 128. 
 
 13 Lord V. Hough, 43 Cal, 631, 5S5 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 14 D" Oorlev. .31 Cal. l.")7, 164 ; Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 225, 2-:6 ; Peck v. 
 Biumiiiagirn. 31 Cal. 440,441; Lord r. Hough, 43 Cal. .581, 585; Coltoii, 
 31 I,;i. Am. s57, S.5J ; Edwurils v. James, 7 Tex. 38 ; Scott v. Maynar;!, 
 Dall. 548, 550. 
 
 15 See CoUon, 3G La.- An. S53, 853 ; supra, n. 14 ; post, I 318.
 
 4S7 C03IMUXITY PEOPKKTV. § 316 
 
 13 See De Godey, 33 CaL 157, 164 ; supra n. 14 ; post, § 318. 
 
 17 Greiner, 5S Cal. 115, 119, 120. 
 
 18 Peck V. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 445 ; ante, I 414. 
 
 13 Peck V. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 446 ; ante, ?? 113-118. 
 
 20 Pvanny v. Miller, 51 Tex. 263, 263. 
 
 21 Bearfl v. Knox, 5 Cal. 252, 256; Buchanan, S Cal. 507, 510; De 
 Godey, i^ Cal. 157, IW ; Greiner, 58 Cal. 115, 113. 
 
 22 Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, 510. 
 
 2'! Johnson r. Harrison, 48 Tex. 457, 484, 531 ; Verameadi v. Hutching, 
 56 Tex. 414 ; post, i 318. 
 
 24 Bennett v. Fuller, 23 La. An. 663 ; BiUgery, 34 La. An. 387, 388. 
 
 25 Lord V. Hough, 43 Cal. 5S1, 535. Contra, Tex. R. S. 1879, § 2867. 
 
 26 Zimpelman v. Robb, 53 Tox. 274 281 ; post, I 316. 
 
 ^ 316. Eights of tha wife during coverture over the com- 
 mtinitj. — The wife's rights over the conununity are as 
 ■well defined and ascertained as those of the husband ;i 
 though once called "a mere expectancy," ^ her interest 
 is equal to that oi her husband ;^ he, however, has the 
 full management thereof during coverture,* and she 
 need not join with him in any contract » or suit^ re- 
 specting the same. While his rights are active, hers 
 are passive;' she cannot dispose of the community 
 without his consent \^ her mortgage thereof even as to 
 her interest is void in California,* tliough if she sur- 
 vives her husband, it may be enforced against her.'" 
 With her liusband's death her riglits spring into activ- 
 ity, and she lias all tlie powers of a/emme sole over her 
 interest ; '^ so, under tlie various statutes, she may, for 
 cause, have a separation of property, a i:)artition of the 
 community,'- or maj^ be awarded alimony out of it,'^ or 
 may have a divorce with a division of the property.'* 
 So, if lier liusbanci abandons her (llie length of time is 
 not important) '^ and refuses to support her,"' lier rights 
 over the community quicken into vigorous activity;'^ 
 she may deal with it in his place ; '^ she may sell it ;'9 
 and she may even in her own name convey real estate 
 standing in liis name, -so that subsequent bona fide pur- 
 chasers for value from hiai wiil get nothing.'"'
 
 g 317 COMMUNITY PKOPERTY. 488 
 
 1 De Godey, 39 Cal. 157. 1C4. 
 
 2 Van Maren v. Johnson. 15 Cal. 303, 311. 
 
 3 D? Godey, 39 CI. Vu, 161 ; Wri-'.it v. Hays, 10 Tex. 130, 133; 00 
 Am. Dec. 200 ; ZinipltiUaa v. Kobb. 5J Tex. 274, 2s2. 
 
 4 Peck V. Brummagim. 31 Cal. 440, 447 ; ante, I 31.5. 
 
 5 Ilis^ins v. John.son, 20 Tex. .339, 3:)5. 
 G Pixloy V. Iluggius, 1.5 Cal. 127, l."I. 
 
 7 Ilissins %!. John.son, 23 Tox. 333, 335 ; supra n. 3. 
 
 8 Ilemmingvvay v. Matthews, 10 Tox. 207. 
 
 9 Koraington j;. Higgins, 54 Cal. 620, 023 ; Cal. Civ. Code, 1381, ? 167. 
 
 10 Parry v. Kelly, 52 Cal. 334, 335. 
 
 11 Womack v. Shelton, 31 Tex. 532, 533 ; post, ? 313. 
 
 12 JafF-ion v. Bordelon, 14 La. An. 643, 619 ; Compton v. Maxwell, 3.^ 
 La. An. 6J) ; Bel Jen v. Hanlon, 32 La. An. 85; La. Civ. Code, 1875, 
 a 24, 23 ; Carlte v. Trotol, 105 U. S. 751 ; Kay, 1 Idaho N. S. 566. 
 
 13 Cal. Civ. Code, ISSl, ? 141 ; Stewart M. &. D. I 179. 
 
 14 Cal. Civ. Code, 1881, H 146-143 ; Nev. C. L. 1373, 1 162 ; Stewart M. 
 & D. II 358-3.19. 
 
 15 Fullerton V. Doyle, 18 Tex. 3, 13. 
 
 16 Consult Winters, Myr. Prob. 131, 1.33 ; Moore v. Tliiborlenux, 14 
 La. An. 74, 76 ; Jailrion v. Bordelon, 14 La. An. 618,613; lli)uth,57Tex. 
 583, 537; Zimpleman v. Kobb, 53 Tox. 274,231 ; Walker v. .strongfel- 
 low, 30Tex. 570,573; Fnllorton ?>. Doyle, 18 To.x. L', 13; Cheek v. Bel- 
 lows, 17 Tex. 613, 616 ; Wheat v. Owens, 15 Tex. 241, 245 ; ante, I 9a 
 
 17 Wright V. Hays, 10 Tex. 1.30, 134 ; 00 Am. Dec. 200. 
 
 18 Cheek v. Bellows, 17 Tex. 613, 616. 
 
 19 Walker v. Strongfellow, 30 Tex. 570, 573. 
 
 20 Zimpleman v. Kobb, 53 Tex. 274, 231. 
 
 g 317. Rights of creditors against community property. 
 — Tlio comniuuity jiroperty is liable for the wife's ante- 
 nuptial debts/ but not on any contract of hers made 
 during coverture,^ except for necessaries,^ which is 
 really her husband's contract.* It is lilcewise liable for 
 all antenui)tial^ nn:l liostnuptial debts of the husband ; ^ 
 as ho can dispose of it absolutely, he can absolutely 
 charge it with his debts. ^ But, as an entirety, it is not 
 liable for any debt contracted after the dissolution of the 
 marriage. 8 Being partnership property ,3 on the disso- 
 lution of the marriage it is a primary fund for the pay- 
 ment of all the community debts'" — all the debts for 
 which It is liable must be settled before the survivor or 
 the heirs of the deceased have liersonally any interest ; ^^
 
 489 coMMUxirY ruopERTY. § 317 
 
 the whole fund, not a mere proportion thereof, is liable 
 lor the husband's debts, i- and the Iiusband may sell tlie 
 community for the purjiose of paying any debt for 
 which it is liable.^^ In Louisiana, if tlie widow accept 
 the community, she or lier estate is liable for one half 
 of the debts," but if she renounce tlie same, neither slie 
 nor her estate can be held liable at all.^^ A judgment 
 against both husband and wife can be enforced against 
 the community property or against tlie separate prop- 
 erty of either one ; '^ but if a mortgage has been given 
 for the husband's debts which covers both community 
 jiroperty and separate property of the wife, she may 
 have the community property exhausted fii'st ; ^^ and 
 judgment creditors cannot have a jmrt of the commu- 
 nity property set aside by metes and bounds to satisfy 
 their debts. '^ In a foreclosure suit against the com- 
 munity, the wife should be made a party. ^^ 
 
 1 Vlautiri v. Bumpus, ?5 Cal. 214, 215 ; Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 
 Cil. SOS, 3i:i , Nash v. George, 6 Tex. ZH, 337; Taylor v. Murphy, 50 
 Tex. 291, 300. 
 
 2 Remington v. Higglna, M Cal. 620, 723 ; ante, § 316. 
 
 3 Portis 7'. Parker, 2C Tex. 699,703, Christmas ik Smith, 10 Tex. 
 12^>, 12!) ; Edringtou v. Mayfield, 5 Tex. 363, 36.S. 
 
 4 Discussed Stewart M. & D. ? 179 ; ante, |? 64, n. 
 
 5 Porter v. Parker, 22 Tex. 699, 703, 705 ; 14 Tex. 166, 170. 
 
 6 McDonald v. Badger, 23 Cal. 393, 398 ; Adams v. Knowlton, 22 
 Cal. 283, 288 ; Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124 ; Lett v. K^ach, 5 Tex. 394, 396 ; 
 Edrington v. Mayfield, 5 Tex. 363, 368 ; Forbes v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 611, 
 ei2 ; Jones, 15 Tex. 143, 147. 
 
 7 Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124 ; ante, I 315. 
 
 8 Thezan. 23 La. An. 442, 444. 
 
 2 Woodley v. Adams, 55 Tex. 526, 531 ; ante, ? 314. 
 
 10 Christmas v. Smith, 10 Tex. 123, 129. 
 
 11 Jones, 15 Tex. 143, 147; po«<,§ 318. 
 
 12 Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124. 
 
 13 Good V. Combs, 28 Tex. 34, 51 ; ante, ? 313. 
 
 14 Ludeling v. Felton, 29 La. An. 719. 
 
 15 Ecihl V. Martin, 29 La. An. 15, 16 ; ante, ? 313. 
 
 16 Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 200, 293 ; 51 Am. Dec. 769. 
 
 17 James v. Jaqucs, 23 Tex. 320, ,324.
 
 g 318 COMMUNITY Pr^OPERTY. 490 
 
 18 Good V. Combs, 28 Tex. 34, 51. 
 
 19 Burton v. Lies, 21 Cal. S7, 'Jl. 
 
 § 318. Disposition of tho community property on divorce 
 or death. — How the property shall be disposed of, on 
 dissolution of the marriage by divorce or death, is 
 fully provided for by the Codes.' The survivor can 
 generally settle up the comniuniiy witli or without 
 statutory authority,'^ and with or without going into 
 court.^ The survivor's own interest is residuary only ; ' 
 the community property is a primary fund for the set- 
 tlement of the community debts ;» and tlioui;h the sur- 
 vivor or the heirs of the deceased can assign their 
 respective interests,^ this cannot be done by metes and 
 bounds,' as dissolution of tlie marriage turns the com- 
 munity into a tenancy in common.^ Either party may 
 by will dispose of sucli part of the community as 
 would go to lais or her representatives,* but neitlier can 
 by will alt'ect the interest of the other.'" On divorce the 
 property is divided;" a mere cause for divorce does 
 not forfeit the riglits of either party ; '^ and after di- 
 vorce tlie husband has no powers over tlie wife's 
 interest.'^ 
 
 1 Ante, I 313. Soe Dolanr, Mvr. Prob. 9 ; Broad j'. IMurray, 44 Cal. 
 22S, 226 ; Broad, 40 Cul. 433, 4:i6 ; Burton r. Lies, 21 Cal. 87, ill ; Beard v. 
 Knox, 5 Cal. 252, 2.')6 ; Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 124 ; Thoussard v. Bernard, 
 7 l.a. 216 ; Plaiichct, 2:t La. An. 520, 525 ; Dickson, 33 La. An. 1370 ; For- 
 stall, 2H La. An. 1117 ; Frosclair, 34 La. An. 326; Thompson )'. Craggr, 24 
 Tex. 604 ; Brackett v. Devine,25 Tex. Wfi ; Good v. C'ombs, 28 Tex. 
 34, .50, 51 ; Bucket v. Johnson, 40 Tex. 550 ; Burleson, 28 Tex. 418 ; 
 Maxwell v. Morgan, 20 Tex. 204 ; Brown v. Prigden, .56 Tex. 124 ; 
 Caruth v. Grigsbv, .57 Tex. 25!), 26.".; Bell r. Swartz, .56 Tex. 353; Wat- 
 kins V. Hall, 57 Te.x. 1, 2; Busbv v. Davis, 57 Tex. 323, 328, Ore v. 
 O'Brien, .55 Tex. 141, IfiD ; Mitchell r. Di'witt, 20 Tex. 2!)!); Tucker v. 
 Brackett, 28 Tex. 336, :i is ; Wlieel(«r ?'. .sch iilt"-, 30 Tex. 407; Wall v. 
 Clerk, 1 ) Tex. 325 ; Williiinson, 20 Tex. 211 ; Jlonroe v. Leigh, 15 Tex. 
 519, 520 ; Duncan v. Kowle, 16 Tex. 501 : Prunnin v. Barton. 18 Tex. 222, 
 227. 
 
 2 See Woodley v. Adams, 55 Tex. 526, 531 ; Stewart M. & D. ?? 441, 
 467. 
 
 3 ^Nlonro" v. Leigh, 15 Tex. 510, 520 ; Ore v. O'Brien, .55 Tex. 149, 160. 
 But See Busby v. Davis, 57 Tex. 323, 328. 
 
 4 Dickson, .33 La. An. 1370; Durham v. Williams, 32 La. An. 162; 
 Burleson, 28 Tex. 418 ; Bell v. Swurtz, 56 Tex. 351 ; ante, I 317.
 
 491 COMMUNITY PROPERTY. § 319 
 
 6 Christmas v. Smith, 10 Tex. 123, 129. 
 
 6 Caruth v. Grigsby, 57 Tox. 259 265 ; Good v. Combs, 23 Tex. 34, 49. 
 
 7 Good V. Combs, 28 Tex. M, ol. 
 
 8 See Broad v. Murray, 44 Cal. 228, 229. 
 
 9 Brown u. PrigJen, 56 Tex. 124 ; Cal. Civ. Code, § 1401. 
 10 Greinor, 5.8 Cal. 115, 119; Beard v. Knox, 5 Cal. 252, 256; Bu- 
 chanan, 8 Cal. 507, 510 ; De Godey. i'J Cal. 157, IM ; Brown v. Prigdeu, 
 66 Tex. 124. 
 
 n De Godey, 39 Cal. 157, 164 ; Rice, 21 Tex. 58, 63 ; ante, I 313 ; Stew- 
 art M. & D. J 396. ! jr/^ 
 12 Routh, 57 Tex. 589,537. . ^. o C] / /fO f"^' f'^^^^\ 1 U 
 
 13 De Godey, 39 Cal. 157, 164, 
 
 ^^t'<>'m'ltM 
 
 \ 319. Conflict of laws as to community property. — The 
 conflict of laws, generally, has already been discussed.' 
 The community system of California aijplies to all per- 
 sonal property, wherever situate, of those who arc dom- 
 iciled in California ; ^ but only to such lands as are situate 
 in California,^ not, for example, to lands in New Jersey ; * 
 it applies also to all personalty acquired by persons 
 after forming the intention of moving with it into Cali- 
 fornia.* A statute cannot be so applied as to make the 
 earnings of existing sejDarate propertj^ common prop- 
 erty,^ or as to turn communitj^ property into some 
 other kind of property.' 
 
 1 Ante, l\ 19-37. 
 
 2 Pratt V. Douglass, .35 N. J. Eq. 516, 533 ; wxte, i 31, 
 
 3 Hoyt V. Ilammerlin, 14 How. 357 ; ante, I 3.3. 
 
 4 Pratt V. Douglass, 35 N. J. Eq. 516, .533. 
 
 5 Edriiigto.i v. Mayfleld, 5 Tex. 363, 368 ; Claiborne ti. Tanner. 18 
 Tex. 69, 77 ; ante, i 29. 
 
 6 George v. Ransom, U Cal. 322, 323 ; ante, H 21, 22. 
 
 7 Portis V. Parker, 22 Tex. 707 ; ante, U 21, 22.
 
 § 320 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 492 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 
 
 § 320. Purpose and policy of homestead and exemption laws. 
 
 i 321. Construction of homestead laws. 
 
 i .322. The party entitled to a homestead. 
 
 i 323. The homestead defined. 
 
 J 324. In what estates the homestead may exist. 
 
 i 325. How the homestead is obtained. 
 
 i 326. How the homestead may be lost. 
 
 { 327. Nature of the homestead estate, and incidents. 
 
 { 328. Eights of husband in and over the homestead. 
 
 { 32!). Rights of wife in and over the homestead. 
 
 ? 3.30. Liabilities of the homestead to claims of creditors. 
 
 ^ 320. Forposo and policy of homestead and exemption 
 laws. — In many States statute-s have been pa.<.sed for 
 tlie purpose of securiufj to each head of a family a 
 dwelling place for the family — a home exempt from the 
 claims of creditors ; these statutes are called home- 
 stead and exemption laws.i The policy of those laws 
 has been frequently discussed and commended. ^ Thej^ 
 are based, it is .said, on the idea that, as a matter of 
 public policy, for the promotion of the property of the 
 State, and to render independent and above Avant each 
 citizen of the government, it is proper that he should 
 have a home — a homestead — where his family may be 
 sheltered and live beyond the reach of financial mis- 
 fortune and the deinands of creditors.^ They secure a 
 beneficent provision for the jjrotection and maintenance 
 of the wife and children against the neglect and im- 
 providence of the father and husband.* Their obvious 
 intent is to secure to every hou.se-holder or head of a 
 family a home, a place of residence, which he maj' im- 
 prove and make comfortable, and where the family 
 may be sheltered and live beyond the reach of those
 
 493 HOMESTEAD TROPERTY. ^ 321 
 
 financial misfortunes which even the most prudent 
 and sagacious cannot always avoid.^ In these estates 
 husband and wife, as the source of the family, are par- 
 ticularly concerned. 
 
 1 Smj'th Homestead and Exemp. ; Thompson Homestead and 
 Exemp. ; h) Am. Law Reg. 1, 137 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. M2, el scq.; 37 
 N. J Eq. 3t», 40, notes. 
 
 2 See Wassell v. Tunnah, 25 Ark. 103 ; Cook v. McChristlan.4 Cat. 
 26; Charless r. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 43!l ; Campbell i\ Adair, 4.5 Mi.s.s. 
 1H2 ; Garrett v. Cheshire, 6» X. C. 405 ; li; \m. Kep. 647 ; Franklin i\ 
 Coffee, 18 Tex. 415 ; Smyth Ilomest. eh. 1 ; Thompson Homest. ch. 1. 
 
 3 Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 439, 441. 
 
 4 Cook t). McChristian, 4 Cal. 26. 
 
 5 Wassell v. Tunnah. 25 Ark. 103. 
 
 § 321. Construction of homestead laws. — At common 
 law a creditor could not seize his debtor's lands in exe- 
 cution, and could proceed only against his rents and 
 profits, goods and chattels,' but the liability to be 
 seized was gradually extended by statute until all 
 lands were subjected to execution for debts ; ^ then fol- 
 lowed a movement in the other direction, towards 
 exemi^ting a part of the lands, under certain circum- 
 stances, from this liability, tlie policy of wliicli has 
 already been discussed.^ Therefore, although this has 
 been ignored by some courts,^ homestead laws are not 
 in derogation of the common law, and therefore to be 
 strictly construed," but are remedial acts, beneficial in 
 their operation and wise in their policy, which should 
 be liberally construed;^ and the same rule of liberal 
 interpretation is commonly applied to laws exeinpting 
 chattels,' though such laws are in derogation of the 
 common law, and therefore, under the rule, to be con- 
 strued strictly, as they are in some cases.^ In the ab- 
 .sence of express provision, sucli statutes are construed 
 to act prospectively, to apply only to debts existing at 
 the time of their passage j^ and whether an express 
 provision that they sliall act retrospectively is consti- 
 
 H. & W —42.
 
 g 321 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 494 
 
 tutional, is disputed ; some courts, holding that such 
 provisions aflect only tlie i-emedy and not the contract 
 itself, liave declared tliein valid ; '" others deny this, 
 and have declared that they impair the obligations of 
 contracts and are therefore void ; " of course tliey are 
 void under constitutional provisions forbidding retro- 
 spective laws eo nomineJ'^ When a statute is jjassed 
 which does not apply to pre-existing debts, these arc 
 enforced under the laws existing at tlie time tliat they 
 were contracted." On tne other hand, the legislature 
 may remove or diminish the exemption,'* whicli is a 
 matter of grace, a privilege, and not a vested right,''' 
 tliougli tliere are cases whicli seem to deny this.'^ A 
 mere change in the form of the law, as by codification, 
 has no ettect." These laws are construed to have no 
 extra territorial operation, "^ and are generally adminis- 
 tered by tlie United States courts." Whether the ex- 
 emption maj' be waived is disputed.^ 
 
 1 2 lUackst. Com. 418 ; Vogler, S X. B. R. 132 ; Krueger v. Pierce, 37 
 Wis. '2(1.); 'fiiompsoii lloinest. i 2. 
 
 2 See Green v. Maries, 25 111. 2Xi ; Thompson Homest. J 3. 
 
 3 Ante, i 320. 
 
 4 See (iuillory v. DevUle, 21 La. An. 686 ; Briant v. Lyons, 29 La. 
 An. 65; Olson f. Nelson, 3 Minn. 53; Ward r. Huhn, IR Minn. 161; 
 Allen )'. Coolc, 26 B.irb. 376 ; Uaraty i'. J)u Rose, 5 .S. C 500. 
 
 5 According to rule stated, ante, i 16, 
 
 6 Moss V. Warner, 10 C'al. 296 ; Montague r. Richardson, 24 Conn. 
 333 ; Heard v. Downer, 47 Ga. 631 ; Itoff ?'. Johnson. 40 Ga. 555 ; Deere 
 r. Cliapnian, 25 111. 610, 612 ; Beran v. Ilayden, 13 Iowa, 122; Camp- 
 bell i: .\dair, 45 Miss. 178; Bu.xton t'. Dearborn, 46 N. H. 44 ; Peverly 
 V. Savl.s, 10 X. II. 3.:S ; Robinson v. Wil'V, 15 N. Y. 4:t4 ; True v. 
 Morrill, 2S Vt. 674 ; Mills v. Grant, 36 Vt. 271 ; Howe ?■. Adams, 28 Vt. 
 541 ; Kuntz v, Kinney, 33 Wis. 510 ; Connaughton i'. Sands, 32 Wis. 387. 
 
 7 Patten t' Smith, 4 Conn. 4.50 ; 10 Am. Dee. 166 ; Good i-. Fogg, 61 
 111. 4.50 ; 14 .\m. Rep. 71 ; Richardson ;•. Buswell, 10 Met. .506 ; 13 Am. 
 Dec. 4.5;> ; Wilco.x ti Ilawlev, 31 X. Y. 648 ; freeman i'. Carpenter, 10 
 Vt. 434 ; 33 Am. Dec. 210 ; sni>ra, n. 6. 
 
 8 Temple v. Scott, 3 Minn. 421 ; Rue v. Alter, 5 Denlo, 119. 
 
 n Whedon v. Gorham, ;08 C^onn. 412; .Smith v. Marc, 26 III. 150; 
 Ely I' Kiistwood. 26 111. Iii7 ; Taylor, 10 La. An. 50.) ; Roupe v. Carra- 
 dine, 20 La. An. 244 ; Tillulson <• .Millard. 7 Miim. 513; JIcKeethan ii. 
 Terry. 64 X. C. 25 ; .sjmonds r. Powers, 28 Vt. 3.54 ; Perri?i ■>'. Sargeant, 
 33 Vt. SI ; Seamans ;■ C arter. 15 Wis. 348 ; Phelan, 16 Wis. 76 ; Doppv. 
 Abbee, 17 Wis, 590 ; ante, J 2a
 
 495 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. § 322 
 
 10 See Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 ITow. 315; Planter's r>. Sharp. 6 TIow. 
 318; SiK'idtT V. Heidelbargor, -15 Ala. 126, l.;4 ; Cook v. McChristUn, 
 4 Cal. 2:i ; Hardeman v. Downer, 39 Ga. 425 ; PuUiam v. Sewell, 40 
 Ga. T-i ; Guun v. Barry, 44 Ga. 35:5 ; Cusic v. Uouslas, 3 Kan. 123 ; Koot 
 V. McGrew, 3 Kan. 215; Robert v. Cow, 25 I.a. An. 200; Bisilow v. 
 Pritchard, 21 Pick. 174 ; RockweU v. Uubl)ell, 2 Doug. (Hich.) 193 ; 
 65 Am. Dec. 216 ; Grimes t'. Byrn, 2 Minn. 8.) ; Hteplier.son v. Osborn, 
 41 Miss. II'J ; Morse v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 281 ; Hill v. Kesler, 63 N. C. 407 ; 
 Garrett ?>. Cheshire, 6J N. C. 3 16 ; 12 Am. Rep. 6!7 ; Hill, 42 Pa. St. 133; 
 Baldy, 40 Pa. St. 32 -i ; Kennedy, 2 S. O. 216 ; Baylor v. San Antonio, S3 
 Tex. 448 ; ante, U 21, 22. 
 
 11 Gunn V. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, reversing 44 Ga. 353 ; Chambliss v. 
 Jordan, 50 Ga. 81 ; Wlioeljr v. Redding, 55 Gi. 87 ; Bush v. Lester, 55 
 Ga. 57:t: Clarke v. Trowiek, 56 Gx 35 1 ; Hannahs v. Felt, 15 Iowa, 111 ; 
 Deregre v. Hann, 14 Iowa, 2:o ; ]\Iilne v. Schmidt, 12 La. An. 53!; 
 Lesley v. Phipps, 49 Miss. 7.;0 ; Pennington i'. Se.al, 49 Miss, 52^; 
 Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 116 ; Ladd v. Dudley, 45 N. H. 61 ; Gar- 
 rett V. Cheshire, 69 N. C. 396; 12 Am. Rep. 647 ; Edwards v. Kearsey, 
 74 N. C. 241 ; Cochran v. Darcy,5 S. C. i:5; Hewett, 5 S. C. 40); De 1 1 
 Howe V. Harper, 5 S. C. 470; The Homestead Cases, 22 Gratt. 263; 
 Russell V. Randolph, 26 Gratt. 705 ; ante, J J 21, 22, 
 
 12 Cunningham V. Grey,20Mo. 172 ; Talleyr. Thompson, 20 Mo, 277; 
 ante, i 21. 
 
 13 See Burnside v. Terry, 45 Ga. 621 ; 51 Ga. 186 ; Chambliss v. Jor- 
 dan, 50 Ga. 81 ; Grant v. Cosby, 51 Ga. 430 ; Wofford v. G.aines, 53 G.a. 
 4S5; Clark v. Trawick, 56 Ga. 359; Lesley v. Phipps, 49 Miss. 790 ; 
 Pennington v. Seal, 49 Miss. 518, 
 
 14 Sparger v. Cumpton, 54 Ga. 355; Harris v. Glenn, 56 Ga. 94; 
 Allen ?'. Harley, 3 S. C. 412; Bull v. Conroe, 13 Wis, 2J3; Parker v. 
 King, Ifi Wis. 223. 
 
 15 Sparger v. Cumpton, 54 Ga, 3.55, 359, 
 
 16 See Finlevii. Dietrick, 12 Iowa, 516; Coleman v, Ballandi, 22 
 Minn. 147 ; Martin v. Hughes, 67 N. C. 236. 
 
 17 Bridgman v. Wilcut, 4 Greene, 563. 
 
 IS See Bovkin v. Edwards, 21 Ala. 261 ; Newell v. Hayden, 8 Iowa, 
 140 : Helfenstine v. Cave, 3 Iowa, 2^7 ; Baltimore v. May, 25 Ohio St, 
 347 ; Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. St. 52. Contra, Pierce v. Chicaso, 36 
 Wis, 3S8. 
 
 19 Discussed Thonapson Homest, J? 24-29. 
 
 23 See Thompson Homest. U 440-450 ; post, i 327, 
 
 I £22, The partj entitled to homostead oxomption. — 
 Generally, to be entitled to the benelit of the homestead 
 erconiiDtion law, a party must have a family, and a. 
 home wliich it occupies in the State.^ A husband who 
 has a wife, has a family ; ^ and in some States the wife, 
 although not the head of the family, may have a homo- 
 stead .set off ;3 but not if her husband is in another 
 S!;ate and she has no children,* and not out of the lius- 
 band's iiroperty without his consent, express or im-
 
 g 322 HOMESTEAD PrvOPEKTY. 40G 
 
 plied.5 The claimant must have a home in which the 
 family reside,^ and, though he mav be temporarily 
 absent -wilhout losing his rights,^ a permanent removal 
 dcstroj's the homestead. ^ So he must have a family to 
 reside in the home, and when, by death ^ or divorce,^" 
 or for other reasons, the family is permanently broken 
 up, t lie homestead is gone;" but the mere abandon- 
 ment of his family by a husband,'^ or the abandon- 
 ment of the husband by the Avife,'^ or even divorce, 
 will not destroy the homestead right, as long as there 
 remains a part of the family to occupy the home." It 
 is sutficient if the claimant be a resident, ^^ he need not 
 bo a native,'^ or a jjermanent inhabitant." A Meth- 
 odist itinerant preacher was allowed to have a home- 
 stead.i* 
 
 1 Thompson Homest. U 40-9S ; Smyth Homest. 
 
 2 Kitchen t'. Eurswin, 21 111. 40, 45. 
 
 3 Ga. Code l**"^, i 20:::; Bowen, 51 Ga. 182; Partee v. Stewart, 5) 
 Miss. 717, 720 ; Holthaus i'. Hornbostle, 60 ilo. 43.1. 
 
 4 Kci.Ter v. Barnej', 31 Ala. 106. 
 
 5 Boweu. 50 Ga. 132 ; Kichards v. Greene, 73 111. W. 
 
 6 Gunn v. Gudehaus, 15 Hon. B. 45: ; post, ? S23. 
 
 7 Carrington i'. Herrin, 4 Bush, fi:i ; Woodward v. Murray, 13 
 Johns. 400 ; UrilRn v. Sutherland, 14 Barb. 45S ; 2>ost, i "-Cy. 
 
 8 FylTe v. Beers, 13 Iowa, 7. 
 
 9 See Burns v. Jones, 37 Tox. .50 ; Petty v. Barrett, 37 Tex. 84. 
 
 10 See Cooper, 24 Ohio St. 4SD ; Richey v. Hare, 41 Tex. 3oG. 
 
 11 See Redfern, S3 111. 509 ; Bvers 21 Iowa, 263 ; Woods v. Pavis, 34 
 Iowa, 2G4 ; Dovle v. Coburn, 6 A"llen, 73 ; feiUowav v. Brown, r: Allen, 
 31; Meader r.'Plaep, 4S >\ H. 307; Atkinson, 40 X. H. 249; 37 N. 11. 
 4^6 ; Cooper, 24 Ohio St. 4SJ ; Beeves v. Petty, 44 Tex. 251. 
 
 12 Moore v. Deming, 29 111. loO ; White v. Clark, 36 III. 285. 
 
 13 Dovle V. Coburn, 6 Allen, 71 ; Meader ?'. Place, 43 N. H. 30S ; 
 At'.ciiisoii, 37 J*'. H. 24:1 ; 37 X. 11. 4:;5. In Texas, by abandonment she 
 forfieits herri^ht: Trawick r. Harris, 8 Tex. 312; Xewland v. Hol- 
 land, 45 Te.x. 5o8. 
 
 14 See Vanzant. 23 111. 536, M2 ; Bonnell v. Smith, 53 HI. 375, .\S3 ; 
 Redfr>rn, 33 111. 509; Byers, 21 Iowa, 2G8; Doyle v. Coburn 6 Allen, 
 71 ; Newland v. Holland, 45 Te.x. 538. 
 
 15 Alston V. Ulman, 39 Tex. 1.57. 
 
 16 McKenzie !'. Murphy, 24 Ark. 155. 
 
 17 Dawley v. Algers, 23 Cal. 103. 
 
 18 Dearing v. Thomas, 25 Ga. 223. ;
 
 497 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. ? 323 
 
 g 323. Tlxo homoctoid dofined. — The liomesteacl con- 
 sists of the dwelling-house in which the claimant re- 
 sides and the land on which it is situate,^ selected 
 according to law.'' It is the home place, the place 
 where the home is, be it a house, cabin, or tcnt;^ the 
 house and the adjoining land where the head of the 
 family dwells, the home farm ;^ the place wliere a man 
 surrounds himself with the insignia of home, and en- 
 joys its immunities and privacies.' It necessarily in- 
 cludes the idea of residence.^ Great difficulties are 
 met in determining how far a dwelling used for other 
 purposes, or a place of business used as a dwelling, is 
 a homestead;^ but it is essential that the premises be 
 actually used, or manifestly intended to be used, as 
 part of the home of the family .^ In California it is 
 said tliat tlie only tests are use and value,^ for the ex- 
 tent of the homestead is generally limited by statute.^" 
 The principles as applied to liomesteads in the city, or 
 urban homesteads, and to liomesteads in the country, 
 or rural homesteads, bring somewhat different results," 
 a discussion of which is not within the scope of this 
 volume. 
 
 1 See Greeley v. Scott, 2 Woofls, 657; Tumlinson v. Swi;iTio> , 22 
 Ark. 400 ; Norris v. Khld, 2S Ark. 4S5 ; Cook v. McChristian, 4 (^al. 2:! ; 
 Taylor v. Hargous, 4 C:il. 2G3 ; Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 220, 225, 227 ; 
 Dolaney, 37 Cal. 180; Tourville v. Pierson, 39 III. 446; Kitchcll r. 
 Biirg\vfn,21 111.40; Brown r. Martin, 4 Bush, 47 ; Dvson ii. Slieloy, U 
 Mich, .527 ; Tillotson v. Millarrl, 7 Minn. 513 ; Hoitt v. Webb, .35 N. H. 
 15S, ]6fi ; Barnev i'. Leerts, 51 N. H. 265; Clark v. Shannon, 1 Nev. 565; 
 Wi'tz t\ Bearrl,"l2 Ohio .St. 431 ; Hancock v. Morgan, 17 Tox. .W*; I1:cmi 
 r. Olenick, 42 Tex. lOS ; Mills v. Grant, .36 Vt. 261 ; Morgan r. S^oarns, 
 41 Vu 3\)i ; Phelps v. Uoouey, 'J W'is. 70 ; Bunker v. Locke, 15 W'is. G35, 
 63S. 
 
 2 Discussed posl, ? 225. 
 
 3 Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex. 413. 
 
 4 Hoitt !'. Webb, 33 X. H. 1.5S, 183 ; Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis. 635, &38. 
 
 5 Philleo V. Smally, 23 Tex. 408, 502. 
 
 6 Stanley v. Greenwood, 24 Tex. 224. 
 
 7 Compare Hoitt v. Webb, .33 N. H. 15S, 166, with Houston v. 
 Winter, 44 Tex. Oil. See Stevens v. Hollingsworth, 74 Til. 2(i3 ; I'cr- 
 ki IS V. Quigley, 62 Mo. 503; Buxton v. Dearborn, 43 >'. H. 4" ; sinra, 
 n. 1.
 
 § 324 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 498 
 
 8 Grasholtz r. Xewman, 21 Wall. 3SC ; Houston i'. Winter, 44 Tex. 
 611. 
 
 9 Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 220, 226. 
 
 10 See Donald v. Ba4?er, 23 Cal. 393; Blue, 38 III. 9; Clark t'. 
 Shannon, 1 Xev. 5Gi ; Iken v. Olenlck, 42 Tex. Ii8, 199. 
 
 11 Discussed fully, Thompson Homst. ?J 125-161 ; Smyth Homest. 
 
 § 324. In what estates homestead may exist. — A home- 
 stead niaj' exist in. property held by a wrongful title,^ 
 except as against the true owner,^ in equitable estates,^ 
 so that the husband can no more defeat the ■\\ife's 
 right by conveying equitable property Avithout her 
 joinder than he could by so conveying legal property,* 
 in life estates,^ but it ceases with life ; ^ in leaseholds ; ^ 
 in common and joint estates in some States,^ in others 
 not ; ^ not in partnership estates.'" A homestead may 
 be claimed out of the \\ife's separate property,^' or out 
 of property owned jointly by husband and wife.'^ 
 "Whether the property on which the family live be- 
 longs to either or to all so living together, it equally 
 comes within the purview of the constitutional guar- 
 anty, and is in fact a homestead, and cannot be subjected 
 to forced sale." " But a single family cannot hold more 
 than one homestead,'* and therefore both husband and 
 ■wife cannot each have a homestead.'^ The homestead 
 laws were intended to embrace all property which 
 could be seized in execution.'® 
 
 1 Spencer v. Geissman, 37 Cal. 99 ; Garaty v. Du Bose, 5 S. C. 4;.'!. 
 
 2 Mann v. Kogers, 35 CaL 316 ; McClurken, 46 111. 327. 
 
 3 Bartholemew v. West, 2 Dill. 293; Allen v. Hawley. 66 III. 164 ; 
 Stinsun v. Richardson, 44 Iowa, 373; Moore v. Reaves. 15 Kan. 150; 
 Orr r. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260; Wilder v. Hiughey, 21 Minn. 101, 107; 
 Ch'^atani r. Jones, 6i N. C. 153 ; Morgan v. Stearns, 41 Vt. .3r»8 : Doane, 
 46 Vt. 4>5; McCabe i'. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 47^. Contra, Garaty v. 
 Du Bose, 5 S. 0. 493 ; McManus v. Campbell, 37 Tex. 267. 
 
 4 Allen v. Hawlev, 66 111. 164 ; Moore v. Reaves, 15 Kan. 153 ; Mc- 
 Kee V. Wilcox, 1 1 Mich. 35:* ; Hartman v. Munch, 21 Minn. 107 ; 3Ic- 
 Cabe i: Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 47S. 
 
 5 Deere r. Chapman, 25 111. 610 ; Potts i'. Davenport, 79 111. 4.56. 
 
 6 Brown v. Keller, 32 IlL 151.
 
 199 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. \ 325 
 
 7 Conklin r. Foster, 57 111 104 ; Pelan v. De Bevard, 1" Iowa. •>! : 
 Johnson v. Richardson, 33 Miss. 4U2. 
 
 8 Greenwood )'. JIaddox, 27 Ark. 660; Hewitt v. Rankin. 41 
 Iowa. 3'), 44 ; Tarrant v. Swain, 15 Kan. 14C ; Horn v. Tuffts, 3) N. II. 
 •J7S ; Williams »■. Wotliered, 37 Tex. i;« ; Smith v. Deschaumes, 37 
 Tex. 42J : McClary v. Bixby, 36 Vt. 2.>4. 
 
 9 Elias V. Verdugo, 27 Cal. 418 ; Seaton v. Son, 3-2 Cal. 4S1 ; Cameto 
 %'. Dupuy. 47 Cal. 7,»; Ventress v. Collins, 28 La. An. 7^3; Bemis r. 
 Dri ;coll, 101 Mass. 421 ; .-Vmphlett v. Ilibbard, 20 Mich. 2;iS ; Ward v. 
 liuhn, 16 Minn. 159 ; West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 580. 
 
 10 Handlin, 3 Dill. 2;i0 ; Kingslev, 39 Cal. 605 ; Guptil v. McTee, 9 
 Kan. 30, 35; Pond v. Ki-.nball, 101 Mass. 105; Anaphlett v. Hibbard, 29 
 Mich. 2J8 ; St^.te v. Sponccr, 61 Mo. 35.) ; 27 Am. Rep. 244 ; Rhodes v. 
 Williams, 12 Nov. 20, 2i ; Gaylord v. Xmhoff, 26 Ohio St. 317 ; 20 Am. 
 R"p. 762 ; Bonsell v. Conely, 44 Pa. St. 447; Russell v. Lenuon, 39 Wis. 
 570. 
 
 11 Tourville u. Pierson, .39 111. 446, 453 ; Orr v. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260, 
 261. See Murraj' v. .Sells, .53 Ga.257 ; Crane v. Wagson'^r, 33 Ind. 83 ; 
 Partee v. Stewart, 50 Miss. 717 ; Dwinell i'. Edwards, 23 Ohio .St. 603. 
 
 12 Willis V. Matthews, 46 Tex. 478, 4S4. 
 
 13 Wilson V. Cochran, .31 Tex. 6sO. 
 
 14 Gambette v. Brock, 41 Cal. 81 ; Tourville v. Pierson, 39 111. 447; 
 Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex. 413. 
 
 15 Dwinell v. Edwards, 23 Ohio St. 60.3. 
 
 16 See Deere v. Chapman, 25 111. 610, 612. See Bartholemew v. 
 West, 2 Dill. 2)3; Conklin v. Foster, 57 111. 107; Uiiiidal v. Elder, 12 
 Kan. 2'Jl ; Vosler v. Montgonierj', 54 Mo. 5S4 ; Sears v. Hanks, 14 
 Ohio St. SOL 
 
 \ 325. How a homostoad is obtainod.— There are tliree 
 ways in which one entitled to a homestead may obtain 
 this estate r^ (1) By public record notice under the pro- 
 visions of statutes.-^ (2) By visible occupancy and use.* 
 (3) B}'^ having the linmestead sot oft" in judicial jiroceed- 
 ings.* The second is the most common mode of ac- 
 quiring a homestead, and even when the other modes 
 are pursued, it is neces.sary that the pro pert j"" so declared 
 or claimed to be a homestead shall be actually occupied 
 and used as the family home.* 
 
 1 Discussed Thompson Homest. \\ 230-260 ; Smyth Homest. 
 
 2 S"e Statut-^s of .VKi.. Cal., Colo., Iowa, Me., Mass., Minu., Mo., 
 ?^. v., Va., and Vt. ; Tliiimpson Homest. J 231 ; Calderwood v. Tevis, 
 2.; Cal. .335 ; Drake v. Root, 2 Colo. 685. 
 
 3 Tourville v. Pierson. 39 111. 446 ; Letchford v. Carv, 52 Miss. 791 ; 
 Stone v. Darnell, 20 Tex. 11. 
 
 4 Holden )'. Pi:iuey, 6 Cal. 234; Thrasher ?•. Bettis, .53 Ga. 407; 
 Snioway V. Brown, 12 .Mien, 34 ; Chambers v. Penland, 74 N. C. 340.
 
 I 323 HOMKSTEAD PROPERTY. 500 
 
 5 Grog??». Bostwick. 3'i Cal. 220; Presoott, -lo Cal. 5S ; Christy v. 
 Dj-er. 1-1 Iowa, 4:i8 ; Page v. Evvbanks, IS Iowa, -(*J ; Klston ?•. Robin- 
 son, 23 Iowa. 20S ; Lee v. Miller, II Allen, 37 ; Edwards n. Fry, •> Kan. 
 417, 425; Spalding v. Crane, 46 V^t. 2iJS ; Thompson Homest. ?J 240- 
 260. 
 
 I 326. How th.0 homestead may be lost. — Ju.st a.s the 
 most common way of acquiring a homestead is by 
 actual occupation of the premises,' so the naost com- 
 mon way of losing the homestead is l>y ceasing to 
 occupy tlie same — by abandonment.- A mere tem- 
 ])orary removal,^ or unexecuted intention to leave the 
 premises,'' is not an abandonment ; tliere must be 
 aciual cessation of occupation witli the intent of no 
 longer treating tlie premises as the home.' Tlie ques- 
 ti(m is therefore largely one of intent,^ and thJ.? i.? 
 proved as a matter of fact,'^ by the declai-ations of tlie 
 c-laimant,8 by the length and character of his absence,^ 
 and conclusively, by tlie fact that he has acquired an- 
 olher homestead.'" After abandonment, a homestead 
 i:i the same pioperty must be acquired as though tlie 
 lirst homestead had never existed," and tlie jiropci-ty, 
 in spite of tlie acquisition of a second homestead there- 
 in, is liable for all debts incuired meanwhile.'^ The 
 husband as head of liis family may change his home a.j 
 often as ho pleases,'^ and therefore abandon the home- 
 stead without his wife's consent ;" but his mere de.«er- 
 tion from her is not an abandonment of the homestead, 
 if she continues to live on the premises ; '^ nor does her 
 abandonment of the homestead affect the husband'.; 
 rights,"^ or even her own,'^ therein ; still, if she lives 
 with him, and then separating from liim returns, the 
 homestead is gone.'* So the homestead may bo lost l^y 
 a joint conversance of the husband and wifo,'^ and in 
 some cases by legal isroceedings to which the hu&baiid 
 and wife are both ijarties.^" 
 
 1 Ante, I .■!2.5.
 
 501 iio:mkstead property. ? 327 
 
 2 Austin V. Stanley, -46 N. II. ol ; Bell v. Schwarz, 37 Tex. 572. 
 Discussed Thompson lloniest. U 26;>-280. 
 
 3 Bavis i\ Kelly, 14 Iowa, Sio ; Onnan, 20 Iowa, .301. 
 
 4 Dawley v. Ayres, 23 Cal. 103 ; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523. 
 
 5 Fylfe v. Beers, 18 Iowa, 7 ; Mcllillan v. Warner, 38 Tex. 410. 
 
 6 Cabf^en v. Mullicran, "7 III. 2:10. See Tavlor r. Ilarcrous, 10 Cal. 
 230 ; Guio I, n Cal. .50ii ; Ilnrp.T ?'. Forbes, 15 ('al. 2li2 ; I vi-s v. Mills, 37 
 111. 73; Kitchen r. Diirs\vi!i,2L 111.40; Delaney v. Pyiichon, Allen, 
 510 ; Lazell,8 Allen, o7.'i ; Campbell v. Adair, 45 Miss. 171; Jordan r. 
 Oodman, 1') Tox. 273 ; .Shepherd v. Cassiday, 20 Tex. 24 ; Herrick v. 
 Graves, 10 Wis. 157. 
 
 7 Brennan r. "Wallace, 25 Cal. 103 ; Fyffe r. Beers, IS Iowa, 7 ; 
 Shepherd v. Cassiday, 20 Tex. 24, 26. 
 
 8 Wright r. Dunning, 40 111. 271 ; Anderson v. Kent, 14 Kan. 207; 
 McMillan !>. Warner, 3S Tex. 410 ; Holliman v. Smith, "d Tox. 357. 
 Declarations of husband admissible against wife: Brennan v. Wal- 
 lace, 25 Cal. 115. 
 
 9 Supra, n. 3. 
 
 10 Carr v. Rising, 62 111. 14 ; FyfTe v. Beers, 18 Iowa, 7 ; Drury v. 
 Batchelder, 11 Gray, 214 ; Holliman v. Smith, 33 Tex. 302 ; Jarvais v. 
 Moe, 38 Wis. 440. 
 
 11 Phillips V. City, 39 111. 83 ; Davis v. Kelly, 14 Iowa, 525 ; Carter v, 
 Goodman, 11 Bush, 223 ; Campbell t\ Adair, 45 Miss. 170. 
 
 12 Pitman v. Moore, 43 III. 103. 
 
 13 Discussed ante, I CO. 
 
 14 Guiod, 14 Cal. 500 ; Brown r. Coon, 36 111. 243 ; Pitman v. Moore, 
 43 111. 174 ; Bursou v. Fowler, 65 111. 146 ; Hand v. Winn, 52 Miss. 7S8 ; 
 Foss V. Strachn, 42 N. H. 40 ; Jordan v. Godman, 19 Tex. 273. 
 
 15 Gambette v. Brock, 41 Cal. 625; Benson v. Aitken, 17 Cal. 163 ; 
 Dearing r. Thomas, 25 Ga. 223 ; Moore v. Dunning, 2J 111. 135; White 
 V. Clark, 36 111. 285. 
 
 16 Doyle v. Coburn, 6 Allen, 71. 
 
 17 Lies V. De Diablar, 12 Cal. 327 ; Meader v. Place, 43 K. H. 307 ; 
 •Welch V. nice, 31 Tex. toS. 
 
 18 Allison 1'. Shilling, 27 Tex. 450, 454 ; Phillips v City, 39 111. 83. 
 
 19 Lies V. De Diablar, 12 Cal. 327 ; post, ? 327. 
 
 20 Marks r. Marsh, 9 Cal. 96 ; Van Reynegan i>. Revolt, 8 Cal. 75 ; 
 C'as.sell J'. Ross, 33 111. 244 ; Chase v. Abbott, 25 Iowa, 154 ; Clark v. 
 Shannon, 1 a\cv. 503 ; 2}ost, I 320. 
 
 I 327. H'aturo and incidonts of homestead estate. — Pi-op- 
 erty which is hold by husband and wife as their home- 
 stead is .subject to iseculiar incidents. Being purely a 
 statutory estate,' it can be created and destroyed only 
 in modes prescribed by statute ; ^ and the statutes also 
 provide how it shall be held in case of the dissolution 
 of the marriage.3 Thus, in California, it was held that
 
 ^ 328 HOMKSTEAP PROPKRTY. 502 
 
 the homesiead was a kind of joint estate with the inci- 
 dent of survivorshii),* and was therefore not assets of 
 the Imsband's estate.^ And when the estate is assigned 
 its incident of exemption from debts no longer con- 
 tinue, this is a personal right which cannot be assigned. ^ 
 In Now Ilampsliire the wife's right in the homestead 
 during coverture is analogous to dower, and merely 
 inchoate." 
 
 1 Ante, I S-1. 
 
 2 See Boyd v. Cudderback, 31 111. 160 ; Connor v. McMurrav, 2 
 Allen, 204; Abbott r. Croniartie, 72 N. C. 54S ; 21 Am. Hep. "-loT; 
 Beavan v. Speed, 74 IS'. C. 64S ; ante, U 326, 327. 
 
 3 Wixon, 35 Cal. 320 ; Cotton v. Wood, 25 Iowa, 43. 
 
 4 Buchanan, 8 Cal. 507, 50'J ; Tompkins, 12 Cal. 114, 125. 
 
 5 See also O'Docherty v. McGloin, 25 Tex. 67. 
 
 6 Bowman 7'. Norton, 16 Cal. 213; Hewitt ?'. Tenipleton, 4S III. .'!r)7 ; 
 Bennett v. Culler, 44 N. H. 6J ; Bowyer, 21 Pa. St. 210. 
 
 7 Gunnison v. Twitchell, &<« N. H. 62 ; Foss v. Stracher, 42 N. H. 40. 
 
 g 323. Rights of husband in and over tho homestead. — 
 The husband, by virtue of his right to determine tlie 
 residence of his family, may locate and abandon a 
 homestead without the wife's consent. ' So, unless tho 
 statute provides otherwise, as they nearly all do, he can 
 alienate the homestead without his wife's joinder.-' But 
 under the statutes the wife must join,^ and her sepa- 
 rate acknowledgement is iu some States necessaiy ;* 
 and generally the deed must express the fact that the 
 wife joins for the purpose of releasing the homestead.^ 
 When the wife's joinder is necessary, the deed without 
 it is void not only as to her,* but as to her husband,' 
 and the alienee can have no rights in the homestead 
 unless the same is abandoned to him, ^ or tlie husband 
 survives his wife.^ But separate deeds by husband and 
 wife do not sufficiently fill the requirement of joinder.'" 
 A conveyance by the husband to his wife .md children 
 is not within the operation of these statutes limiting his
 
 503 HOMESTEAD PBOPERTY. g 328 
 
 powers of alienati(>n.'i On the wife's death the hus- 
 band continues the head of the family, and as such, if 
 he has any family, he can hold on to the homestead.'- 
 The homestead is not liable for the husband's debts,^^ 
 this is the essential feature of this estate.'* But as hus- 
 band he has full power to manage the estate, *» and if 
 he owns the fee, he is owner of the homestead.'^ He 
 cannot deprive his wife of it by will." 
 
 1 Gulod, 14 Cal. 506 ; Burson v. Fowler, 65 III. 146 ; Brown v. Coon, 
 36 111. 24:i ; Titmaii v. Moore, 43 111. 174 ; Haiul v. Winn, 52 Miss. 7S8 ; 
 Foss V. Stracher, 42 N. H. 40 ; Jordan v. Godman, 19 Tex. 'J73. 
 
 2 See Cross, 2 Dill. 320 ; Dawson v. Hayden, 67 111. 52 ; Chamber- 
 lain V. Lyell, 3 Mich. 448 ; Rector v. Rotton, 3 Neb. 171 ; Homestead 
 r. Enslow, 7 S. C. 1!) ; Kennedy v. Stacey, 57 Tenn. 223, 224 ; Morrill v. 
 Hopkins, 36 Tex. 6S7 ; Edmondsoa v. Blessing, 42 Tex. 5i»6. 
 
 3 Poole II. Gerrard, 6 Cal. 71 ; Dorsey v. McFarland, 7 Cal. 342; 
 Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66 ; Dunn v. Tozer, 10 Cal. 167 ; Lies i-. De 
 Diablar, 12 Cal. 327 ; Best v. Allen, 30 111. 30 ; Marshall v. Baun, :35 111. 
 106 ; Vanzant, 23 III. .536 ; Yost v. Devault, 6 Iowa, 60; Morris v. Sar- 
 gent, 18 Iowa, 19 ; Richards v. Chace, 2 Gray, 383; Dye t). Mann, 10 
 Mich. 291; Lawyer?). Slingerhand, U Minn. 447 ; Williams v. Starr, 5 
 Wis. 534 ; Hart v. Honley, 19 Wis. 472. 
 
 4 Cross V. Everts, 28 Tex. 532. 
 
 5 Vanzant, 23 111. 536 ; Thornton v. Boyden. 31 111. 200 ; Redfern, 38 
 111. 50!) ; Connor v. McMurray, 2 Allen, 202 ; IIokb r. Ilollister, 2 Tenn. 
 Ch. 606. But see Babcock v. Hoey, 11 Iowa, 375 ; Wing v. Hayden, 10 
 Bush, 280. 
 
 6 See Moore v. Dixon, 35 111. 208, 236 ; Martin v. Dwelly , 6 Wend. 9 ; 
 21 Am. Dec. 245. 
 
 7 Barber v. Babel, 36 Cal. 11 ; Sears v. Dixon, 33 Cal. 326 ; I^arson v. 
 Rej'nolds, 13 Iowa, 579 ; Alley i'. Bay, 9 Iowa, 509 ; Ayres v. Probasco, 
 14 Kan. 190; Morris ti. Ward, 5 Kan. 239 ; Doyle ?). Coburn,6 Allen,72 ; 
 Richards «'. Chace, 2 Gray, 3S5 ; Dye v. Mann, 10 Mich. 2;H ; Aniphlett 
 11. Hibbard, 2J Mich. 29S ; Kennedy v. Stacev, 57 Tenn. 220 ; Hoge 
 V. Hollister, 2 Tenn. C h. 003 ; Rogers v. Renshaw, ;J7 Tex. 625 ; Wil- 
 liams V. Starr, 5 Wis. 634, 650 ; Halt v. Houle, 19 Wis. 472. 
 
 8 McDonald v. Crandall, 43 111. 231, 238 ; Brown v. Coon, 36 III. 243 ; 
 Hewitt )'. Tenipleton, 4S III. 367 ; Vasey v. Trustees, 59 III. 188 ; Stew- 
 art V. Mackey, 16 Tex. 56 ; Jordan v. Godman, 19 Tex. 273. 
 
 9 Gee V. Moore, 14 Cal. 472 ; Benedict v. Webb, 57 Ga. 34S ; Heard 
 V. Downer, 47 Ga. 629. Contra, Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66, 76 ; Lar- 
 son V. Reynolds, 13 Iowa, 13 Iowa, 679. 
 
 10 Dickinson v. McLane, 67 N. H. 31. 
 
 U Riehl V. Bingerheimer, 28 Wis. 84. 
 
 12 Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66. 
 
 13 Green v. Marks, 25 111. 221 ; post, i 330. 
 
 14 Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 439, 441. 
 
 15 Thompson Homest. i 42.
 
 ^ 329 HOMESTEAD PROPERTY. 504 
 
 16 Richards )•. Greene, 74 111. rA. 
 
 17 Meech, 37 Vt. 410 ; Johnson v. Harrison, -11 NVis. asi. 
 
 I 329. Eights of wife in and over the homestead. — Over 
 a homestead out of her husband's proi^erty a wife has 
 during coverture no active rights,' and if the home- 
 stead be out of her separate i:)roperty, she lias no 
 greater rights thereover, than the husband has when 
 the homestead is out of his :^ she cannot, for example, 
 convej'' it without his joinder.' On the husband's 
 death, she may as the liead of the family, continue to 
 hold a homestead in her own property,* or take a 
 homestead in his, by survivorship as in California, ^ bj"" 
 descent as in Vermont,^ or to hold under certain con- 
 ditions, as in most of the States.' In Alabama, Illi- 
 nois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, Vermont, 
 and Wisconsin, she may have the homestead in her 
 husband's pi'operty and dower also,^ but in Georgia, 
 Iowa, and Xortli Carolina, she cannot have both.^ She 
 may redeem the hoinestead from tax sale after dis- 
 co verture,'" or perform her husband's executory con- 
 tract of purchase." During coverture her husband 
 should join her in a suit respecting tlie homestead,'' 
 and she may sue alone in equity for its protection. '^ A 
 purchase-money mortgage by the wife alone is a valid 
 lien on the homestead.'* 
 
 1 See Foss v. Stracher, 42 N. H. 40 ; nnte, i 32!). Though she may 
 herself claim the exemption : Cassell v. Ho.ss, :i:! 111. 245 ; Helff nstein 
 t'. Cove, S Iowa, 2J.5 ; Adams r. Beale, 19 Iowa, 67. 
 
 2 .See Partie v. Stewart, 50 Miss. 720 j ante, ? 322. 
 
 3 Dollman v. Harris, 5 Kan. 599. 
 
 4 See Keyes v. Hill, 30 Vt. 759. 
 
 5 Tavlor v. Hargons, 4 Cal. 273 ; Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66, 7.'! ; 
 Tomkins, 12 Cal. 114, 123. 
 
 6 McClarv r. Bixhv, 36 Vt. 260 ; Howe v. Adams, 28 Vt. 541 ; Jew- 
 ett V. Brock, 31 Vt. (w ; Davis v. Andrews, 30 Vt. 678. 
 
 7 Hunter, 3 La. An. 257 ; O'Docherty i<. McGloin, 25 Tex. 72. 
 
 8 MeCuan j-. Turrentine, 48 Ala. 70 ; Jordan v. Stickland, 42 Ala. 
 315 ; Chisholm, 41 Ala. 3:27 ; Walsh v. Reis, 50 111.477 ; Bursen r. (iood- 
 speed, 60 111. 281 ; Mercier v. Chace, H Allen, 194 ; Monk d» -Cupeu, 5
 
 505 HOMESTEAD Pr.OPERTY. § 330 
 
 Allen, 140 ; Bates, 97 Mass. 392; Grasr??, 5 Mo. 271 ; Morrimaii v. La^^e- 
 field, 4 Heisk. 222; Chaplin v. Sawyer, 35 Vt. 2;)0 ; Doaiie, 33 Vt. iHJ ; 
 Bresee v. Stiles, 22 Wis. 120. 
 
 9 Singleton v. Huff, 49 Ga. 584 ; Roff v. Johnson, 40 Ga. 555 ; Rob- 
 son V. Lindrum, !7 Ga. 252; Adams, 46 Ga. 630; Meyer, 23 Iowa, Soj ; 
 Butterfield v. Wicks, 44 Iowa, 310. 
 
 10 Adams v. Beale, 10 Iowa, 61. 
 
 11 McKee v. Wilco.x, 11 Mich. 3G1. 
 
 12 Poole V. Gerrard, 6 Cal. 71 ; Dunn v. Tozer, 10 Cal. 170. 
 
 13 Conistocli, 27 Mich. 9S ; Kelley v. Whitmore, 41 Tex. 647. Hut 
 see Gaiod. 14 Cal. 507. Contra, Mallon v. Gates, 26 L,a. An. 610 ; 
 Thorns, 45 Miss. 272. 
 
 14 Andrews v. Alcorn, 13 Kan. 3>4. 
 
 I 333. Liabilities of homestaad to claims of creditors. — 
 The homestead property is generally exempt from lia- 
 bility for debtSji but there are certain classes of debts 
 which are privileged, and which are enumerated by 
 Thompson as follows : (1) Debts and liens subsisting 
 prior to the taking effect of the exemption law, (2) 
 Debts created prior to the acquisition of the homestead. 
 (3) Liens subsisting prior to the time when the i:>rein- 
 ises became impressed with the homestead charac- 
 ter. (4) Unpaid purchase money — vendor'.s lien. (.^) 
 Debts contracted in removing encumbrances. (6) Liens 
 for the creation, improvement, and preservation of t!ie 
 property — mechanics', laborers', furnishers', landlords' 
 liens. (7) Judgments in action et delicto. (8) Public 
 debts.'' A discussion of these questions does not be- 
 long to tlie subject of this volume. 
 
 1 Green v. Marks, 25 111. 221; Delavan v. Pratt, 10 Iowa, 420; 
 Morgan v. Stearns, 41 Vt. 308. 
 
 2 Thompson Homest. ch. 7. 
 
 n. cfe W.-43.
 
 PART IV. 
 
 THE STATUS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 Chap, XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 XXI. 
 
 XXII. 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 XXVI, 
 
 XXVII. 
 XXVIII. 
 
 The Status of Married Wo3ien, Gen- 
 
 p:RAiiLY, ?^ 331-339. 
 Wills of Married Women, ?? 340-331. 
 Contracts of Married Women, ^^ 355- 
 
 393. 
 Deeds of Married Women, ?? 394-408. 
 Estoppel of Married Women, gg 409- 
 
 420. 
 Torts of Married Women, l^ 421-425. 
 Crimes of Married Women, ?§ 426, 427. 
 Suits of Married Women, ^g 428-403. 
 Married Women Traders, ?? 464-481. 
 Married Women in Representative 
 
 Capacities, g§ 482-487.
 
 g 331 STATUS Ol-" 5r..KRIi:D WOMEX, 508 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THK STATUS OF MARRIED WOMEX, GENERALLY. 
 
 ? 331. General rule at common law, no legal existence. 
 
 § 332. Capacities of wife abanJoned by husband. 
 
 1 333. Capacities of wife divorced a mensa et thoro. 
 
 2 334. Capacities of wife of husband civilly dead. 
 J 3.35. Capacities of wife of husband not sui juris. 
 
 I 336. Capacities of wife acting in representative position. 
 
 I 3::'7. Capacities of wife in equity. 
 
 I 338. Capacities of wife under statutes. 
 
 I 339. Effect of additional disability of infancy, etc. 
 
 I 331. Married womon no logal existence, genorally, at 
 common law. — At couiinou law a wife was under the 
 power and authority of her husband ;' her legal iden- 
 tity was merged into his,^ and she had of herself no 
 separate legal existence in the eye of the law,^ There- 
 fore, all her contracts were absolutely void ;* her torts 
 and crimes committed in her husband's presence were 
 his rather than hers,^ and she could neither sue nor be 
 sued alone.^ But the inconvenience of the strict appli 
 cation of this fiction gave rise to exceptions, and it be- 
 came settled gradually that a married woman liad 
 more or less of the capacities of an unmarried Avoman,' 
 wlien permanently abandoned by her husband,^ Avhen 
 hei husband was civilly dead,^ or Avhen she was di 
 vorced a mensa ct thoro, -^^ and Avhen she acted in rep- 
 resentative capacities.^! 
 
 1 Adams V. Kellogg, Kirby, 195, 190; 1 Am. Dec. 18 ; Scarborough 
 V. Wat!iins, 9 Mon. B. 540, .5-15 ; 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; ante, i 38. 
 
 2 Barron, 24 Vt. 375, 398 ; ante, ? 38. 
 
 3 Willock II. Xoble, Law 11. 7 II. L. 5S0, 533, 603 ; ante ? 38. 
 
 4 White V. Wager, 25 X. Y. 325, 323, 330 ; post, U 357, 368. 
 
 5 Whitman r. Delano, 6 N. H. 543, 545 ; Mulvey v. State, 43 Ala. 
 316, 318 ; ante, U 66, 68 ; post, U 421-125. 
 
 6 Tucker v. Scott, 3 N. J. L. 955 ; Hawes Parties, \l 03-70 ; inst, 
 II 428-463. 
 
 7 These exceptions discussed : Post, \\ 332-338.
 
 509 STATUS OF MARRIED WOMEX. ?? 332-334 
 
 8 Gregory v. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, :e ; Stewart M. & D. ? 177 ; poal, i "Z2. 
 
 9 Countess v. I'rodgers, 2 Vern. 104, 105 ; Stewart M. & D. J 475, 
 2xjst, § :j;}4. 
 
 10 Dean v. Richmond, 5 Pick. 461, 465, i66 ; Stewart M. & J). U ■i'^h 
 44J ; post, i *«. 
 
 11 Hodsrten v. Lloyd, 2 Bro. C. C. 5:54, 543 ; Noble v. Willock, Law 
 R. 8 Ch. App. 778, 7S7 ; post, U 336, 482-487. 
 
 ji 332. Wife's capacities when abandoned by hor husband. 
 
 — When a husband lias abjured the realm under the 
 old common law, or has permanently abandoned his 
 wife and the State by the present law, she has most of 
 the caiiacities of a/emme sole.^ Thus, she may contract,* 
 ■wUl,^ sue,* and be sued ^ as such, 
 
 1 Discussed Stewart M. & D. H 175-177. In addition to cases there 
 cited, sue Rliea y RhenntT, 1 Peters, 105, 107 , High v \Vorley,33 Ala. 
 ly6 ; Stiilwell V. Adams, 2J Ark. 346 ; Rogers v. Phillips, 5 Ark. 366 ; 47 
 Am. Dec 727; Way r Peck, 47 Cu!:n. 2.J ; Gallagher c. Dclargy, 57 Mo. 
 2'3, 37 ; Musick v. DobsoM, 76 Mo. 6J4, Gli ; 43 Am. Rep 780 ; Uanner v. 
 Berthold U Mo. App. 351. .355 ; I cwis r. Perkins, 06 N. J. L. 133 ; llink- 
 eon V. Williams, 41 N. J. L. 35, 37 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. l:)l) ; 27 
 Am. Ri'p. 3< ; Boyce v. Owens, 1 Hill, 8, 10 ; Beckman v. Stanley, 8 
 Nev. 257.261 ; Bean 1'. Morgan, 4 McCord. 148; Mason v Jordan, 13 
 R. L 1!>3, 1115 ; Yeatman v. Bellmaiu, 6 Lea, 488 ; post, i'i 'Ml, 358, 394, 
 412,441,451. 
 
 2 Bean v. Morgan, 4 McCord, 143 ; post, ? 353. 
 
 3 Countess v. Prodgors, 2 Vern. 104, 105 j post, i 3-:2. 
 
 4 Love V. Moynehan, 16 111. 27.1, 2-32 ; post, i 4-11. 
 
 5 Gregory ?•. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, 34 ; post, ? -i'A. 
 
 g 333. Capacities of wiio divorced a monsa ot tlioro. — 
 Afcer a divorce a mensa et thoro the woman has still a 
 husband, and is not, therefore, a fenime sole, and so in 
 England she is held to remain under all the disabilities 
 of coverture ; but in the United States a dilferent rule 
 has been adopted, and she may general!}^ contract, sue, 
 bfe .sued, etc., as if unmarried.' 
 
 1 Di.scussed in Stewart M. & D. i 449. 
 
 § 334. Capacities of wife whose husband is civilly dead. 
 
 — When one is outlawed, banished, imprisoned for life, 
 etc , he is civilly dead, and his Avife has the capacities 
 of a femme sole.^ Thus, she may contract,'' will,^ sue/ 
 and be sued,* as if unmarried.
 
 gg S35-336 STATUS of married womex. 510 
 
 1 Discussed Stewart JI. & D. § 475. 
 
 2 Boyce v. Owens, 1 Hill, 8, 10 ; post, ? .T>S. 
 
 3 Coward, 4 Swab. & T. -16 ; 34 Law J. Prob. 120 ; post, I 342. 
 
 4 Gregory ti. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, 32 ; post, i 441. 
 
 5 Worthinston r. Cooko, 52 Md. 237, 307 ; post, J 451. 
 
 § 335. Capacities of wife whon husband is not sui juris. 
 — As a general rule, the insanity, infancy, or other 
 incapacity of a husband does not aft'ect the personal 
 status of his wife.' A deed by an infant husband and 
 his wife of her property is voidable by him, and if 
 avoided by him, void as to her also.^ A husband's 
 mere sickness or inability does not give his wife tlie 
 power to act for him,^ except so far as this is necessary 
 for tlie support of his family or the preservation of his 
 property;* and there can bo no implication of her 
 agency in fact if he is insano.^ But if he is insane and 
 confined in an asylum out of the State, she has the 
 capacities of a femme sole, just as if he were civilly 
 dcad.^ A statute which provides that when from 
 drunkenness, profligacy, or otlier cause, a hu.sband 
 fails to provide for his wife, she may act as if sole, does 
 not under "other cause" include insanity, but only 
 some cause Avithin the husband's control.' 
 
 1 There seem to be no cases just on this point. 
 
 2 Barber v. Wilson, 4 Heisli. 2(;8, IGi, 271. 
 
 3 Sawyer v. Cutting, 23 Vt. 48r>, 491. 
 
 4 Ante, I'M. I 
 
 5 Alexander v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 215, 220. 
 
 6 Gnstin r. Carpenter, 51 Vt. 585, 587. 
 
 7 Edsour. I lay den, 20 Wis. 682, 684. 
 
 I S36. C2pi:i'd33 of a married woman acting in a repre- 
 sentative pojitio-i. — When a married woman acts as 
 trustee, guardian, administratrix or executrix, agent, 
 or any representative capacity ,^ two questions may 
 arise: iirst, how far she is under disability as to her 
 personal responsibilities — how far she is personally
 
 511 STATUS OF JIABniED WOMEN. g 337 
 
 bound and has personal rights ; and second, how far 
 she is under disability as to the person or the estate 
 which she represents. As a rule, the fact that she acts 
 in a representative capacitj'' does not affect her personal 
 status or give her the right to bind herself isersonally, 
 but it does give her tlie power to bind the person or 
 estate she rei^resents as if she were a femme sole.'^ 
 Thus, she would not be liable personally to her i^rinei- 
 pal foi money collected by her as agent,'' though her 
 receii^t given as agent to the debtor would be a full 
 discharge.* Of course, she can bind herself pei'sonally 
 for torts connected with an estate held by her in a rep- 
 resentative caimcity,^ for slie can commit torts even at 
 common law ; ^ and so her husband is liable with her 
 for lior devastavit.' And for conformity her husband 
 is generally joined witli her in suits respecting or aris- 
 ing out of her dealings as trustee, etc.^ 
 
 1 Discussed post, ch. xxviii. ?J 482-487. 
 
 2 See llodsden v. Lloyd, 2 Bro. C. C 534, 543 ; Willock v. Noble, 
 Law K. 7 H. L 6.S0, 58!) ; Scammell v. Willvinson, 2 East, 556, 557 ; 
 Adams?'. Kellogg, Kirby, 195, 1S»7; 1 Am. Dec. 18; Lee v. Bennett, 31 
 Miss. Hi), 12(! C utter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 353; 57 Am. Dec. 3:50 ; 
 West, 3 Hand. 373, 375. 
 
 3 Andrews v. Ormsbee, 11 Mo. 400, 402 ; Carleton v. Haywood, 49 
 N. H. 314, 320. 
 
 4 For a married woman may be an agent : ..4n^e, ?§ 89-98 ; posM 484' 
 
 5 Bobe V. Frowner, 18 Ala. 8D, 05 ; ante, § 66, n. 23. 
 
 6 Discussed jwst, U 42W25. 
 
 7 Phillips II. Richardson, 4 Marsh. J. J. 212, 215; Ferguson v. 
 Collins, 8 Ark. 241, 252. 
 
 8 Buck V. Fisher, 2 Colo. 709, 710 ; Ludlow v. Marsh, 3 N. .T. L. 983 . 
 Byrne v. Van Hoesen, 5 Johns. 66; Mitchell v. Wright, 4 Tex. 2«3; 
 post, U 430, 449. 
 
 § SS7. Wife's capacities in equity. — Great inconven- 
 ience was found to result from the fiction of the non- 
 existence, in the eye of tlie law, of wives; and courts 
 of equity, from tlie earliest times, recognized their 
 legal existence witli respect to property settled on them 
 to their sole and separate use ;^ so tliat with respect to
 
 2§ S38-333 STATUS of marrikd women. &12 
 
 such property married women liave always liad many 
 of the capacities of unmarried women. ^ But tliese ca- 
 l)acities were limited to the aforesaid projierty ; * a wife 
 has no greater personal capacity in equity than at law.* 
 
 1 Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 3;! Ohio St. 155, 1G5. 
 
 2 Djocussod ante, U 107-216. 
 
 3 Johnso:i v. Cummings, 16 N. J. Eq 97, 106 ; ante, ? 206. 
 i Butler V. Buckingham, 5 Day, 492, 501 ; 5 Am. Dec. 17-1. 
 
 § 338. Wife's capacity under statutes. — It is to statutes 
 to-day that we must look, for tlie most part, in order 
 to determine tlie status of married women. For in all 
 the States the common-law system of coverture lias 
 been more or less destroyed by legislation. The main 
 difficulty lies in determining how far a particular stat- 
 ute has modified the pre-existing law.i 
 
 1 Discussed ante, H 10-18 ; post, U 340, el sei], 
 
 I 339. Double disability — Coverture and infancy, etc. — 
 When a party lal)ors under several disabilities, each 
 must be considered by itself, and must be given as 
 great effect as if it existed bj^ itself.' In tlie absence 
 of express legislation, neitlier a man nor a woman 
 attains full age by marrying,^ althougli a marriage 
 witli tlie parents' consent emancipates an infant,^ and 
 gives such infant the riglit to his or her earnings,* and 
 althougli at common law guardianship, as well of per- 
 son as of property of a female infant, ceased on her 
 marriage,^ because inconsistent Avith the husband's 
 rights ;^ or rather, it jaassed to her husband,^ as guard- 
 ianship of person still does^ (tliough a husband has 
 been lield to have no greater right than a third party 
 to be appointed guardian of an insane A\ife^), while 
 under separate property acts tlie husband is no longer 
 guardian of liis wife's propertj^ and therefore the rea- 
 son for tliis part of the rule is gone.'" A statute which
 
 513 STATUS OF MARHIKD WOJIKN. g 339 
 
 enables a married Avoman to make certain contracts if 
 of "full age," means full age generally, not full age 
 for marrying," The husband of an infant has the 
 same marital rights and liabilities as the husband of 
 an adult.'2 Infancy and coverture are separate and 
 distinct disabilities, and each must be considered by 
 itself. 13 They may exist separately, or they may co- 
 exist. When they co-exist, the removal of the one in 
 no way is a removal of the other ; i* and the same ap- 
 plies to insanity and coA'erture, etc.^^ Thus, a statute 
 authorizing deeds by married women does not affect 
 the invalidity of an infant married woinan's deed due 
 to her infancy ;'^ and an infant married woman's deed 
 of dower,'^ or of her own separate property,'^ made in 
 accordance v.ith a married woman's act, is voidable.'^ 
 And the same rule applies to statutes enabling married 
 women to will,20 or to sue and be sued.^' On the other 
 hand, a deed of an infant mai-ried woman, not valid 
 under the married woman's aet,^^ j^. absolutely void, 
 and cannot be ratified by the married woman on at- 
 taining full age.^ The deed of an infant married 
 woman being voidable for infancy, the question arises 
 whetlier it can be avoided or confirmed wliile the dis- 
 ability of coverture eontinues,^^ The general rule at 
 common law, and even under modern acts,'» since the 
 coercion of the husband over the wife is not destroyed,^^ 
 is that the wife cannot confirm the deed, except by a 
 new deed executed in accordance with the married 
 woman's acts after attaining full age,^^ until both of 
 her disabilities have been removed ;2^ that is to saj', 
 until she has attained full age, and coverture has been 
 terminated by death ^9 or divorce.^" A statute which 
 enables a woman to confirm her deeds during cover- 
 ture does not compel her so to do.^i But as to statutory 
 separate property, a married woman may be estopped ; ^^
 
 § 339 STATUS OF MARRIKD WO.MEX. 514 
 
 and it seems that by her conduct during coverture, 
 after attaining full age, she may estop herself from 
 avoiding her deed after the determination of covert- 
 ure.^' Neither can she, it is said, during coverture, 
 disaffirm her deed by any act in pais;^*^ but a husband 
 can disaffirm a deed of his wife's in which he as infant 
 joined.^^ Still, by making another conveyance during 
 coverture,'^ or by bringing suit for the land,^^ she may 
 disaffirm her deed ; and under modern statutes it is said 
 she may disaffirm her deeds generally during covert- 
 ure.^^ She need not restore the consideration.'^ But 
 she must not delay her avoidance beyond a reasonable 
 time after the cessation of coverture.^" A statute validat- 
 ing deeds of infant married women is not retrospective 
 in its operation.*! The effect of a double disability under 
 the Statute of liimitations is elsewhere discussed.*^ 
 
 1 Spranton v. Stewart, 52 Iiid. fiS, 91 ; Afl.ams v. Palmpr, 51 Me. 
 480, 4SS ; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 129. See Schouler Dom. Rel. 426 ; 
 2 Bish. M. W. ?9 51.'?, 516, .524; Macplier. Inf. 113; Sims r. Everhart, 
 W- V. S. 300, 311 ; Greenwoofl v. Coleman, 34 Ala. loO, 151 ; Wliitman 
 1'. Abernathy, 33 Ala. 151, 159; Watson v. Billiiii,'s, 38 Ark. 278, 2,S0 ; 
 42 Am. Rep. 1 ; MaRee v. Welsh, IS Cal. 155, 15 i ; Iloyt v. Swan, 53 
 III i:?4, HO; Buchanan v. Hubbard, 96 Ind. 1,3, 5; Sims v. Bardoner, 
 86 Tnd 87 97 ; Sims v. Smith, 86 Ind. 577, 5sl ; Strincrer v. Northwest- 
 ern, 82 Ind. 100, 108 ; Low v. Long, 41 Ind. 5S6, 595 ; Miles v. Lingernian, 
 24 Ind. 3S.5. a87 ; Hartman v. Kendall, 4 Ind. 403, 404 ; OMham v. Sale, 
 I Mon. B. 76, 77 ; Prewitt v. Graves, 5 Marsh. J. .1. 1 15, 120 ; Phillips v. 
 Green, 3 Marsh. A. K. 7, 11 ; 5 Mon. .344, .3.50 ; Webb v. Hall, 35 Me. 
 336, 338; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 4-<0, 4!i8 ; t-lenn v. Clark, 53 Md. 
 5S0, 603, 604 ; Kendall' v. Lawrence, 22 Pick. 540, .513 ; Chandler v. Mc- 
 Kinney, 6 Mich. 217, 220; Dixon v. Merritt, 21 Minn. 196, 199, 200; 
 Markham v. IMerrett, 8 Miss. 4.37, 444 ; Youse v. Noroums, 12 Mo. .549, 
 564" 51 Am. Dec. 175; Noroums v. Cheatham, 21 Mo. 25, 29 ; Ross r. 
 Adams, 28 N. J. L. 160, 163 ; Porce v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204, 208 ; San- 
 ford V McLean, 3 Paige, 117, 121, 122; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 
 Hun, 692, 698 ; Mcllvaine v. Kadel, .30 How. Pr. 193, 195 ; Sherman v. 
 Garfield, : Denio, 329, 330 ; Priest r. Cummings, 20 Wend. 3.38, .349 ; 
 Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio St. 159, 191; Card v. Patterson, 5 Ohio 
 .St. 319, 324 ; Drake v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio, 251, 252 ; Hughes r. Watson, 10 
 Ohio, 127, 134; Williams r. Baker, 71 Pa. .St. 476, 4S2; Shrader r. 
 Decker, 9 Pa. St. 4, 16; Tillinghast v. Holbrook, 7 R. I. 230, 233 ; Mc- 
 Morris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 5.58, .562; 43 Am. Rep. 629; Jfatherson v. 
 Davis. 2 Cold. 44.3, 448, 4.50; Barker v. Wilson, 4 Heisk. 26^. 269, 271 : 
 Dodd V. Benthal, 4 Heisk. 601, 607; Thomas r. Gammel, 6 Leigh, 9, 
 12; Armstrong v. Walkup, 12 Gratt. 608, 613. 
 
 2 McMorris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 558, 562 ; 43 Am. Rep. 620 ; 2 Bish. M. 
 W. § 513.
 
 515 STATUS OP MARRIED WOMEN. g 339 
 
 3 Bricksport v. Rockland, SR Me. 22. 2.1 ; Taunton v. Plvmoiith, 15 
 Mass. 203, 204 ; Burr v. Wilson, 18 Tex. 36v, 370. 
 
 4 Sutyrn, n. 3. But see White v. Henrj', 24 Me. 531, 533. 
 
 5 Nicholson V. Wllborn, 13 Oa. 4fi7,471 ; Post, 47 Ind. 142, H3 ; Bart- 
 lett V. Cowlcs, 15 Gray, 445, 440 ; Force v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204, 207, 
 20.S; CummlnRR, 11 Pa. St. 272, 274 ; Jones v. Ward, 10 Yerg. 160, 171 ; 
 Bnrr i\ Wilson, 18 Tex. 3G7, 375; Armstrong v. Walkup, 12 Gratt. 
 608, 613. 
 
 6 Porce V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 201, 207 ; sujyra, ii. 5. 
 
 7 Burr v. Wilson, 18 Tex. 367, 375 ; supra, n. 5. 
 
 8 Cummings, 11 Pa. St. 272, 274. 
 
 9 Fegan,45C.al. 176, 177. 
 
 10 Cummings, 11 Pa. St. 272, 274. 
 
 11 McMorrls v. Webb, 17 S. C. 558, 562 ; 43 Am. Rep. 620. 
 
 12 Nicholson v. Wllborn, 13 Ga. 467, 470. 
 
 13 SImsT. Bardoner, 86 Ind. 87, 97; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 
 48S ; Bool V. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 129 ; 31 Am. iJec. 285 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 14 Watson V. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 280; 42 Am. Rep. 1 ; Adams v. 
 Palmer, 57 Me. 480, 488 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 15 Webb V. Hall, 35 Me. 336, 838 ; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 488 ; 
 6ool V. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 133; 31 Am. Kec. 285. 
 
 16 Hughes V. Watson, 10 Ohio, 127, l:i4 ; supra, u. 1. 
 
 17 Glenn t\ Clark, 53 Md. 580, 603, 604 ; cases ante, i 271 ; sripra, n. 1. 
 
 18 Greenwood v. Coleman, 84 Ala. 150, 154 ; Sims v. Bardoner, 86 
 Ind. 87, 90 ; Low v. Long, 41 Ind. 586, 595 ; Phillips v. Green, o Mon. 344, 
 aso ; Webb v. Hall, 35 Me. 8,-^6, 338 ; Sanford v. McLean, 3 Paige, 117, 
 121, 122 ; Bool V. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 1:50 ; 31 Am. Dec. 285 ; Card v. Pat- 
 terson, 5 Ohio St. 319,324 ; Burr v. Wilson, 18 Tex. 367, 375. 
 
 19 Cresinger v. Welch. 15 Ohio, 159, 191 ; 45 Am. Dec. 566. S. P., 
 Watson ti. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 280; Sims v. Bardoner, 86 Ind. 87, 90 ; 
 Adams v. Palmer, 57 Me. 480, 488; Youse t'. Norcums, 12 Mo. 549, 560, 
 663 ; 51 Am. Dec. 175 ; Card v. Patterson, 5 Ohio St. 319, 324 ; ante, 
 «271. 
 
 20 Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 Hun, 692, 698, 
 
 21 Wood,2Palge,108; 2Bish. M. W. {303, Butsee Jones,18Me.308, 
 513; 36 Am. Dec. 723. 
 
 22 Post, ch. xxli., ?5 894-40.8. 
 
 23 Scranton ?>. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68, 9a 
 
 24 Buchanan t'. Hubbard, 96 Ind. 1, 5. 
 
 25 Scranton t\ Stewart, 52 Ind. 68,93; m/rft, n. 28. But see infra, 
 11.33. 
 
 26 Miles V. Lingerman, 24 Ind. 385, .388 ; Scranton v. Stewart, .52 Ind. 
 es, 92 ; Dodd v. Benthal, 4 Heisk. 601, 607 ; ante, U H. 62, 66, 68, 121. 
 
 27 Miles V. Lingerman, 24 Ind. 385, 388; Williams r. Baker, 71 Pa. .St. 
 
 476, 483. 
 
 28 Sims V. Everhart, 102 U. S. 300, 309, 310 ; Magee v. Welsh, 18 Cal. 
 1.".5, 1.59; Sims v. Bardoner, 86 Ind. 87,91, 97: Sims r. Smith, 86 Ind. 
 677, .579 ; Youse r. Norcums, 12 Mo. .549, 564 ; 51 Am. Dec. 175 ; Dodd v, 
 Eenthal,4 Heisk. 601, 607 ; Matherson v. Davis, 2 Cold. 443, 448-4.50. 
 
 20 Hartman v. Kendall, 4 Ind. 401, 404.
 
 I 339 STATUS OF MARBIKD WOMKN. 51 G 
 
 30 Sims V. Everhart, 101 U. S. 300, 311. 
 
 31 Miles 7'. Lingerman, 24 Iiid. 385, 388. 
 
 S2 Discussed fully post, ch. xxiii., ?? 40M23. 
 
 33 See Sims v. Everhart, 102 U. S. 300, 307 ; Scran ton v. Stewart. IT 
 lud. G8, 93 ; Stringer v. Northwestern, 8:2 Ind. 100, lOS. 
 
 34 Dodd ?>. Benthal,4 neisk. GOl.GOT. See Mcllva'.ne r. Kadel, 30 
 How. I'r. 103, 195. 
 
 35 Barker v. Wilson, 4 Heisk. 2C3, 26:)-271. 
 
 36 Youse t). Norcums, 12 Mo. 54D, 5fi4 ; 51 Am. Dec. 175; Norcums 
 V. Cheatham, 21 Mo. 25,29; Ross v. Adams, 28 X. J. L. IfiO, 103. Cuittni, 
 how V. Long, 41 Iiid. 586, 697. 
 
 37 Webb v. Hall, 35 Me. 336, 333. 
 
 38 Buchanan v. Hubbard, 96 Ind. 1, 3. 
 
 39 Buchanan v. Hubbard, 06 Ind. 1,4 ; Low'?'. Long, 41 Ind.5.S6, 600; 
 Miles ('. Lingerman, 24 Ind. 385, 3s7 ; Markham v. Merritt, 8 Miss. 4:J7, 
 444. 
 
 40 Sims V. Bardoner, 86 Tnd. 87, 93 ; Scranton v. titewart, 52 lud. 
 68, 96 ; supixi, u. 28. 
 
 41 Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 489. 
 
 42 J'ost.i-iio.
 
 517 WILLS OF MAnuiED WOMEN. § 340' 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 WILLS OF MAKKIED WOMEN. 
 
 i aw. Testamentary law as applied to married women. 
 
 i 341. Wills of married women at common law, generally. 
 
 I .342. Wills of married women at common law, exceptions. 
 
 J 343. Wills of married women in equity. 
 
 I 344. Wills of equitable separate property. 
 
 § 345. Wills of married womeli under statutes. 
 
 { 346. Wills of statutory separate property. 
 
 'i S47. Validity and operation of wills distinguished. 
 
 i 348. Effect of husband's Consent to wife's will. 
 
 I 349. Mutual wills of husband and wife. 
 
 5 350. Gifts ca((.sa JAior/i'v of married women. 
 
 i 351. Hevocation of will by married woman. 
 
 § 352. ^\'■ills made by woman before her marriage. 
 
 I 353. Wills republished after dissolution of marriage. 
 
 J 354. Conflict of laws as to wills. 
 
 § 340. Testamentary law, as applied to married women. 
 — Bj'" the common law, before tlie statute of wills, the 
 right of testamentary disposition of property did not 
 extend to real estate ; and as to personalty, it was lim- 
 ited, unless the testator had neither wife nor children.' 
 This statute was held not applicable to married wo- 
 men,' because they were regarded as without will of 
 their own, and under the jjower of tlicir husbands,^ and 
 because a power in them to will would have conflicted 
 with the liusband's marital rights.* As to personalty, 
 the}' had no power to will independently of statute, 
 because such property vested in the husljand abso- 
 lutely l)y marriage.* Therefore, a married woman's 
 power to will must be found in an express statute,^ or 
 in some circumstances which relieve her of the disabil- 
 ities of coverture.' 
 
 1 r.edf. Wills, 3 ; 2 Blackst. Com. 402 ; post, ? 345. 
 
 2 Calverlye, Dver, n*! h ', Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H. 205, 21 1 : nosl, 
 1 341. 
 
 11. & W.-44.
 
 ^g 341-342 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 518 
 
 3 Burton v. Holly, 18 Ala. 40S, 411 ; Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H, 
 205,211. 
 
 4 Willock V. Noble, Law II. 7 H. L. 580, 589, 60;{. 
 
 5 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. II. 343, 354, 35fi ; 57 A m. Dec. 330. 
 
 6 Warner, 37 Vt. 356, 3GS ; 2^ost, ? 345. 
 
 7 Wlllock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 5;)0 ; i^ost, i 342. 
 
 g 341. Wills of married women at common law, gener- 
 ally. — At common law the will of a married woman 
 was, generally, a mere nullity,^ because by marriage 
 her legal existence was merged in that of her hus- 
 band ; ^ she had no separate disposing power ; ^ she was 
 not Sid juris ;^ she was not a free agent,^but Avas under 
 the power and control of her husband ; ^ her incapacity 
 depended also on the fact that she had nothing to dis- 
 pose of, it is said.^ The disability of coverture in re- 
 spect to wills differs materially from that of intancy, 
 idiocy, or lunacy ; * and though it be removed, any 
 other disability will remain.** 
 
 1 Steadman v. Powell, 1 Addis. 58, 60 ; Tucker ?i. Nunan,4 Man. 
 & G. 1049 ; Fane, 16 Sim. 406 ; Cutter r. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, .^50; .57 
 Am. Dec. 3:J0: yanWinkle v. Schoonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 385, 386; 
 infra, notes 3-7. 
 
 2 Hood V. Archer, 1 McCord, 225, 226. 
 
 3 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 589. 
 
 4 Marston v, Norton, 6 N. H. 205, 212. 
 
 5 Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 N. H. 295, 299. 
 
 6 Adams v. Kellogg, Kirbv, 195, 196; 1 Am. Dec. 18; Burton v. 
 Holly, 18 Ala. 408, 411 ; Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H. 205, 211. 
 
 7 Willock ti. Noble, La,w R. 7 H. L. 580, 603. 
 
 8 1 Jarman Wills, .3.8. 
 
 9 Zimmermaii v. SchofiMfeldt, 3 Hun, 692, 698 ; ante, ? 33D. 
 
 I 342. Wills of niarri^d woman at common law, excep- 
 tions. — At common law a married woman who, owing 
 to peculiar circumstances, had the capacities of a,/cmine 
 sole,^ could make a will ;'' as where her husband was 
 civilly dead,* being, for e^^mple, banished for life ; * but 
 the adultery and desertion of her husband did not en- 
 able her to paake a will,* 3>o Avhen she was acting in a
 
 519 WILLS OP MARRIED AVOMKN. § 342 
 
 representative capacity, for example, as executrix, she 
 could make a will ;^ or where she was acting for and in 
 the place of another, as wlien she made a will of person- 
 alty with her Imsband's consent,' or under a power.^ 
 For there is no question of the right of a married 
 woman to execute a powder »f any kind ;^ she may will 
 realty even, under a power given by a mere agreement 
 between her and lier husband before marriage ; '" and 
 when she acts under a power tlie wliole doctrine of dis- 
 ability bj"" coverture is eliminated." In executing a 
 power she need not conform to the requirements of 
 married women statutes,''^ or liave the consent or join- 
 der of her husband ; '^ she may execute it in favor of 
 her husband ; " her mode of executing it, and her right 
 to do so, are unaflFected by married women's enabling 
 acts,'^ But she must refer to the power, unless the will 
 would be of no effect otherwise ; ^^ and a power " to sell, 
 use, or exchange " is not a power to will,'" She may 
 revoke a will made under a power by another subse- 
 quent Avill.'* But any paper'which is to take effect as a 
 will must be probated.'^ 
 
 1 Discussed ante, U ■'5.'!2-OSa. 
 
 2 See Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 350-3M ; 57 Am. Dec. 330. 
 
 3 Coward, 4 Swah. & T. 46 ; 34 Law J. Prob. 120 ; Cutter v. Butler, 
 25 N. H. 343, ;«3 ; 67 Am. Dec. 3:10. Consult Martin, 2 Rob. 405 ; 15 Jur. 
 6S6 ; Coombs c. Queen, 2 Rob. 547 ; 16 .Tur. 820; Harrington, 29 Beav. 
 24 ; Franks, I Maule & S. 11 ; 7 Bing. 762 ; Atlee v. Hook, 23 Law J 
 Cli. 776 ; Gougli v. Davies, 2 Kay & J. 625, 627 ; ante, I 334. 
 
 4 Countess v. Prodgers, 2 Vorn. 104, 105. 
 
 5 Vreeland v. Ryno, 26 N. J. Eq. 160, 163. 
 
 6 Hodsdenv. Llovd,2Bro. C. C. 534, 543 ; Adams v. Kellnffe, Kirhv, 
 105, 107 ; 1 Am. Dee. IS ; Seammell v. Wilkinson, 2 East, 5.56, .5.57 ; Wil- 
 lock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 5S0, 5SI); Lee v. Bennett, 31 Miss. 119, 
 126; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 34.3, 353; 57 Am. Dee. 330 ; West, 3 
 Band. 373, 375. 
 
 7 Marston v. JSTorton, 5 N. 11. 205, 210 ; post, I 348. 
 
 8 Nobl'» V. Willock, Law R. 8 Ch. 778, 7S7 ; Ross r. Ewer, 3 Atk. 
 1.56, 160; Pi'-quet V. Swan, 4 Mason, 443. AC,\ . Anderson r. Miller, 6 
 Marsli. J. J. r,M, ,57:! ; George v. llnssini,'. 15 Moii. I'.. r,."is, .'>ii;i ; Morv 11. 
 Miehael, 18 JIil. 227, 241 ; Solilev r. Mr( fricv, :;i; Md. 267, 273 ; Holihan 
 V. Perry, 4 .Alct. 492, 498 ; Osgood r. Bleed, 12 Mass. 525. 5.32 ; Cutter v. 
 Butler, 25 A'. H. »43, 354. 3j5, 353 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330 ; Bradish v. Gibbs 3
 
 §^ 343-344 WILLS OB' jiaruied womkx. 520 
 
 Johns. Ch. 523, 540; Newlin i'. Freeman, 1 Jred. 514, SCO; Jones ?■. 
 Shields, 14 Ohio, 35!) ; Wagner, 2 Aslim. 448, 451 ; Barnes v. Irwin, 2 
 Ball, im, 201 ; 1 Am. Dec. 278; West, 10 Serg. & K. 44.}, 447 ; West, 3 
 Band. 37:i, 375 ; Thorndilve v. Reynolds, 22 Gratt. 21 ; ante, 'i 208. 
 9 Schley i'. McCeney, .36 Md. 207, 273. 
 
 10 "Bradish v. fiibbs. 3 Johns. Ch. .523, ,540; Barnes v. Irwln,2 Dall. 
 ISy, 20.1 ; 1 Am. Dec. 278 ; West, lOSerg. & R. 445, 447. 
 
 ,11 N'oblo V. WiUock, Law R. 8 Ch. 778, 787. 
 
 •'l2 .So'aley t'. McCeney, 36 3rd. 267, 274. 
 
 13 Schleyi'. McCeney, 3GMd. 267, 274; rtrafc,? 208. 
 
 14 Bradish J'. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 623, 640 ; ante, U 50, 208. 
 
 15 George v. Bussing, 15 Mon. B. 538, 563. 
 
 16 INfory v. Michael, 18 Md. 227, 241 ; ante, I 208. 
 :17 Harris?', llarbeson, 9 Bush,. 307, 402. 
 
 18 Iliiwksley ?-. Barrow, Law R. 1 Pro. & D. 147, 152 ; post, I 351. 
 
 19 Stone r. Forsvth, 2 Doug.707; Ross ti. Ewer, 3 Atk. 156, 160; 
 Picqtict r. Swan, 4 Mason, 443, 4i;i ; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. ai3, 35:) ; 
 57 Am. Dec. ;TJi ; N.'Wlin t'. Freeman, 1 I red. 514, 520. 
 
 2 343. Wills of married womon in equity. — Since courts 
 of equity have long recognized tlie separate existence 
 and separate property of married women,* the reasons 
 for the incapacity to will under the common law do not 
 exist in equity,'^ and married women's wills of equi- 
 table and separate estate are A'ery common.* So wills 
 Avhicli are valid only thi-ough the consent of the hus- 
 band are sustained onlj'- in equity.^ 
 
 1 Discussed ante, U 8, 43, 197-210. 
 
 ,2 See an^c, ? 341. 
 
 3 Ante, | 20^ ; jx,st, § 3^4. 
 
 4 Bradish v. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 523, .540 ; jwxt, ? 348. 
 
 I 344. Wills of equitable separate estate. — As to a 
 married woman's wills of her equitable separate estate 
 there are tliree views, corresponding to the three view.s 
 of her ijowor over such estate generally :' (1) That she 
 stands towards this estate precisely as a femme sole, 
 and can will it, be it real or personal;^ this is tlie 
 English and the common view,* (2) That she has over 
 this estate only the powers given her by the instru- 
 ment creating it, and can will it only under a jjower.''
 
 521 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEN. § 345 
 
 (3) That she has the powers of a femme sole over the 
 personalty and the profits of the realty, but none over 
 the realty itself, except such as are given by the instru- 
 ment creating the estate.* Her right to will, when it 
 exists, includes the right to destroy the husband's cur- 
 tesy ,8 to will to the husband himself,' and to appoint an 
 executor.8 
 
 1 Discussed ante, ?? 203, 208. 
 
 2 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 590 ; Cutter v. Butler, 25 
 N- II. 3-i:!, 851 ; 27 Am. Dec. 330 ; Bradlsh v. Gibbs, 3 Johns. Oh. 523, 540; 
 Barnes v. Irwin, 2 Dall. 199, 203 ; 1 Am. Dec. 278 ; infra, n. 3 ; ante, 
 J 208. 
 
 3 Taylor v. Meade, 4 DeGex, J. & S. 597, 607 ; Pride v. Bubb, Law 
 R. 7 Ch. 64, 69 ; Cooper v. McDonald, 7 Ch. D. 288, 296 ; Rich v. Cock- 
 <'ll, 9 Ves. 369, 374; Hall v. Waterhouse, 5 Gifif. 64, 68; Braham v. 
 Biirchell, 3 Addis. 343, 363 ; Pool v. Blakie, 53 111. 495, 502 ; Michael v. 
 Mory, 12 Md. 158, 169 ; supra, n. 2 ; ante, ? 208. 
 
 4 Wagner, Ashm. 448, 451 ; ante, §§ 208, ai2. 
 
 5 West, 3 Rand. 373, 375 ; ante, § 208. 
 
 6 Cooper v. McDonald, 7 Ch. D. 2S8, 298 ; Pool v. Blakie, a5 111. 495, 
 502,503 ; ante, H 157, 212. 
 
 7 Burton v. Holly, 18 Ala. 408, 411, 412 ; ante, ? 50. 
 
 8 Churchill v. Dibben, 9 Sim. 447, 452. 
 
 § 345. WiUs of married women under statutes. — Gen- 
 eral .statutes as to wills do not affect tlie capacity of 
 married women.i A statute authorizing a wife to will 
 generally has been held not to authorize a will to her 
 husband ; ^ but the soundness of this rule is question- 
 able.' A statute authorizing her to will her "separate 
 property " includes whatever property the legislature 
 may afterAvards declare separate.* A separate prop- 
 erty act, which says nothing as to wills, does not 
 authorize wills,* though a contrary view is sometimes 
 taken. ^ A statute which authorizes conveyances by 
 implication excludes wills.' An enabling act does not 
 take away the power to execute a will in accordance 
 with the common-law rules.^ A statute which i.s de- 
 claratory of tlie common law is construed in accord- 
 ance therewith, so that wlien the husband's consent is
 
 § 346 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 522 
 
 required a particular consent is meant.^ A statute pro- 
 hibiting a husband, from witnessing his wife's will 
 does not render it unlawful for him to be present when 
 she executes her will.'" These statutes are said to be 
 strictl3' construed," but this rule must be taken with 
 qualifications.^^ 
 
 1 Adams v. Kellogg, Kirbv, 195, 196; 1 Am. Dec. 18; Baker v. 
 Chastang, 18 Ala. 417, 423 ; Reese v. Cochran, 10 Ind. 195, 197 ; Osgood 
 V. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 5:{0 ; Marstoii v. Norton, 5 N. H. 20.5, 210 ; Cutter 
 V. Butler, 28 N. H. .m, 352 ; 57 Am. Dec. 3;!0 ; Wakefield v. Phelps, :i7 
 N. H. 295, 300 ; anlf, ? 13. But see .Voble v. Enos, 19 Ind. 42, 44 ; 
 Bennett v. Hutchinson, U Kan. 398, 410 ; Allen v. Little, 5 Oliio, 65. 
 
 2 Fetch V. Brainard, 2 Day, 1G.3, 189 ; Wakefield r. Phelps, 37 N. H. 
 295, 305. 
 
 3 W'akefleld v. Phelps, 37 N. H. 295, :»2 ; mite, 2 50 ; post, § 349. 
 
 4 Emmert v. Hays, 89 111. 1, 13, 14. 
 
 5 Cain V. Bunklev, 35 Miss. 119, 145; Compton v. Pierson. 28 N. J. 
 Eq. 229, 2;a ; Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. 281, 288. 
 
 6 Mosser, 32 Ala. 5.51, 5.V). Consult an/e, J J 230, 240. 
 
 7 Ilarkerr. Elliott, 3 liar. (Del.) 51, 53. Compare a»i.'e, § 204. 
 
 8 Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 1, 7. 
 
 9 Kurtz V. Saylor, 20 Pa. St. 205, 209. 
 
 10 Dickinson, 61 Pa. St. 401, 406. 
 
 11 Compton V. Pierson, 28 N. J. Eq. 229, 231. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, 1 16. 
 
 I 346. Wills of statutory separate property. — In most 
 of the States the separate property acts provide for the 
 willing of separate propert}'.' Whether a statute which 
 says nothing of disposition by will, but secures her 
 property to her as a femme sole, enables her to will it, 
 is doubtful,^ the decisions not being directly in point, 
 as those relating to equitable property are.^ But few 
 cases seem to have arisen, and some of them are cited 
 hereunder.^ 
 
 1 See ante, ? 218 ; 3 Jarman on WllLs. 
 
 2 P)o, Mos.ser, 32 Ala. 651,555. Contra, Cain v. Bunklev, 35 Miss. 
 119. 145 ; Navlor v. Field. 29 N. J. L. 287, 288 ; Compton v. Pierson, 28 
 N. J. Eq. 229. 231 ; ante, I 240. 
 
 3 See aiUe, I 344. 
 
 4 Mosser, .32 Ala. 551, 6.55 ; Harker v. Elliott, 3 Har. (Del.) .51, 69; 
 Cavenauffh v. Ainchbacker, 36 Ga. 500, 507; Irquhart ?'. Oliver, 56 
 Ga. 344, 347 ; Emmert i'. Hays, 89 111. 1, 13, 14 ; Tuller, 79 111. 99, 101 ;
 
 523 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEN. § S47 
 
 Noble V. Enos, 19 Ind. 42, 4J ; Reese v. Cochran, 10 Ind. 195, 197 ; Ben- 
 nett V. Hutcliinson, 11 Kan. 3J7, 408 ; ScLiuH v. Murray. 32 Md. 9, 16; 
 BucUanuii v. Turner, 26 Md. 1, 7; Burroughs ti. Nutting, 105 Ma.ss. 228; 
 Mar.shall v. Berry, 13 Allen, 43 ; Silsby v. Bullock, 10 Allen, 94 ; Heath 
 V. Withington, 6 Cu.sh. 497 ; Osgood r. Breed, 12 Mass. .525, 5:i0 ; .Stewart 
 V. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; Cain v. Bunkley, 35 Miss. 119, 145 ;• Wakefield v. 
 Phelps, 37 N. H. 295, 299-302; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 3.53; 57 
 Am. Dec. 3"0 ; Sanborn v. Batchelder, 51 N. H. 426, 431 ; Comptou v. 
 Pierson, 28 N. J. Eq. 229, 231 ; Vreoland v. Kyno, 26 N J. Eq. 160, 162 ; 
 Waters v. Cullen, 2 Bradf. 354 ; Beal v. Storm, 26 N. J. Eq. KiO. 162; 
 Huston V. Cone, 24 Ohio St. U, 20, 22 ; Allen v. Little, 5 Ohio, 65 ; 
 Kurtz V. Saylor, 20 Pa. St. 205, 209 ; Clarke, 79 Pa. St. 376, 377 ; Dickin- 
 son, 61 Pa. St. 401, 406 ; Stroud v. Connelly, 33 Oratt. 210, 220 ; Thorndike 
 V. Reynolds, 22 Gratt. 21, 29 ; Warner, 37 Vt. 356, 368. 
 
 g 347. Validity and operation of wills distinguished. — 
 A distinction must be made between the validity and 
 the operation of a married woman's will. At common 
 law she could not will, first, because she had no legal 
 capacity,! and second, because during her husband's 
 life she had no property for a will to act uijon ; ^ and on 
 the one hand Ave find her wills su.stained when she has 
 no capacity, as where she disposes of her husband's 
 property, whether held in her right,^ or in his own,* 
 v/ith his consent,' while on the other we find a per- 
 fectly valid will inoperative as to certain property, for 
 example, to proiierty which jiasses to her husband by 
 survivorship.^ It would seem that when her power to 
 will is given by the instrument or statute which 
 secures the property to her separate use, she can will 
 the whole of the same and defeat tlie marital rights of 
 her husband ; but that Avhen her incapacity to will is 
 removed by statute generally, her will oi)erates only so 
 far as it does not conflict with the marital riglits of her 
 husband.^ In probating a married woman's will, its 
 operation must bo limited to the kinds of property 
 which it is in her power to dispo.se of.' 
 
 1 Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H. 205, 211 ; ante, § 341. 
 
 2 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 II. L. 3S0, 603. 
 
 3 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, :«4, 3.56 ; .57 Am. Dec. 330. 
 
 4 Van Winkle v. Schoonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 384, 386. | 
 
 5 Lee V. Bennett, 31 Miss, 113, 123 ; poni, I ;:J8, ^^/
 
 ^ 343 AVILLS OF MARRIKD WOMEN. 524 
 
 6 Stroud 1'. Coiuiellv, 33 Gratu 217, —1. Compare Alsop r. Mc- 
 Anhur, 76 111. 20, 2i 
 
 7 See Cooper r. McDonald, 7 Ch. Div. 233, 2yr. ; Pool f. Blakie, 53 
 111. 49.1, .502, 503. 
 
 8 See Clarke, 79 Pa, St. 37G, 377 ; nnle, { 34.5. 
 
 n Willock V. Xoble. Law R. 7 H. L. 530, oM, 597 ; Cutter v. Butler, 
 2.5 X. H. :m, 359; 57 Am. Dec. 3;». 
 
 I 348. Effect of husband's consent to wife's will. — A 
 husband cannot, bj' his consent, give his wife any per- 
 sonal ciipacity to make a wU.1, for the status of married 
 women depends on the law and not on contract ; ^ the 
 most his consent can do is to enable her to dispose, bj' 
 will, of property belonging to him, in his own right, * 
 or in her right, as her husband.' Therefore, at common 
 law, while a will of jjersonalty made by a married 
 woman, ■with her husband's consent, served to carry 
 the property to the legatees,* since a wife's personalty 
 vests absolutely in lier husband by marriage, and he 
 may do with it as he pleases,* yet lie has no such inter- 
 est in her realty, and she could not dispose of real 
 estate even by a will made with his consent,^ this hav- 
 ing no eflfect as agtiinst the heir," or even against him 
 as to his life interest.^ Of course a different rule pre- 
 vailed if his consent took the form of a power,^ or of a 
 settlement of property to the wife's equitable separate 
 use.^" For a husband may, even by his will, empower 
 his wife to dispose of his property by her will, and a 
 ■will made during coverture under sucli power is a good 
 execution thereof." So that wlien a wife makes a Avill 
 which is valid by virtue of her husband's consent, she 
 makes it simply as his agent ;i- and she must be 
 specially autliorized to make the will in question," a 
 general consent not being sufficient,^* and knowledge 
 on the part of the husband of the contents of the will 
 being necessary.^* Tlie assent may be given during or 
 after coverture,"' orally or in ^^-riting," and may be
 
 525 AVILLS OF MARKIED WOMEN. g 348 
 
 proved, directly or indirectly,^* as, for example, by tlie 
 fact that the will was in his handwriting ; ^* the usual 
 and proper mode is by her assenting to tlie probate of 
 the will,'-' Tlie assent is generally revocable by the 
 husband, at pleasure, until probate; 2' it is revoked by 
 his death,'^ and he must, therefore, survive her to ren- 
 der the will good.'^2 The wUl must be probated,^' and 
 the husband should assent to the probate ;^^ if he does 
 so, he cannot afterwards revoke his consent.^^ (It is 
 said, even, that lie cannot revoke any consent given 
 after his wife's death. ^'j Cut he may render liis assent 
 irrevocable by a contract on valuable consideration,-'* 
 or under seal,"'^ and he may by his conduct estoi) him- 
 self from denying his consent.^o When the will is 
 valid witliout tlie husband's consent, by assenting 
 thereto lie waives Iiis rights inconsistent with the pro- 
 visions of the will.^'^ Whetlier a statute which requires 
 the husband's consent to his wife's will renders a will 
 made witliout such consent invalid, or simply inoiiera- 
 tive as to tlio liusband's interest,"^ must depend on the 
 wording of tlie act itself.^^ Generally, under the stat- 
 utes, his assent is not necessary for any purpose.^* 
 
 1 St. John, 11 Ves. Jr. 525, 62D ; Stewart M. & D. J 181. 
 
 2 T.po V. P.cnnott, 31 Miss. 110, 126 ; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. ir. ?,::\, 
 :{.-)«; .-)7 Am. Dec. :i: ; Van Winkle v. Sc-liDOimiiiker, 15 N. J. Eq. SS-1, 
 3S0 ; Thoniilike v. UcynoUls, 22 Gratt. 21, 2i). 
 
 3 Osgood V. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 532 ; infra, n. 4. 
 
 4 Lloyd V. irodsden, 2 Bro. C. C. S.'M, 543, 544 ; Stevens v. Bagwell, 
 15 Ves. V>i> ; Adams v. Kidlogg, KUby, IJo, I'.iii ; 1 Am. IJi-c. 1» ; Kcuv, 
 31 I.. .1. l>r(jl). i:,l : 4 Swab. & i'. 21."), 217 ; l.saacs, 31 L. J. I'rob. 1.58, 15J ; 
 Maas 1'. SlicUiclil, 1 Kob. 3G4; 10 Jur. 417,418; Noble v. Willock, Law 
 K. 8 Ch. 178, 18'.t, 190; S. C. Law H. 7 H. L. 580, 5!)0 ; Stoadmaii v. 
 Powell, 1 Addis. 58 ; Fane, 16 Sim. 40G ; Picqiiet v. Swan, 4 Mu.son, 4 li, 
 4(il ; George v. Bussing, 15 Moii. B. 5:i8, 5(i J ; Osgood v. Breed, 12 Mas.s. 
 5.I."), 532; Lee v. Bcunett.Sl Miss. 11!), 126; C.ii.'i v. Bunkley, 35 Mi.ss. 
 1!!), 145; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. II. .343, 3.J4-3.",7 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330; 
 S.udM)rii r. Batelielder, 51 N. H. 42fi, 431 ; Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H. 
 20.-), 211); Van Winkle v. Schoonmuker, 15 N. J. Kq. 384, 3,80 ; Bradish 
 r, Gibbs, 3 .lohns. Ch. 323, 510; Ni^wliii ?'. Freeman, 1 Ired. 514, .520 ; 
 Barnes V. Irwin, 2 Lall. l!i!i, 2(d ; 1 Am. J)i'c. 278 ; SiuL'lie v. Hevnokls, 
 2 jAs lu.s. Eq. 66, 77 ; West, 3 Baud. 373, 375 ; Morton v. Onion', 45 Vt. 
 14&, 153.
 
 g 349 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEX. 526 
 
 5 Discussed ante, U 163-183. 
 
 S Adams )'. Kellogg, Kirby, in5, 196; 1 Am. Dec. 18 ; Baker r. 
 Chastang, 18 Ala. 417, -lis ; Lee n. Bennett, 31 Miss. 119, 126; Sanborn 
 V. Batchelfier, 57 N. H. 426, 431 ; Marston v. Norton, 5 N. H. 205, 210 ; 
 Newlin v. Freeman, 1 Ired. 614, 520. 
 
 7 Wagner, 2 Ashm. 445, 453. 
 
 8 This is assumed in cases «uprffl, n. 6. 
 
 9 West, 10 Serg. & R. 445, 447 ; ante, | 342. 
 
 10 Cutter V. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 353 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330 ; ante, ? 344. 
 
 11 Thorndike v. Reynolds, 22 Gratt. 21, 29. 
 
 12 Consult a)i^e, ? 342. 
 
 13 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, .357 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330 ; infra, n. 14. 
 
 14 Rex V. Betlesworth, 2 Strang*, 891 ; Willock i'. Noble, Law R. 
 7 H. L. 580, 5H7 ; George v. Bussing, 15 Men. B. 558, 563 ; Jones r. 
 Brown, :54 N. II. 439, 440; Cutter r. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 351 ; 57 Am. 
 Dec. 3:« ; Kurtz v. Saylor, 20 Pa. St. 205, 209. 
 
 15 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 590. 
 
 16 Van Winkle t'. Sclioonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 384, 386. 
 
 17 Reed v. Blaisdell, 16 N. H. 194, 202 ; 41 Am. Dec. 722 ; snprn, n. 16. 
 
 18 Van Winkle r. Schoonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 384, 386 ; Cutter v. 
 Butler, 25 N. H. 351, 357 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330. 
 
 19 Grimke, 1 Desaus. Eq. 366, 381. 
 
 20 West, 3 Rand. 373, 375 ; infra, notes 25, 26. 
 
 21 Adams ?'. Kellogg, Kirby, 195, 197; 1 Am. Dec. 18; George v. 
 Bussing, 15 Mon. B. 558, 563 ; Van Winkle v. Sclioonmaker, 15 N. J. 
 Eq. 384, 387. 
 
 22 Noble v. Willock, Law R. 8 Ch. 778, 789, 790. 
 
 23 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 591, 597 ; 1 Redf. Wills, 25. 
 
 24 Schull V. Murray, 32 Md. 9, 16 ; ante, ? 342. 
 
 25 George v. Bussing, 15 Mon. B. 558, 563 ; Lee v. Bennett, 31 Miss. 
 119, 126 ; West, 3 Rand. 373, 375. 
 
 26 Lloyd V. Hodsden. 2 Bro. C. C. 534, 543 ; Fane, 16 Sim. 406 ; Maas 
 V. Sheffield, I Rob. -.HH ; 10 Jur. 417, 418 ; Van Winkle v. Schoonmaker, 
 15 N. J. Eq. 384, 388 ; Wagner, 2 Ashm. 448, 4.53. 
 
 27 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 3.57, 358 ; 57 Am. Dec. 3.30. 
 
 28 Lloyd V. Hodsden, 2 Bro. C. C. 534, 543, 544; Van Winkle v. 
 Schoonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 3.84, .386. 
 
 29 Fisher v. Kimball, 17 Vt. 323, 328. 
 
 30 Van Winkle v. Schoonmaker, 15 N. J. Eq. 384, 388. 
 
 31 George v. Bussing, 15 Mon. B. .5.58, 563 ; Beal v. Storm, 26 N. J. 
 Eq. 373, 378 ; McBride, 81 Pa. St. .303, 306. 
 
 32 As to this distinction see ante, \ 347. 
 
 33 Compare Schley v. McCeney, 36 Md. 267, 273, and Vreeland v. 
 Ryno, 26 N. J. Eq. 160, 162. 
 
 34 rrquhartt'. Oliver, 56 Ga. 314, 346; an«e, ?J 34.5, 346. 
 
 g 349. Mutual wills between husband and wife. — There 
 is nothing to prevent a husband willing liis property
 
 527 WILLS OF MAREIED WOMEN. ? 350 
 
 to his wifc,i and if a married woman can make a will 
 at all, there is generally nothing to prevent her making 
 a will in favor of her husband.^' It has been held thai, 
 under a statute providing that tlie will of a wife should 
 not affect the interest in her property of her husband, 
 she could not make a will to him,^ and that a general 
 act empowering her to will did not authorize wilLs to 
 her husband;^ but as the unity of husband and wife 
 has ceased when the will takes eflect, tlie same reasons 
 which render contracts between liusband and wife in- 
 valid do not prevail, and this construction of statutes is 
 hardly reasonable ;' and a wife can will to her husband 
 under a power,^ or as respects her equitable separate 
 estate.^ So joint and mutual Avills of husband and wife 
 are valid,* But either husband^ or wife'* may put his 
 wife or her husband to an election to take under the 
 will or under the law ; and in many States there are 
 statutes expressly referring to wilLs between husband 
 and wife." A statute cannot, after the deatii of one 
 of the parties, rectify a mistake whereby in mutual 
 wills the husband signed the wife's, and the wife the 
 husband's.*^ 
 
 1 Enrdeno v. Ampersp* 14 MJch. !)0, 03 ; ante, i 50, 
 
 2 See Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cn«h, 562, 567 ; aiite, ? oO, 
 
 3 Morse v. Thompson, 4 Cu8h. 562,565. 
 
 4 Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 N. K. 295, 305 ; nnle, ? 50. 
 
 5 Burdeno v. Amperse, 14 Mich, 90, 93; Morse v. Thompson, 4 
 Cnsh. 562, .-.67, 
 
 6 Bradish v. Gibbs, 3 John*. Ch, 523 535 ; ante, i 342. 
 
 7 Burton v. Holly, 13 Ala. 408, 411, 412 ; ante, i 344. 
 
 8 Wyche v. Clapp, 43 Tex. 543, 543, 549, 
 
 9 See nnte, ^? 273, 275, 
 
 10 See Huston v. Cone, 24 Ohio St, 20 ; Clarke, 79 Pa. St. 376, 
 
 11 See Ames, 33 La. An, 1317, 1329 ; ante, i 50. 
 
 12 Alter, G7 Pa, St, 341, 345 ; 5 Am, Kep. 433 ; ante, ? 23, 
 
 g 350. Gifts causa mortis of married women. — The 
 principles applicable to wills of naarried women seem
 
 l^ G51-352 WILLS OP MARRIED WOMEN. 528 
 
 generally applicable to their gifts causa mortis.^ A wife 
 may make a donatio mortis causa of her equitable sep- 
 aiate estate,^ or of any of her personalty with her hus- 
 band's consent,^ and she may make such a gift to her 
 husband himself.* But she cannot, of course, give 
 away what she has previously disposed of.^ 
 
 1 Jones V. Brown, 34 N. H. 439, 446. 
 
 2 Kilby v. Godwin, 2 Del. Ch. 61, 71. 
 
 3 Jones v. Brown, 34 N. H. 439, 446. 
 
 4 Caldwell?'. Renlew, 33 Vt. 213,' 2\9. ' 
 
 5 Lawrence t». Bartlett, 7 Allen, 36, 38. ' 
 
 ^351. Revocation of will by married woman.: — The 
 same capacity is required to revoke a will as to execute 
 it,' and it is because a married woman cannot revoke a 
 will at common law that marriage itself works a revo- 
 cation. ^ Any valid will made during coverture re- 
 vokes all other wills, so far as they are inconsistent 
 with it.' If she may make, a will she may revoke one.* 
 
 1 Mosser, 32 Ala. 551, 556. 
 
 2 Morton i\ Onion, 45 Vt. 145, 153 ; post, i 352. 
 
 3 Hawksley v. Barrow, Law B. 1 Pro. cfe D. 147, 152. 
 
 4 Mosser, 32 Ala. 551, 556. 
 
 § 352. Wills of married women made before marriage. — 
 A will made before marriage by a woman was at com- 
 mon law revoked by her marriage.' This rule has 
 been said to rest on the following grounds : (1) Tliat as 
 slie could not make a will during coverture, her ante- 
 nuptial will ceased on maiTiage to be ambulatory ,3 
 w^hich is contrary to the nature of wills.* (2) That by 
 marriage her jiower to dis^wse of her property was 
 taken away,^ and her husband's rights attaciied by 
 operation of law.* (3) That marriage worked so great a 
 change in her condition that the law would presume 
 that she had not meant her will to oiDerate in case of 
 her marriage.^ Whatever the grounds were, there was
 
 529 WILLS OF MARRIED W03IEN. ^ 352 
 
 no question at coininon law but that her will was re- 
 voked ; but whether modern statutes, securing to her 
 her separate property' or authorizing her to dispose of 
 her property by will, indirectly repeal this rule is dis- 
 puted. ^ On the one hand, it is said that by these stat- 
 utes her will is no longer ambulator}',^ and her rights 
 to her jjropei'ty are full,'" and that therefore the reasons 
 for the rule at common law are gone and the rule must 
 go also ; ^^ that marriage alone does not work a revo- 
 cation, because it docs not do so in the case of a man ; 
 and that a will is revoked only by marriage and birth 
 of issue. '^ On the other hand, it is said that it is per- 
 fectly consistent with the legislative intent in passing 
 these statutes that antenuptial wills should be gov- 
 erned by the previous rule ;*^ and that the rule that a 
 will is not revoked by marriage alone, but only by mar- 
 riage and birth of issue, is not a reasonable one, and 
 should not be applied to married women unless ex- 
 pressly adopted by statute. i* In many States the rule 
 that marriage alone revokes anj' will is adopted by 
 statute,'^ and where this rule was adopted bj^ statute 
 only as to married women, statutes afterwards passed 
 increasing the powers and capacity of married women 
 do not repeal it.'^ The rule at common law apijlied to 
 cases where the wife survived her husband,'" but not to 
 wills made under and bj' virtue of a power.'^ 
 
 1 Forse V. Hembling, 4 Rep. fiO, Bl ; Douglas v. Cooper, 3 Mylne 
 <fe K. 378, 481 ; Hodsdeii v. Lloyd, 2 Bro. C. C. 540, 544 ; 2 Term, 0.'<4 ; 
 Cotter j>. Laver, 2 P. Wms. 623, 624 ; TuIIlt, 79 111. 99, 10] ; Swan v. 
 Hammond, Mass. S. C. 18.H4 ; 19 Cent. L. J. 43L 432 ; Noyes i: South- 
 worth, Mich. .S. C. Oct. 1SS4 ; 20 N. W. Rep. 891 ; 19 Cent. L. J. 432 ; 
 Ganetti'. Dabney, 27 Miss. 335, 342; Allen )'. Fellows, N. H. ISiH ; 
 Compton I'. Pierson, 2s >,'. J. Eq. 229, 230, 231 ; Brown v. Clark, 77 
 N. Y. 369, 473 ; Loomis, 51 Barb. 2.57 ; Wood v. Bullock, 3 Hawks, 298, 
 300; Kurtz v. Savior, 20 Pa. St. 205, 209; Davis, 1 Tuck. 107; Morton 
 V. Onion, 45 Vt. 145, 153 ; Carey, 49 Vt. 236. 
 
 2 Discu.ssed ante, I 341. 
 
 3 Hodsden i-. Llovd, 2 Bro. C. C. 540, 544 ; Noyes %\ Southworth, 20 
 N. W. Rep. 891 ; 19 Cent. L. J. 432 ; TuUer, 79 111. 99, 101 ; infra, n. 5. 
 
 4 Tu Her, 79 111. 99, 101. 
 
 H. & W. — 45.
 
 g 353 WILLS OP MARRIKD WOMEN. 530 
 
 5 Morton v. Onion, •l.i Vt. 1-15, 153 ; stiprct, n. 3. 
 5 Discussed antf, H H1-1S3. 
 
 7 Brown r. Clark, 77 X. Y. 300,373,374; Swan v. Hammond, 19 
 Cent. L. J. 431, 43i See TuUer, 79 111. 99, loi 
 
 8 See pro, Tuller, 79 111. 99, 101, 103 ; Xoyes v. Southworth, supra, 
 n. 1 ; Allen v. Fellows, .?»;)»•((, n. 1 ; Morton v. Onion, 4") Vt. 14S, l.'i3. 
 See roiitrn. Swan v. llaninioud, sKpm, n. 1 ; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 
 3(iil, :!73, 374. 
 
 9 Jfurton )•. Onion, 45 Vt. 145, 153 ; supra, n. 3. 
 
 10 TuIIer, 79 111. 99, 101 ; ante, ?J 217-24.3. 
 
 1 1 Xoyes V. Soutlrvorth, supra, n. 1 ; cases cited pro, stipra, n. 8, 
 
 12 Tuller, 79 111. 99, 103, ia5 ; Tyler, 19 111. l.'l ; supra, n. 11. 
 
 13 Swan r\ Hammond, .vimra, ii. 1 ; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 369, 
 374. 
 
 14 .Swan v. Hammond, supra, n, 1. 
 
 15 See 19 Cent. L. J. 4."2. 
 
 16 Brown v. Clark, 77 X. Y. 369, 373, 374 ; Loomis, 51 Barb. 2.')7, 259. 
 
 17 Cotter t». Layer, 2 P. Wms. 623, 624 ; Garrett t'. Dabney, 27 Miss. 
 XiT), ;w;j. 
 
 18 Logan »'. Bell, 1 Com. B. 873, 8sfi ; Noves v. South worth, 20 X. \V, 
 Rep. 891. Compare Hodsden v. Lloyd, 2 Bro. C. C. 640, 544. 
 
 ^ 353. Bepublication of married women's wills after dis- 
 solution of marriage. — A \\ ill inado before marriage and 
 revoked )jy marriage is not re\ived by the death of 
 the luisband, but mn.st be republished.' A valid will 
 made during coverture remains valid, and docs not 
 have to be republislied when the marriage is di-ssolved.^ 
 An invalid will made during coverture does not become 
 valid when the husband dies;' the widow's intention 
 to adhere thereto will not .suffice;* nothing can give it 
 efficac3' .save a republication.^ A reiniblicalion raioans 
 a re-execution, with all the formtxlities required by law.* 
 A codicil duly executed is a rei)ublication.' The deliv- 
 ery l)y a widow of a will executed during coverture has 
 l)een held to make a valid will.* The death of the hus- 
 band revokes a will made with his consent at common 
 law. 9 
 
 1 Cotter V. Layer, 2 P. Wms. 623, 624 ; Oarrett v. Pabney, 27 Miss, 
 335, 343 ; ante, i VyX CouMt, Wood v. Bullock, 3 lluwks, 298. 300. 
 
 2 Thorndike v Reynolds, 22 Gratt. 21, 32. 
 
 3 Osgoo<l i'. Breed, 12 JIass, 525, SCO.
 
 531 WILLS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 354 
 
 4 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 591. 
 
 5 Osgood V. Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 5^0. 
 
 6 Willock V. Noble, Law R. 7 H. L. 580, 597. 
 
 7 Kurtz /•. Saylor, 20 Pa. St 205,20,% 
 
 8 Miller v. Brown, 2 Hagg. Ecc. 20.1. 
 
 9 Noble I'. Willock, Law R. 8 Ch. 778, 789, 790 ; ante, § 348. 
 
 I 354. Conflict of laws as to wills. — Wills of real es- 
 tate are governed ijy the law of the State where the 
 lands lie, wills of personalty by the law of the testator's 
 domicile.^ The validity and effect of the will of a mar- 
 ried woman depends on the law which exists at the 
 time of her death, ^ though its validity had been held to 
 depend on the law existing at the time of its execution.^ 
 
 1 1 Jurman Wills, ch. 1 ; ante, U 30-36. 
 
 2 W'akefield v. Phelps, 37 N. H. 295, 306 ; ante, ? 36. 
 
 3 Kurt/. V. Saylor, 20 Pa. St. 205, 209 ; ante, 1 :36
 
 1} 355-356 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 532 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 CONTRACTS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 Art. I. The General Principles, H 355-36S. 
 
 II. Effect op Statutes, Generally, H 369-878. 
 III. Special Kinds of Contracts, g§ 379-393. 
 
 Article I. — The General Principles. 
 
 \ 355. The word " contract " deflned and explained. 
 
 I 3.J6. Law of contracts as aflfected by coverture. 
 
 ? ST)". Contracts of married women at common law, generally. 
 
 I 353. Contracts of married women at common law, exceptions. 
 
 I 359 Contracts of married women in equity. 
 
 I 360. Contracts charging equitable separate property. 
 
 \ SOI. Contracts of married women under statutes. 
 
 I 332. Contracts charging statutory separate property. 
 
 I 333. Contracts of married women as agents. 
 
 J 364. Contracts of married women through agents. 
 
 § 335. Contracts of married women made before marriage. 
 
 I 356. Contracts of married wonion confirmed after coverture. 
 
 I 367. Contracts between husband and wife. 
 
 \ 368. Invalid contracts, whether void or voidable. 
 
 I 355. The word "contract" defined and explained. — 
 Tlio ■word "contract," as used in this chajiter, must 
 bo taken to cover any transaction between consenting 
 parties. It includes executory contracts, mere prom- 
 ises, and executed contracts, such as deeds, express 
 and implied agreements, and contracts in personam, 
 I):nding iiersonally, and contracts in rem, binding on 
 l)roperty. In this chapter the general rules relating to 
 all contracts of married women, and especially execu- 
 tory contracts, are discussed ; in the next, deeds of 
 married women are separately considered. 
 
 ^ 353. Law of contracts as affected by law of marriod 
 women. — The law of contracts requires that there shall
 
 533 GENERAL, PRINCIPLES, ? 357 
 
 be two parties at least to every contract,' and that the 
 parties shall be cajjable of giving tlieir consent.- In the 
 first of these rules, since at common law husbanfi and 
 wife are one person,^ lies the main reason for the inva- 
 lidity of contracts between husband and wife ; * in the 
 second, since a wife is said at common law to have no 
 will of her own, but to be under the power and control 
 of the husband,^ lies the reason for the invalidity of all 
 contracts of married women.^ As the unity of husband 
 and wife has been gradually encroached upon in equity 
 and by statute, and as tlie disabilities of married women 
 have been gradually directly and indirectly removed, 
 the number of contracts which a married woman can 
 make has been gradually growing. But so blind has 
 been legislation, and ao inconsistent have been decis- 
 ions, that the present state of the law of contracts of 
 married women is most confused. 
 
 1 Scarborough i<. Watkins, 9 Moii. B. 540, 5i j ; 50 Am. Dec. 528. 
 
 2 Anson Contracts, p. 9G. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, H 39, et seq. 
 
 i White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. ."is, 329 ; ante, U 40-16. 
 
 5 Burleigh v. CotRn, 22 N. II. 118, 124 ; 52 Am. Dec. 2nr. ; ante, I "SI ; 
 2>ost, 'i "5(). 
 
 6 Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. S, 12, 13; 21 Am. Dec. 245; xxist, I 058. 
 
 I 357. Contracts of marriod women at common law, gon- 
 erallj. — At ct)miiiun law, generally, aii contracts, agree- 
 ments, covenants, promises,' and ref)resentations '■' of 
 married women were absolutely null and void,^ at la-.v 
 and in equity.* Tlie grounds of their invalidity wcio 
 that a married woman had no legal existence, being 
 merged in her husband ;5 that she had no separate 
 existence;^ and that she had no consenting capacity, 
 as she was under the power and con:;rol of her hu3- 
 band, and his wish was her law.^ The common-law 
 rule, altliough for the greater part done away with by 
 equity and statutes, still so far exists that any capacity
 
 g 358 GENKRAL PRINCIPLES. 534 
 
 of a married woman to contract is regardeu as excep- 
 tional, and tlie grounds thereof must be alleged and 
 proved by one setting it up.* Married women are still 
 prima facie unable to contract at all.^ 
 
 1 Norris V. Lantz, 18 Md. 260, 26r) ; Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wetul. 0, r2 ; 
 21 Am. Dec. 24.5. See Butler v. Buckingham, .5 Day, 492, .50, ; 5 Am. 
 Dec. 174 ; Patterson v. Lawrence, 90 111. 174, 179 : Kodemeyer r. Rod- 
 man, 5 Iowa, 42*), 427; Haggertv v. C'orri, .5 La. An. 4H:!; Pond v. 
 Carpenter, 12 Minn. 4:«, 4S1\ Davis p. Frv, 1.5 Miss. fi4, 67; Waul v. 
 Kirkman, 25 Miss. 601, 619 ; Davis v. Smith, 75 Mo. 219,225; Sprover 
 V. Nickell, .5.5 Mo. 2fi4, 267; Danner r. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. .«!, .3.5S, 
 .^59; Franklin r\ Beatty, 14 X. J. F.q. 462, 466 ; Kelso v. Tabor, .52 Barb. 
 125,128; fSroene v. Frondhof, 1 Disn. .504, .505 ; Glidden v. Simpler, 52 
 Pa. St. 400, 404 ; Farrar v. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89, 93. 
 
 2 Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. St. 299, 302 ; Wilson v. Fuller, 60 How. 
 Pr. 480, 481. No estoppel : Danner v. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 3.51, 3.58, 
 359 ; post, i\ 368, 41.5. 
 
 3 Neef r. Redmon, 76 Mo. 195, 197 ; post, ? 368. 
 
 4 Pond V. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430, 432 ; post, ? 35n. 
 
 5 Rodemeyer v. Rodman, 5 Iowa, 426, 427 ; ante, ?? 39, 331. 
 
 6 Kelso V. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125, 128 ; ante, ? 39. 
 
 7 Sandford r. McLean, 3 Paigp, 117, 122 ; 23 Am. Dec. 773; Martin 
 V. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9. 12 ; 21 Am. Dec. 245. 
 
 8 Hinkson v. Williams, 41 N. J. Eq. 35, 37. S. P., Stilhvell r. 
 Adams, 29 Ark. 346; Way v. Peck, 47 Conn. 23; Tracv r. Keitli, U 
 Allen, 214,215; West r. Larawav, 2S Mi"h. 464,467; Pollen ?•. .lames, 
 4.5 Miss. 129, 13;i ; Lewis v. Perkins, 36 N. .1. L. 133 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 
 71 N. Y. 199. 
 
 9 Rodemeyer v. Rodman, .5 Iowa, 426, 428. 
 
 I 338. Contracts of married women at common law, 
 exceptions. — Under certain circumstances at common 
 law married women had the capacities of unmarried 
 women, 1 and could therefore contract as femincs sole,^ 
 Tliis was the case when the husband was an alien re- 
 siding abroad,' or when he had been banished,* or liad 
 abjured the realm,^ or was civilh' dead.* In tlie United 
 States a permanent departure from the State, and re- 
 nunciation of his married rights hj a hu.sband, invests 
 his wife with tlie capacities of a femme sole,'' though 
 whether under such circumstances she can make a 
 valid deed seems to be disputed.^ Though in Texas 
 mere separation if permanent is sufficient to produce 
 this result,^ the true rule seems to be that neither de-
 
 535 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. g 359 
 
 parture from the State alone,'* nor sei^aration alone, '^ is 
 sutlicient ; but the husband must have both renounced 
 his marital rights and put himself permanentlj' beyond 
 the process of the courts of the State.'- The elfect of a 
 divorce a mcnsa et thoro is ditferent in different States.'* 
 A married woman may also, as agent," under a power, '^ 
 and in representative cai^acities,'^ contract as a femme 
 sole. 
 
 1 Discussed ante, I't 332-336. 
 
 2 Wiirthingtoii y. Cooke, 52 Md. 297, 307; Bean ;•. Morgan, 4 Mc- 
 Cord, US. 
 
 3 Gallagher v. Delargy, 57 Mo. 29, 37. 
 
 4 Rhea v. Renner, 1 Peters, 105, 107 ; Stewart M. <fe D. ? 177. 
 
 5 Musick V. Dobson, 76 Mo. 624, 628 ; 43 Xm. Rep. "SO. 
 
 6 Worthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 297, 300 ; ante, i XM. 
 
 7 Muslek V. Dobson, 76 Mo. 624, 62s ; 43 .\m. Rep. 780 ; Danner ?-. 
 Berthold, 11 Mo. App. ;151, :Jo5 ; Stewart M. & D. J 177 ; ante, i 332. 
 
 8 Pro, Gallagher v. Delargy, 57 Mo. 29, 37 ; Danner v. Berthold, 11 
 Mo. App. 351, ;555. Contra, Rhea v. Rhenner, 1 Peters, 105, 107 ; Beck- 
 man v. Stanley, 8 Nev. 257, 261. 
 
 9 Davis V. Saladee, 57 Tex. 326, 327. 
 
 10 Rogers v. Phillips, 8 Ark. 366 ; 47 -\m. Dec. 727. 
 
 11 High V. Worley, 33 Ala. 196 ; Chouteau i'. Merry, 3 Mo. 254 ; 
 Harris v. Taylor. 3 Sueed, 536, 53S. 
 
 12 Danner v. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 351, 355. 
 
 13 Discussed ante, ? 333 ; Stewart M. & D. i 449. 
 
 14 Discussed ante, §? 89, 98 ; post, i 363. ^ 
 
 15 Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9, 12 ; 21 Am. Dec. 215 ; post, J 363. 
 
 16 Post, ii4S-2-4i7. 
 
 § 359. Contracts of married women in equity. — Inde- 
 pendently of statute, a married woman's personal con- 
 tracts are no more binding in equitj' than thej' are at 
 law ; ' as to her person and her general proi^erty her 
 contracts are absolutely void,^ so that even her deed, if 
 not i^ropeiiy executed at law, cannot be reformed, cor- 
 rected, or enforced in equity .^ But equity recognizes 
 the sei^arate property and existence of married women, 
 and, in most States, a wife is with respect to such prop- 
 erty treated as a femme sole,* and her contracts relating 
 to the latter are enforced in a proceeding in rem.'' It
 
 ? 359 GEXKRAL PRINCIPLKS. 536 
 
 has been said tliat equity has an additional jurisdiction 
 to prevent frauds by married women ; '' and a mortgage 
 which the mortgagor, a married woman, liad no power 
 to jnake, has been sustained in equity, wlien it was 
 given to secure tlie purcliase money of property which 
 llie woman occupied and enjoyed, in order to prevent 
 injustice;' and so has a married woman's deed, she 
 liaving received the i:)urchase money, the deed liaving 
 been executed after slie had obtained a divorce wliicli 
 was supposed valid, wliile in fact void ;^ andecpiity lias 
 even enjoined her from recoAcring property wliich liad 
 passed out of lier jx)ssession by an invalid assignment, 
 when in good conscience she should not recover it ;' 
 but all these cases are excei>tional, a married woman not 
 being estopped generally in equity even,"^ and the rule 
 jis above stated is well settled." E({uity will not compel a 
 married woman to join in her luisljand's deed according 
 to liis covenant.'* But husband and wife art* not one i>cr- 
 son in equity, and can to some extent contract together.'^ 
 
 1 Viiiigluiii V. Vniidprstcgfii, 2 Drfw. 1(>5, ISO; "MillPr f. Xewton. 
 23 Cal. .Vh4, iVH ; Butler i: Biukiiighiim. 5 Day, 4;r2, 301 ; 5 Am. Dec. 174 ; 
 Hodges I-. I'rJti?, IS Flu. M1,.U4; Patterson )•. r^iwrciice.iiO III. 17-1, 
 17!); ;f2Am. I)e<-. ;"2 ; |{(Kremeyer »•. Koflnian, .■> Iowa, 4'.I(i. +27 ; Xorris 
 r. I.antz, IS M<l. 2fiO, 2r.:i ; Jeniie r. Marble, :r7 MSoh. Sli. :«l : IxKtmis r. 
 Brush. :«• Mich. -JO, -16 ; Davis?. Smith, 7"i Mo. 21(1, 22J, 22-> ; Boatmen 
 r. Collins, 75 Mo. 2sO, 2S1 ; White r. Wager, 25 N. Y 32S, SU. 
 
 2 Roilemeyer v. Rodman, .■> Iowa, -l^fi, -127 ; Davis v. Smith, 7-> Mo. 
 
 ■i Loomis 1-. Brush, ■'£ Mich. -:0, -Ifi ; prut, { .'ifiS. 
 
 -1 Rodemeyer v. Rodman, 5 lown, -rX, 427 ; ant)!, ? 20:5. 
 
 r, Pawley v. Vogel, 41 Mo. 2nl, 302 ; mUe, \\ 20O-20K. 
 
 G Cahill r. Martin, 7 Irisli Law Rep. :{r.l, 37J. 
 
 7 Gl:uss V. WarwicU, -10 P.i, .SL HO, H». See contra, Kiley v. I'ierce, 
 .V) A la. !W. 
 
 S Reis >•. I,awrence, (« Cal. 129, i:io ; :« Am. Kep. 762. 
 
 !» Patterson v. Lawrence, 90111. 17-1, 17); :« Am. Dec. 22; Pilcherr. I 
 Smith, 2 Head, 20S, 211. 
 
 10 See Woo I I'. Terrv, m A rk. SS.i, ."W{ : Oglesbv v, Pasco, 79 III. 16t. I 
 170 : tilid.len r. Simpler, 52 Pa. St. -JOfl, 401 ; po*^ \l 400-420. 
 
 11 Daniier v. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 3.J1, S.>S. 
 
 12 Young V. Paul, 10 X. J. Eq. 401, 40IM1I. 
 IS Morrison i-. Thistle, 67 Mo. 576, 601 ; ante. { 42 ; jnjgt, I 367.
 
 537 tiKNKH.vr, PRixciPLKs. ^2 360-363 
 
 ^ 360. Contracts charging equitable separate property. 
 
 — Tlie hiw of charges of equitable separate property in 
 equity lias already been discussed.' Contracts which 
 are valid as such charges are enforced in a proceeding 
 in rem,'^ and are not binding on the married woman 
 I)ersonally.^ 
 
 1 Aiile, I't 207, 208. 
 
 2 Vaughan i-. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 16.5, IS4 ; Worlhingtoii v. 
 Cooko, 52 Md. 2!t7, 308 ; ante., i 206. 
 
 3 Pawley r. Vogel, 41 Mo. 2!!!, .302 ; suijrn, ri. 2. 
 
 g 361. Contracts of married women under statutes. — 
 The present capacity of married women to contract 
 depends largely on statutes ; and the effect of statutes, 
 general and special, on the common-law rules forms 
 a most imiH^rtant snl)ject, which will be separately 
 discussed.' 
 
 1 Pruil, ?? a6:>-377. 
 
 jj 362. Contracts charging statutory separate property. 
 
 — The law of contracts relating to statutory separate 
 proijorty has already been discussed.' The statutory 
 separate jiroperty is sometimes Liable on .siich contracts 
 in equity,' and sometimes at law,^ but this liability of 
 this property is (jnite distinct from a general personal 
 liability.* 
 
 1 An/e, ii 2:i7-23i). 
 
 2 Stockton V. Fariev, lO M'. Va. 171, 17.5; 27 Am. Rep. 5W; anie, 
 |{ 2.39, 2-12. 
 
 3 Cooksoii )■. Toole, 59 i;i. 51.5, 51!) ; aiUe, U 23!), 212. 
 
 4 Doyle v. Orr, 51 Miss. 229, 232 ; ante, U 2:?r, 239. 
 
 ? 363. Contracts of married women as agents. — In spite 
 of her disabilities, a married woman can be an agent.' 
 It is very common to litid her acting as her husband's 
 agent,* and he is liable on all contracts made by her 
 witli his consent or authority.^ But although she can 
 bind her principal, whether she ean bind herself de-
 
 I 334 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 538 
 
 pends on Avhether she can herself make the contract in 
 question.* So she can execute powers enabling her to 
 contract, convey, etc.^ 
 
 1 Ewell's Evans on Agency, p. 13 ; post, ? 484. 
 
 2 Savage v. Davis, IS Wis. 608, 613 ; ante, U 83-98. 
 
 3 Morgan v. Andriot, 2 Hilt. 431, 432 ; Mayse v. Biggs, 3 Head, 
 36,38. 
 
 4 See Tucker r'. Cocke, 32 Miss. 184, ISX 
 
 5 Vaughan v. "Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. Ifio, is.5; Coryell v. Dunton, 
 7 Pa. St. 5o0, 532 ; 49 Am. Dec. 4S9 ; ante, U 203, 342. 
 
 § 3S4. Contracts of married women through agents. — A 
 married woman had at common law no legal existence, 
 and could not therefore have any legal representative, ^ 
 or rather her legal existence was merged in that of her 
 husband, and he was for all things her agent in law ; '•' 
 so her antenuptial appointment of agent Avas revoked 
 by her marriage.^ Her capacity to contract through 
 agent is now co-extensive with her capacity to contract 
 directly : thus, she cannot mike a contract through an 
 agent which she could not make herself,* as a contiact 
 Avith respect to her proi:)er;y not separate ;'^ and she can 
 make through an agent such contracts as she could 
 make herself,^ as contracts charging her separate es- 
 tate,' or in the course of her business ;* but she cannot 
 execute a mere power througli an agent,^ as a release of 
 dower,!" or a coiiAeyance of her property,'^ under a 
 statute requiring certain formalities ; and in executing 
 such deeds the blanks must be filled up before her ac- 
 knoAvledgment, as she cannot appoint an agent to do 
 this afterwards.12 Her capacity to act through agent 
 must, hoAVCA-er, be distinguislied from her capacity to 
 contract for compensation Avith her agent, Avhich con- 
 tract must be determined by rules elscAvhere dis- 
 cussed.!^ Tlie jiosition of her husband as her agent," 
 her appointment of attorneys at laAV,'* and her poAA^ers 
 of attorncA-,'* are elscAvhere discussed.
 
 539 GENERAL TKINCIPLES. | 865 
 
 1 See Kelso v. Tabor, 52 Barb. 12.5, 128 ; ante, U 333, 357. 
 
 2 Rodemeyor i'. Rodman, 5 Iowa, 426, 427 ; ante, H 82, 84. 
 
 3 Montague v. Canieal, 1 Marsh. A. K. 3.51, .332. 
 
 4 Wilbur v. Abernethy, .54 Ala. &44, 616 ; ante, i 84, n. 14. 
 
 5 Hall V. Callahan, 66 Mo. 316, 32-1. 
 
 6 "Vail V. Mever, 71 Ind. 159, 165 ; Bickford v. Dare, 58 N. H. ]8.'5 
 186 ; cases ante, |j 84-SS. 
 
 7 Vail V. Meyer, 71 Ind. 153, 165 ; Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 596, 
 600. 
 
 8 Paine ?». Farr, 118 Mass. 74, 76. 
 
 9 Holland v. Moon, 39 Ark. 120, 125 ; post, ? 406. 
 
 10 Dawson v. Shirley, 6 Blackf. .531, ,532 ; ante, ? 27U 
 
 11 Holladay r. Daily, 19 Wall. 606, 60'J ; post, I 
 
 12 Hord V. Tanbman, 79 Mo. 101, 104. 
 
 13 See Tucker v. Cocke, 32 Miss. 184, IS!) ; nnle, J 87. 
 
 14 ^nte,?? 84-88, 
 
 15 Post, U 462, 463L 
 
 16 Po.s^^40fi. 
 
 I 3Gd. Effect of marriage on antenuptial contracts. — 
 Marriage suspends the remedies against a married 
 woman on her antenuptial contracts,' or rather it 
 makes her husband liable for them with her,^ and a 
 judgment recovered on such a contract against hus- 
 band and wife can be satisfied out of the proi^erty of 
 either of them.' Her husband's liability ceases on her 
 deatli or on divorce,* while on divorce or his death her 
 full liability revives.^ And the same is said to be the 
 effect of any event which gives her the jiowers of a 
 femme sole.^ And her promise during coverture to pay 
 an antenuptial debt does not take such debt out of the 
 Statute o{ Limitations,' being itself void.^ In many 
 States the husband's liability for his wife's antenuptial 
 debts has been destroyed by statute, and her full lia- 
 bility on the same has been declared.* 
 
 1 Clarke v. Windham, 12 Ala, 778, 801 ; <,.nt€, ? 66. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, ? 06. 
 
 3 Hall V. White, 27 Conn. 488, 494 ; Peace v. Spierin, 2 Desaus. Eq. 
 460, 470. Contra, Hapgood r. Harris, 10 Ala. 291, 292. 
 
 4 Cureton v. Moore, 7 Jones Eq. 204, 206 ; ante, J 66. 
 
 5 Hall V. White, 27 Conn. 488, 494. '
 
 2 366 GKNKKAL PKINCIPLKS. 540 
 
 6 Clarke v. Windham, 12 Ala. 78S, SOI. 
 
 7 Farrar v. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89, 93. 
 
 8 Parker v. Cowen, 1 Heisk. 513, .5J0 ; jmut, i 368. 
 y See cases cited ant^, I 06. 
 
 I 366. Confirmation of contracts after dissolution of 
 marriage. — The mere fact that a wife survives her hus- 
 band docs not give any eflicac}^ to her contracts made 
 during coverture, • tliough it lias been held that a con- 
 tract enforcible against her during coverture only, in 
 equity, could be enforced at law against her after covert- 
 ure;^ but her liability on her antenuptial contrac'.s 
 revives.^ As her contracts made during coverture are 
 void and not voidable,* Vaey cannot be ratified,^ and 
 therefore, according to the better view, her mere prom- 
 ise to perform them made after coverture (after divorce^ 
 or death of husband 'J is without consideration and 
 void ; * but in some States the moral consideration is 
 deemed sufficient to support and render valid such a 
 promise,* and in others the courts have expressly de- 
 clined to decide this point.^*' But whatever be the oiiin- 
 ion as to the effect of un express promise, there is no 
 doubt but that a mere recognition of the contract gives it 
 no new validity.'^ A contract enforcible in equity is, 
 however, ample consideration for an express promise ; ^^ 
 so is tlie surrender of a note void as to her, but binding 
 on others ; '* so is a note given for an antenuptial debt." 
 A married woman cannot set up her invalid deed by pa- 
 rol,'^ but she can conlirin her assignments and deeds by 
 reaeknowledginent and recording,"^ by estoppel, etc.,'' 
 and in Iowa may ratify her deed of the homestead as if 
 slie had never been married.'^ So by bringing suit on 
 an invalid contract she confirms it by matter of record. ^^ 
 
 1 Ross V. .Singleton, 1 Del. Ch. 110 ; 12 Am. Dec. 86 ; Caiidy v. Cup- 
 pock, 8.3 Ind. .5;i-l, .VJT. 
 
 2 Schaejfifer ti. Ivorv, 7 Mo. Ajjp. JGI, iSZ ; King v. Mittalberger, oO 
 Mo. 182, 185. 
 
 3 Clarke v. Windham, 2 Jones Kq. 204, 206 ; ante, I 3G3l
 
 541 GENEKAL. PRINCIPLES. § 367 
 
 4 Huntley v. AVhitner, 77 N. C. 302, 393 ; pr>st, { 3G8. . 
 
 5 Itobiiisoii, 11 Bush, 174, 170 ; Parker v. Cowan, 1 Ileisk. 518, 623. 
 
 G Puliiani V. Tennvson, 50 Ind. 4o3, 4."x3 ; Musick v. L)oclson,76 Mo. - 
 6-4, Gij ; 4o Am. Rep. 760. 
 
 7 Heyward v. Barker, 62 VI. 429, 432 ; ."G Am. Rep. 7r,2. 
 
 8 Mustek V. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624, 625 ; 43 Am. Rep. 7^*0 ; Heyward v. 
 Barker, 52 Vt. 42:i, 4;;2 ; 3ti Am. Kop. 7G2. s. P., \\ eiinaJl v. Adiiey, i ■ 
 Bos. & P. 247, 252 ; Kasitwood v. Kenyon, 11 Ad. & K. 4.i7 ; Meyer v. 
 Huwarth, 8 Ad. & E. 4(.7 ; Lloyd v. Loe, 1 .Strange, !)4; 2 Saund. 
 137 d; Watson v. Dunlap, 2 Crunch C. C. 14 ; Helhf rington r. Hlxon, ■ 
 46 Ala. 207, 2!18 ; Carter v. Waiin, 45 Ala. 343 ; Valice v. Wells, 6 Ala. 
 737 ; Cook t'. Bradley, 7 Conn. 57, 61 ; 18 Am. Dec. 7!) ; Waters v. Bean, 
 15 Oa. 3.'8, 360 ; Howard v. Simpkijis. 70.Ua.-322, 326 ; ThonuLS v. Pas- 
 sage, 54 Xod..l06,,J12; P.utnanj i'. Tennyson, 50-Iiid. 45G, 458; Matter 
 V. Martin, 43 Ind. 314 ; Robinson, tl P-usli, 174, 17!*; Mills v. Wyman, 
 3 Pick. 207; Loomis v. Brush, 36 Jlicli. 40, 47 ; Kclinerly r. Martin, 
 8 Mo. 608, 700 ; Price v. Hart, 20 Mo. 171, Ul ; Watkiiis v. HaJstead, 2 
 Sand. 311, 315; Smith v. Allen, 1 Lans. 101; Groene v. Frondhof, 1 
 Blsn. 504 ; Foster v. Wilcox, 10 R. I. 444 ; 14 Am. Ilep. fi:)8 ; Shepard • 
 V. Rhodes, 7 R. I. 470; McGeer v. Furguson, RiUv, l.V.i ; Keirell v. 
 Scott, 2 Spear, 344 ; 42 Am. ];oc. 371 ; 1 Story Cont. i 455 ; 1 Chit. Cont. • 
 65, 56 ; 1 Bish. M. W. J 30 ; I Par. Cont. 432, 4:55. 
 
 HemphilUi.McCliman.s, 24 Pa. .St. 367,371. SeeLeei'. Muggeridge, ■ 
 5 Taunt. iG ; Atkins v. Banvvell,2 Kast, 5UG ; Hawkes v. Saunders, 1 
 Cowp. 2!i0; Gibbs)'. Merrill, 3 Taunt. 311 ; Seaman v. Price, 2 Bing. 439 ; 
 Stewart?'. Eden, 2 Caines,l"0; Viser •i'. Bertrand, 14 Ark.-::73 ; Lapiter 
 V. Delogny, 33 La. An. 659, 666 ; Franklin v. Beatty, 27 Miss. 347. 
 
 10 Spitz V. Fourth, 8 Lea, 641, 643. See Caudy i'. Coppock, 85 Ind. 
 584, 697 ; Hubbard v. Bugbee, 55 Vt. 60G, 500. 
 
 11 Caudy v. Coppock, 85 Ind. 594, 507. 
 
 12 Cleland v. Low, 32 Ga. 458, 4G3 ; Hubbard v. Bugbee, 55 Vt. 506, 509. • 
 
 13 Spitz V. Fourth, 8 Lea, 641, 643. 
 
 14 Parker v. Cowan, 1 Heisk. 518, 620. 
 
 15 Price v. Hart, 20 Mo. 171, 172. 
 
 16 Riggs V. Boylan, 4 Biss. 445, 446. 
 
 17 See ante, I 27G ; })nst, ii 402-404. 
 
 18 Spafford r. Warren, 47 low.a, 47, 51. 
 
 19 Walker 1'. Owen, 70 Mo. 503, 571. 
 
 § 367. Contracts between husband and wife. — There 
 was, at common law, a double reason for the invalidity 
 of contracts between husband and wife — an incapacity 
 of the husband as well as of the wife, since they were 
 one. This double incapacity did not exist in equity. 
 It is mucli disputed whether it is removed bj' statutes 
 which refer only to tlie disabilities of married women. 
 The whole subject has already been treated fully.' 
 
 1 ^ufe, 52 40-46. 
 
 H. & W. — 46.
 
 2 368 GENERAL PKINCIPIiES. 542 
 
 I 368. Invalid contracts of married women void, not 
 voidable. — The invalid contracts of a married, woman 
 are void and not voidable,* thus differing from the con- 
 tracts of an infant ; '^ and they are equally void though 
 the wife survives her husband,' and, according to the 
 prevailing view, promises to perform them ; * and they 
 are also equally void in the hands of bona fide assign- 
 ees for value, without notice.* For, being void, they 
 are incapable of ratitication by jjarty ^or by legislature." 
 A subsequent promise by her to perform her invalid 
 contract is without consideration,^ and her promise 
 during coverture to pay an antenuptial debt of hers 
 does not affect the running of the Statute of Limita- 
 tions.' A mortgage to secure her invalid note is void,*" 
 and so is a judgment obtained on it ; ■* but the sureties 
 on her void bond''^ or note" are bound, and so are her 
 co-contractors." Her invalid deed is mere waste 
 paper ; "^ if not executed according to the statute, it can- 
 not be treated in equity as an agreement to give a 
 deed ; '^ equity will not rectify, reform, or enforce it," 
 or compel her husband to join to make it good ; ** such 
 a deed, if recorded, is no notice ; '^ and a subsequent 
 deed of the same property to a different party, if prop- 
 erly executed, gives a good tit le.^ Whether she can re- 
 cover property which has passed out of her possession 
 by an invalid conveyance without restoring the pur- 
 chase money is disputed ; ^' she could at common law,^'^ 
 for the purchase money went to her husband ; ^ and it 
 is the general rule that she cannot be estopped by her 
 invalid contracts ; ** but there are cases which hold that 
 she must not only pay back the purchase monej',^ but 
 also allow for improvements made meanwhile, and put 
 the party in statu quo."^^ Her disability is said to be for 
 her protection and not for her ruin,^^ and, therefore, 
 when she has performed her part of a contract she can
 
 543 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. g 368 
 
 sue iii)on it,"* the other party cannot set np its invalid- 
 ity, for this would be a fraud.'-'* Some courts have 
 objected to married Avonien's contracts being called 
 void.3" 
 
 1 Norris ?•. Lantz, 18 Md. 260, 269'; Bagbv r. Emherson, 79 Mo. 
 13S, 140; Huntley v. Whitner, 77 N. C, :w.' Jlicj ; McJJaniel v. Auder- 
 son, 19 S. (.'. 'Jll, 217 ; (tnl€, i 357 ', ca.ses cited fnfi-a. 
 
 2 Robinson, U Bush, 174, 179; Neef v. Redmon,7ri Mo. 19c, 197; 
 Huntley v. Whitner, 77 X. C. 392, 393. 
 
 3 Ross V. Singleton, 1 Del. Ch. 149 ; 12 Am. Dec. 86 ; jmst, ? 366. 
 
 4 Groene v. Frondhof, 1 Disn. 504 ; ante, ? 366. 
 
 5 Johnson i'. Sutherland, 39 Mich. 579, 5y0. 
 
 6 Robinson, 11 Bush, 174, 179 ; post, ? 366. 
 
 7 Loomis v. Brush, 30 Mich. 40, 47. Discussed 071^6, J 23. 
 
 8 Musick V. Dof'.son, 76 Mo. C24, 62.j ; 43 Am. Rep. 780 ; post. | 366. 
 
 9 Farrar v. Bessej', 24 Vt. 89, 9.X 
 
 10 Hodges V. Price, 18 Fla. M2, Mo ; .Sperry v. Dickinson, 82 Ind. 132, 
 135. 
 
 n Doyle V. Kelly, 76 111. .574 ; Magruder v. Buck, 56 Miss. 314, 315 ; 
 Corrigan v. Bell, 73 Mo. 5;j, 57 ; Long, 14 N. J. Eq. 462, 466. 
 
 12 Coverdale v. Alexander, 82 Ind. 503, 506. 
 
 13 Spitz V. Fourth, 8 Lea, (>11, 643. 
 
 14 Robinson, 11 Bush, 174, 179, 180. 
 
 15 Cross V. Everts, 28 Tex. 523, 531 ; post, Dkeds, ?? 307-408. 
 
 16 Carr v. Willianis, 10 Ohio, .30.5, 310 ; >« Am. Dec. &7-; post, I 407. 
 
 17 Shroycr v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264, 267 ; j>ost, 5 403. 
 
 18 Stevens v. Parrish, 29 Ind. 260, 26:!. 
 
 19 Loomis t'. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, 47. 
 
 20 Johns V. Reardon, U Md. 465. 469. 
 
 21 See j>o«<, Estoppkl of JIakrikd "Womkx, ?J 409-420. 
 
 22 Wood V. Terrv, .30 .A.rk. a8.5, 393 ; Glidden v. ^trupler, 52 Pa. St. 
 400,404. 
 
 23 Discussed ante, U 136. 16.3-183. 
 
 24 Wood I'. Terrv, 30 Ark. .^85, 393; Oglesby ?'. Pasco, 79 111. 1(M, 170; 
 Wilson V. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 480,481 ; Keen r. Coleman, 39 Pa. St. 
 799,302; post i4ir,. 
 
 25 Pilcher v. Smith, 2 Head. 20S, 211. 
 
 26 Shrover v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264, 269 ; Danner v. Berthold, U Mo. 
 App. 357, ;«i3. 
 
 27 Neef v. Redmon, 76 Mo. 195, 198. 
 
 28 Abshire ?'. Mather, 27 Ind. 381, 382 ; AValkiPr »'. Owen, 79 Mo. 56.3, 
 571 ; Neef v. Redmon, 76 Mo. 195, 197 ; Palmer ; . Davis, 28 N. V. 242, 
 248. 
 
 29 Abshire v. Mather, 27 Ind. 381, 382. 
 
 30 Ilooton V. Ransom, G Mo. App. 19,20; Hubbard v. Bugbee,55Vt. 
 506,508.
 
 I 369 EFFECT OF STATUTES COXSTRUED. 544 
 
 Article II. — The Statutes Coxstrued — Their 
 Effect. 
 
 } Se9. General statutes not referring to married women. 
 
 ? 370. Harried women's separate property acts, irenerallj-. 
 
 ? 371. JTarried women's separate . property acts — Contracts i:» 
 equity. 
 
 5 '"2. Married wonie:i"s separate property a^'ts — Contracts Tjy im- 
 plication. 
 
 ? "5. ilarricvl woman's si^parsue pniperty acts — CuntnK-ts niider 
 express powers. 
 
 { 374. Statutes expressly authorizing or prohibiting'certaiu con tracts. 
 
 { STol Statutes expressly authorizing all contracts. 
 
 ■ I 3TB. Statutes requiring formalities. 
 
 ■ I 377. I.o<*al and extraterritorial effect. 
 
 I 378. Prospective and retrospective effect, 
 I 378 a. T!ie statutes in the different States. 
 
 ^ 363. £ff3ct of g^eneral statatos aot montioiiinj marriod 
 women. 
 
 Utile. General sfafufes relating to contracts but not 
 expressly referring to married women, do not nlfcct the 
 validity of married women'' s contracts, but apply to these 
 only so far as they are valid umler other statutes. 
 
 To illustrate : A .statute pro\'iding that all deeds 
 "shall be valid between the parties though not re- 
 corded," would not render the deed of a married 
 woman valid ;* a statute providing for the giving of re- 
 plevin bonds doer; not enable a married woman plaintiff 
 to give snc'h a Ijond ;2 a statute relating to auction bids 
 •would not make the bid of a married woman valid;' 
 general insolvent laws have been lield inapplicable to 
 married women.* A statute requiring the officer to 
 certify that the part}' executing a deed "was known 
 to mo," does not apply to married women's deed exe- 
 cuted under another special act not requiring this;* 
 nor does a statute relating to the recording of deeds 
 necessarily apply to married women's deeds.* But>
 
 545 EFFECT OF STATUTES COXSTRUED. f 870 
 
 under the national bank acts which do not mention 
 married women, these are liable for assessment on 
 their stock,' and under statutes defining the liabilities 
 of purchasers at mortgage sales without referring to 
 married women, these have been held bound,* because 
 other statutes had empoAvered them to hold stock and 
 purchase property separately from their husbands. 
 So where a married v.oman may sue as if sole, her at- 
 torney may under a general law obtain a lien for his 
 fees ;3 and her valid mortgage may be foreclosed under 
 a general law.i" And when a married woman may 
 conti-act, statutes like the statute of frauds apply to her 
 contracts." The rule that general acts do not apply to 
 persons not sui juris is familiar,'- and has often been 
 applied to statutes relating to A\alls.'' 
 
 1 See ante, iV^ 
 
 2 See Ward v. Whitney, 12 Phila. 24fi. 
 
 ■5 See De Hay v. Dennis, 14 Rich. Eq. 27, 29. 
 
 4 Relief r. Schmidt, 55 3Id. S7, 08. 
 
 5 Bell V. Lyle, 10 Lea, 44, 45. 
 
 6 Applegate v. Tracy, 9 Dana, 215, 224. 
 
 7 .\nderson 7-. Line, H Fed. Rep. 405, 408 ; The Reciprocity Bk. 22 
 N. Y. 9, 15. 
 
 8 Fowler v. Jacob, ild. Ct. App. Oct. 1S83 ; Md. Law Rec. Oct. 4, 1884. 
 
 9 Putnam v. Tciinyi5on, 50 Ind. 456, 45''. 
 
 10 Hartman v. Ogborn, 54 Pa. St. 120, 123. 
 
 11 She must not only have the capacity to contract, but tlie con- 
 tract must be one wliirli would bind tier if unmarried : See Hether- 
 inscton V. Ilixon, 46 .A.la. 2'17, 2')8 ; Sawyer v. Fernald, 59 Me. 500, stn ; 
 Da Vries?'. Conklin, 22 Mich. 255, 25S, 230; Bayler t\ Com. 40 Pa. St. 
 37, 44. 
 
 12 See ante, H 13, 3G9. 
 
 13 Baker t'. Chastang, IS Ala. 4:7, 423; Adams v. Kellogg, Kirbv, 
 105, 196; 1 Am. Dec. l-i; Reese r. Cochran, 10 Ind. l:t5. 197; Osgood r. 
 Breed, 12 Mass. 525, 5:» ; Marston v. Norton, 5 X. H. 205, 210 ; Cutter t». 
 Butler, 25 X. H. .343, 3.52; 57 Am. Dec. 330; Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 
 N. H. 295, 300 ; ante, ?? 13, .34.5. 
 
 I 373. Effect of statatas creating married women's stat- 
 utory separata estates. 
 
 Rule. Statutes which xcctire to a vian-ird in/maii the 
 separate -use and eujoi/ment of her 'properly^ and, which
 
 § 371 EFFKCT OF STATUTKS CONSTRUED. 546 
 
 either do not refer to her contracts at all, or authorize co7i- 
 tracts '■'■relating to," or "taith respect to," etc., such prop- 
 erty, do not enable her to contract generally, but only 
 in connection leith such property. And there are three 
 classes of: contracts which may be authorized by these 
 statutes, to ivit: (1) Contracts biiuling the property in 
 equity as if it were equitable separate property ; (2) con- 
 tracts falling ivithin the classes expressly authorized by 
 the words ^^with reference to," etc.; and (3) cojitracts 
 necessary to the separate tuse and enjoyment of the prop- 
 erty, as secured by the statute. 
 
 The meaning of this mle is that statutes, such as have 
 been passed in all the States, destroying the husband's 
 common-law estates in his -wife's property, and securing 
 to the "vvife her own property to her owrv use, do not af- 
 fect the general personal status of the wife, and give her 
 no capacity to make any contract which is not in some 
 way connected A\ith the property' so secured to her.* The 
 classes of contracts which may be authorized by these 
 statutes are discussed under the three following sections.^ 
 
 1 Bank v. Porter, 99 V. S. rej, a'S ; Svkes v. Chadwiek, IS Wall. 
 141, 1"<1 ; Hodges f. Price, 18 Fla. Ul, .^1 ; Jenne r. Marble. 37 Mich. 
 319, 321 ; Kenton r. McCIellan, 43 Mich. 5ft4, 56.i ; Johnson v. Suther- 
 land, 39 Mich. 579, »S0 ; Rus.sell r. People, 39 Mich. 671, 673; Xi Am. 
 Dec. 4+4 ; Dovle v. Oi r, .51 Miss. 229, zn ; Bailev r. Pearson, 29 X. H. 
 77, 86; Hnvler v. Atwood, 26 N. J. Kq. 504, 506 ; Eckert v. Renter, 33 
 N. J. L. 2W, 2'?S ; Kelso ?•. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125, 129 ; Morgan v. Andrlot, 
 2 Hilt. 431, 4:f2 ; ante, \ 2:r7. 
 
 2 This distinction is suggested in Bressler i'. Kent, 61 IlL 42fi, 430 ; 
 1 1 .\m. Rep. 67 ; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wis. 305, 3S0. 
 
 ^ 371. Contracts in equity nnder married women's sepa- 
 rate property acts. 
 
 Rule. A manried woman\s contracts which tpould be 
 binding on her equitable separate property in equity are 
 valid as against her statutory separate property in the 
 same way. 
 
 Courts of equity have long recognized a married 
 woman's contracts with respect to her property secured
 
 547 EFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. g 371 
 
 to lier separate use bj-- aetof party — by deed, etc. ; ^ and 
 for the same reasons and to the same extent they en- 
 force her contracts with reference to her separate prop- 
 erty created by. act of the State — by statute.^ Though 
 some courts haA'e held that equity has nothing to do 
 with the legal separate property of wives,' the rule 
 states the prevailing opinion. But Avhether a particu- 
 lar contract is binding on a particular piece of property 
 must depend on the rule which would determine, in 
 the place where the contract is made,* Avhether the 
 contract would be binding on the property if it were 
 equitable separate estate, and the terms of the statute 
 were the terms of the deed.^ Thus, in New Jersey the 
 contract uiust be beneficial or an express charge,^ 
 while in Kansas any contract is h-rebutablj* presumed 
 to be intended as a charge on the property.'' So there 
 are limitations to this capacitj'. If the wife has no power 
 to dispose of tlae property, she cannot bind it by her 
 contract,^ aud she can so bind it only to the extent and 
 in the mode prescribed by statute,^ if any is prescribed. 
 If her husband's consent is required to her conveyances, 
 it must accompany her contract.'" On the principle that 
 the naming of one power or mode of execution is a ne- 
 gation of all otliers," if slie is expressly authorized to 
 make certain contracts or to contract in certain ways, 
 she cannot make any other contracts or contract in any 
 other way,'^ even equity.'^ But the fact that the law 
 unplies, from the terms of a statute, a capacity to make 
 such contracts as are necessai-y to the enjoj^ment of her 
 property secured by the statute, does not prevent her 
 binding such property in equity by such contracts as 
 would have bound her equitable separate property.'* 
 
 1 Discussed ante, l\ 197-216. 
 
 2 Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 1(M, 105. See Bedford v. 
 Burton, 106 V. S. ."its, 3;w, .S40 ; Donovan, 41 Conn. 551, .557; Cox it. 
 Wootl, 20 Ind. 54, 53 ; Scott, 13 lud. 225, 228 ; Stiields v. Keys, 24 Iowa,
 
 I 372 EFFKCT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. 548 
 
 298, ni3 ; First v. lluiro, 30 Iowa, 44:!, 44r> ; WIcUs v. Mitchell, Kan. SO, 
 87 ; Hall V. Kcclcston, S7 Md. 510, hM ; J'ond v. Carpenter, I-' Minn. i:iO, 
 4X1; lioylc r. Orr, .'il Miss. L'2:i, •z:\l\ Selph ?•. llowland, 'j:! Miss, ail, 
 207; I'cnibertdii v. .lolinson, Hi Mo. Ml, .■t4:t ; I'erUins r Klliott, 'li 
 N. .J. K<i. 2.7, 'i^'.l ; it .N. .1. IO(i. .VJ(i, WM, W.V) ; I'cake ,.. Lebaw.l'l N. .1. 
 K(\. •H\\)-l'il ; Wilson v. lirown, II .\. J. Kq. •277, •.;7II ; Yale v. Uedcrer, 
 18 N. Y. 20,5, 272, -27!) ; IJalliii )•. Dillave, H7 N, Y, liA, .•!7 ; Corn r. Bah- 
 cock, 42 N. Y. 6i;i, 028 ; I'atrlok r. ),1tt611, .'!B Olilo .St. 7'i,H.'! ; (Jraves v. 
 Phillips, 20 Ohio St. H7I, :(!n ; (ilass r. Warwick, 40 I'a. St. 110, ^^:^■, 
 Hall V. Dotson, W Tex. 520, .524 ; Stoekton v. Furlev, 10 W. Va. 171, 175 ; 
 KadforU v. Carwile, i;! W. Va. 57;J, 001, 074. 
 
 .1 See Maolav ". liOve, 25 Cal. 307, 382 ; West v. I.araway, 28 Mloli. 
 404, 40j ; Cain v. ISunkley, 35 Mls.s. 11), 14.5. 
 
 4 See post, I 377. 
 
 5 Seott, 13 Ind. 225,228. But see Staley v. llaniiltoii, 1!) Fla. 275, 
 2!)0 ; ante, {? 200, 207. 
 
 6 Perkins v. Klliott, 23 N. J. Eq. 528, 534. 
 
 7 Wicks V. Mitchell, 9 Kan. 80, 87. 
 
 8 Co.x 1'. Wood, 20 Ind. .54, .58, .5'). See Uressler v. Kent, 01 111. 420, 
 430 ; 14 Am. Kep. 07 ; Berry v. Bland, 7 Siuedes & M. 77, 8;i, 81 ; Pond 
 V. Carpenter, 12 Minn. 430. But'See 2 Blsh. M. W. I 212. 
 
 !» See infra, notes 12, 13. 
 
 10 Hall 1'. l'>elpston,37 Md. 510, .520 ; Townslov v. Ohapln, 12 Allen, 
 476, 47!); Selph v. Howland, 23 Miss. 204,207; Kadford v. Carwile, 13 
 W. Va. .57:1, 074. But see Tliorjias v. Passage, 04 Ind. 100, 113 ; Ward ri. 
 Servoss, 15 Ahb. I'r. 271), 280. 
 
 11 Dreyfus v. Wolffe, 05 Ala. 4!)0, 4',)8 ; Kelso v. Tabor, .52 Barb. 125, 
 129. 
 
 12 Staley v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 27.5,295; T>lllard v. Turner, 10 Mon. 
 B. 374, 370. See Tracy v. Keith, 11 Alleii, 214, 215; Jlobi'rtson v. 
 Bruner, 24 Miss. 242, 244 ; Whltworth v. Carter, 43 Miss. 01, 71, 72; 
 Dunbar v. Meyer, 43 Miss. 670, <t85 ; ijuxt, 'i 370. 
 
 13 Cases r>'>'<t, '/ 370, n. 8. Cnntra, Donovan, 41 Conn. .551, 557 ; Per- 
 kins r. Elliot t, 22 N. .1. Eq. 127, 129; 23 N. .T. Eq. 523, .534 ; Uravos v. 
 Phillll).s, 20 Ohio St. 371, .391. 
 
 14 Todd r\ Lee, 15 Wi.s. .30.5, .3.80. See Jones v. Cro.stliwaite, 17 Iowa, 
 393, 403, 404. 
 
 ^ 372. Implied power to contract undor married women' b 
 separate property acts. 
 
 Ilule. A m'lrried woman in not, irHh respect to her 
 statutory separate property, a femme sole. She has hy 
 implicatioyi the capacity to make such contracts, and no 
 other's, as are necessary to the exercise of the capacities, 
 or the enjoyment of the rights, expressly given her hy the 
 statute. 
 
 That is to say, the capacity (o contra(!t must bo ox- 
 l)res.sly given,' or iL must be incidental and noce.s.sary
 
 549 KFFECT OF STATUTES COXSTRUKD. g 372 
 
 to the use and enjoyment of the property as the statute 
 says it shall be used and enjoyed.-' Under a statute 
 providing that a married woman sliall have over her 
 property the same rights and powers as a fetnme sole, 
 she may dispose of it,^ or aj^ree to dispose of it,* as ;i 
 fcmme solf:, even by power of attorney;* she may in- 
 vest it,8 or eliarge it for her debts ; ' she may do with 
 rcspoet to it whatever any other person can do with 
 respect to his or her propxjrty.^ But the power to hold 
 and onj'iy — the jus tenendi — is a very different power 
 from the jiower to dispose of it — the ^ms disponendi ;^ 
 and a statute wliioh simply enables a married woman 
 to "hold, use, enjoy, and possess her property as if 
 single," does not enalile lier to dispose of it as if 
 single,'" The power to dispose must be given expressly 
 or by the clearest iniiilication. In the case of mer- 
 chandise, '• and perliajjs of all chattels," the power to 
 dispose is a necessary incident of ownership, and is 
 given by implication with full ownership. There are 
 cases wliic.h are in conflict with this reasoning, and 
 imply tlio power of disposition even of realty from full 
 ownersliip,'^ and there are other cases which would 
 seem to deny all implied powers.'^ As to mere con- 
 tracts, wluin a married woman may " liold, enjoy, and 
 possess her jjroperty as if solo," she may make all con- 
 tracts necessary to such holding and enjoyinent.i^ She 
 may lease it, "' contract for legal services with respect 
 to it," or manual labor upon it,'® for cultivating"* or 
 repairing'" it, for selling its crops,'' and render it lia- 
 ble, at least to the extent of the income,-^ for her debts.''* 
 Whether the capacity to buy carries with it the capac- 
 ity to buy on credit,'^^ and wliether tlae capacity to sell 
 carries with it the capacity to agree to sell,'^^ seems 
 doubtful. When she may trade, she may make all 
 contra'o':) iu the u.sual course of trade, ^" and buy tools
 
 g S72 EFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. 550 
 
 «nd instruments for use therein." When she may 
 manage her property, she may submit to arbitration a 
 claim arising from damage to it.^ "When she may dis- 
 pose, she may make any kind of disposition .^^ This 
 implied eaiJaclty is not in conflict ■\\ith her capacity in 
 equity already considered ; the two may exist side by 
 side;^" in fact, in some States, the capacity is imjilied 
 only in equity .^^ According to the better view, how- 
 ever, the married Avoman is liable on contracts valid 
 under this rul6, not in equitj'', but at law.^^ 
 
 1 See post, ?2 373, 374, 375, rules. 
 
 2 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 427 ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 ; Cole v. "Van 
 Kiper, 44 111. 58 ; infra, n. 15. 
 
 3 Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 447, 459 ; Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 136, 
 141 ; ante, U 20:J-205. 
 
 4 Dreutzer v. Lawrence, 58 Wis. 594, 598, 509 ; post, { 407. 
 
 5 P.itton V. King, 20 Tex. 685, 6Sfl ; post, i 406. 
 
 6 Keeper, 79 Mo. 352, 361. 
 
 7 Williams v. Hugunin, 63 111. 214, 219 ; 18 Am. Rep. 263 ; a7ite, J 238. 
 
 8 Beard v. Redolph, 23 Wis. 136, 141- 
 
 9 Cole V. Van Biper, 44 III. 58 ; Parent ?•. Oallerand, 64 111. 97, 99 ; 
 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 4'!0 ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 ; Itfiller v. Wetherby, 
 29 X. J. I>. 287, 288 ; ante, H 205, 236. 
 
 10 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, •429, 430 ; II Am. Rep. 67 ; Vreeland, 
 16 N. J. Eq. 512, 524 ; Swift v. Luce, 27 Me. 285, 238 ; Moore r. Cornell, 
 68 Pa. St. 320, 322, 323 ; supra, n. 9. 
 
 11 Wieman t'. Anderson, 42 Pa. St. 311, 317, 318. 
 
 12 See Brown v. Fifleld, 4 Mich. 322, 327 ; Xaylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. 
 287, 288. 
 
 13 Harding v. Cobb, 47 Miss. 599, 603. See Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 227 ; 
 Jones 1'. Crosth waite, 17 Iowa, 393, 402 ; Kimm v. Weippert, 46 Mo. 532, 
 536 ; 2 Am. Kep. 541 ; Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 136, 141. 
 
 14 Lillard v. Turner, 16 Mon. B. 374, 376 ; Selzer v. Campbell, 15 
 S. C. 581, 589. 
 
 15 Williams v. Hugunin, 63 111. 214, 219 ; 18 Am. Rep. 268 ; Coolison 
 V. Toole, 59 III. 515, 519 ; Mitchell v. Carpenter, 50 111. 470, 621 ; Smith 
 V. Howe, 31 Ind. 233, 234 ; Lindley r. Cross, 31 Ind. 106 ; Duren v. 
 Getchell, 53 Me. 241, 248; Albin v. Lord, 33 N. II. 136, 201, 202; Freck- 
 ing V. RoUand, 53 N. Y. 422, 425 ; Mahon v. Gormlev, 24 Pa. St. 80 ; 
 Wieman v. .A.nderson, 42 Pa. St. 311, 317, 318 ; Wright r. Blackwood, 57 
 Tex. 644, 648 ; Krouskop j'. Shontz, 57 Wis. 204, 214 ; Meyers )•. Rahte, 
 46 Wis. 6.55. 6.58 ; Beard v. Redolph, 29 Wis. 136, 141 ; Leonard v. 
 Began, 20 Wis. 510, 542 ; Todd v. Lee, 15 Wis. 365, 368. 
 
 16 Parent v. Callerand, 64 III. 07, 99. 
 
 17 Leonard v. Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, 542 ; post, ? 4G3. 
 IS Cookson V. Toole, 5D ILL 515, 519, 520.
 
 551 EFFKCT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. ^ 373 
 
 13 Mitchell V. Carpenter, 50 111. 470. 
 
 20 Beard r. Redolph, 23 Wis. 136, 141. 
 
 21 Cookson V. Toole, 59 111. 515, 521. 
 
 22 See Cox v. Ward, 20 Ind. 54, 58, 53. 
 
 23 Williams v. Ilu^unin, 69 III. 214, 219 ; IS Am. Rep. 203. 
 
 24 Tiemeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 516, 521 ; .x) Am. U?p. 674 ; ante, 
 J 223. 
 
 25 See Felkne v. Tigho, 33 Ar'.c. 357, ^61, 3G2 ; Stedham r. Matthews, 
 29 Ark. ftjO, 65-<; Shrover v. Kickell, 57 Mo. 264, 26S ; Baker v. Hath- 
 w.ny, 5 Allen, 103, 105 ; Love v. Watkins, 40 Cal. 547, 5G1 ; G Am. Rep. 
 624. 
 
 , f .26 Freaking 1^ ROtiand, 33 X. Y. 422, -42.5. 
 
 27 WiI!i;imso:i v. Dodge, 5 Hun, 498, 433 ; Davtoii v. Walsh, -^7 Wis. 
 113, 120 ; 02 Am. Rf p. 757. 
 
 28 Duren v. Getchell, 55 Me. 241, 248. 
 
 29 Smith v. Wilson, 2 jNEct. (Kj'.) 235, 237; Pond r. Carpenter, 12 
 Minn. 430, 432, 433 ; Hall v. Dotson, ooTex. 520, 524 ; ante, 5 2:.6. 
 
 30 Todd V. Lee, 15 Wis. 36r,, 3S0. 
 
 31 Huyler v. Atwood, 26 X. J. Eq. .504, 506. 
 
 32 See cases s^ipra, n. 15. 
 
 § 373. Express powor to contract undor married women's 
 separate property acts. 
 
 Rule. When (he statute aiUhorizes a married woman 
 to contract '■'^ with reference to," ^' with respect to," etc., 
 her separate .properOj, her contracts to be valid must be 
 ^^with reference to" etc., her said property. 
 
 On the principle that expressum laiius est cxclusio al- 
 terius, the enuirieration in a statute of- certain contracts 
 which a married woman may niake is a denial of her 
 capacity to make any others ;i but it is probable that 
 statutes providing that a married woman's contracts 
 with reference to her property should bo valid, aro 
 simply attempts to create a rule in law which had pre- 
 viously existed as to equitable separate projjerty in 
 equity,^ so that there would be no conflict between this 
 rule and the rule already discussed.^ What contracts 
 do relate to property under these statutes has been 
 frequently under discussion. The following contracts 
 do relate to, concern, refer to, and respect a married 
 woman's statutory separate jiroperty : Contracts for the
 
 ? ST3 EFFECT OP STATUTES CONSTRTJED. 552 
 
 direct benefit of the same,* for selling,* leasing,^ mort- 
 gaging,' cultivating,^ improving,® stocking,'" fencing," 
 repairing,!'* supplying with laborers,'^ or with tools,'* 
 the said property ; also a covenant for title in a deed of 
 the same ;'^ an a^iroenient for the sale of the same,'^ but 
 not for tlie purcliase of the same ;" a purchase of furni- 
 ture for lier sejjarate house,'^ or of a horse,'* or tools,™ 
 for farming her separate farm. Wliether a purcliase of 
 propert}'^ for her separate use is a contract relating to 
 her separate property is disputed ; '' the better opinion 
 seems to be that tiie obligation to pay arises only after, 
 or at the same moment as, tlie property vests, and that 
 therefore it is separate property when the promise to 
 pay for it is made, and the latter is thus a contract witli 
 reference to it.'^'' Whetlier a promise to pay money, 
 when a woman lias no otlier separate property, is a con- 
 tract relating to her separate property has been ques- 
 tioned.^ A contract buying a liorse for pleasure rid- 
 ing,2* or supplies for tlie family,^^ or a contract whereby 
 a married woman borrows tlie money to buj"^ lier sepa- 
 rate property,'^ or a contract of suretyship,*' is not a 
 contract relating to lier separate property. Still, in some 
 States tlie law raises a j^resumi^tion that a married 
 woman intends every contract to be with reference to 
 her separate projierty,'*^ or every contract which benefits 
 her.29 
 
 1 Referred to ante, i 371, rule ; post, ? 376, rule. 
 
 2 See Albin v. Lord, 30 N. H. infi, 203, 201; Peake v. Lebaw, 21 
 N. J. Eq. 2R!t, 282 ; Yale r. Dederer, is N. Y. 265, 272, 279 ; Walker v. 
 lieumy, 37 Va. St. 410, 414. 
 
 3 Ante, H 237, 372. 
 
 4 Russel V. People, 39 Mich. 671, 674. 
 
 5 Bailey v. Pearson, 29 N. H. 106, 202. 
 
 6 Vandervoort v. Gould, 36 N. Y. 639, 643. 
 
 7 Marlow v. Barlew, .53 Cal. 456, 459. 
 
 8 Bosford v. Pearson, 7 Allen, 504, 505. 
 
 9 Burr V. Swan, 113 Mass. 5S8, 589. 
 
 10 Batchelderf. .Sarsrent, 47N. IL2C2, 264, 265.
 
 553 EFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. g 374 
 
 11 Albiii v. Lord; 33 N. H. 1!I6, 202. 
 
 12 Parker v. Kane, 4 Allen, 34G, "A7. 
 
 13 See Cookson v. Toole, 59 111. 515, 520 ; supra, n. 10. 
 
 14 McCormlck v. Ilolbrook, 22 Iowa, 437, 4S3. 
 
 15 Rl'^hmond v. Tibbies, 26 Iowa, 474, 476; Bosford v. Pearson, 7 
 Allen, 504, 505. 
 
 16 Klr-hniond v. Tibbies. 2fi Town, 474, 476; Baker v. Hatbway, 5 
 Allen, in:!, 104, 105; Bosford v. Pearson, 7 Allen, 504,505; Durfee v. 
 McClurg, 6 Mich. 22;J,232. 
 
 17 Jones v. Crosthwaite, 17 Iowa, 303, 402. 
 
 18 Tillman v. Shackleton, 51 Mich. 447, 454, 455. 
 
 19 Mitchell V. Smith, 32 Iowa, 4S4, 4S7. 
 
 20 Bee Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 2^2, 264. 
 
 21 Messer v. Smyth, 58 N. II. 2^8, 209 ; infra, n. 22. 
 
 22 Messer v. Smvth, 58 N. H. 208, 200-301. S. P., Adams v. Charter, 
 46 Conn. 551, 554 ; Tillman 7'. Shackleton, 15 Mich. 447, 45ii ; Hurler v. 
 Atwood, 26 N. .1. Eq. 504, 507 ; Tiemevor?'. Tnrnquist,85 N. Y. 516,522 ; 
 39 Am. Rep. 674 ; Cramer v. Hanaford, 5.i Wis. 85, «7. 
 
 23 Butler v. Barber, 54 Cal. 178, 179. 
 
 24 MclJermott c. Garland, 1 Mackey, 406. 
 
 25 Schneider v. Garland, 1 Mackey, 350. 
 
 26 Ames V. Foster, 42 X. H. 381, 385. But see Cashman i\ Henry, 75 
 N. Y. 103, 108 ; 31 Am. Hep. 437. 
 
 27 RusspI v. People, 39 Mich. 671, 673; Huyler v. Atwood, 26 
 N. J. Eq. .504, 506. 
 
 28 Wicks V. Mitchell, 9 Kan. 80, 85, 87, 88. 
 
 29 Huyler v. Atwood, 26 N. J. Eq. 504, 506. 
 
 ? 374. Effect of statutes expressly authorizing or pro- 
 hibiting specified contracts. 
 
 Hide. Statutes expressly authorizing on prohibiting 
 certain specified contracts are strictlg construed, and, re- 
 spectively, neither authorize nor prohibit any contracts 
 not specified; but statutes expressly authorizing specified 
 contracts may, by implication, prohibit all others, and 
 contracts expressly prohibiting certain contracts may, by 
 implication, authorize others. 
 
 Under a statute which authorizes one kind of con- 
 tract no other can be made ; ^ thus, when a married 
 woman is empowered to dispose of her property by 
 sale, she cannot dispose of it by gift.^ The only capac- 
 ities implied are those which are necessarily incidental 
 to rights or capacities expressly given.* And so, on 
 H. & W. — 47.
 
 I 375 EFFECT OP STATT'TES COXSTnt'ED. 554 
 
 tho other hand, Avhen certain con'a-acts arc prohibited, 
 the prohibition ^vill not bo extended by eonstniction ;^ 
 thus, when contracts between husljand and wife are 
 prohibited, contracts of the wife as surety of her hus- 
 band are nevertheles:3 valid.^ Moreover, on the prin- 
 ciple that the naming of one capacity is by implication 
 a negation of all others,* v.iien a married woman is 
 authorized to make certain contracts, or to make con- 
 tracts executed with certain formalities, she is impliedly 
 rostraincd from making any others, even in equity." 
 And the proliibition of certain contracts in a statTito 
 may make clear the intention of the legislature to 
 authorize all other contracts of the class to wliich the 
 prohibited contract belongs ; thus, under a statute 
 authorizing a married woman to acquire property, 
 " provided that no acquisition from her husband in 
 prejndice of the rights of his creditors shall be valid,'' 
 authorizes her to acquire from her husband in all cases 
 when the rights of his creditors are not prejudiced.' 
 
 1 Abshir'? v. State, 5.") Ind. fi4. fiT : Sturmfeltz v. Frickev, 43 Md. 
 563, bTl ; J{obertson r. Cruner, 24 Miss. :;4J, '244. He^ post, 5 •'576, ii. 8. 
 
 2 Mott V. Smith, 10 Cal..535, 506. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, } ST-"?. 
 
 4 See Ingoldsby r, Juan, 12 Cal. 5T5 ; Maclay v. Love, 25 C'al. 381 ; 
 ante, { 16. 
 
 5 Major v. Holmes, 124 Slass. 108, 100. 
 
 6 Kelso V. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125, 129. See ante, ? "72 ; post, ? 376. 
 
 7 Staley r. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 295. 
 
 8 Trader r. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14. See Goree v. Walthall, 44 Ala. 161, 
 1G4. 165 ; Kingsley v. Gilman, 15 Minii. 50, 60, 61. 
 
 \ 375. Effect of statutes expressly authorizing married 
 womon to contract as if unmarried. 
 
 Rule. Under a statute expressly enabling a married 
 woman to contract as if unmarried, she may make con- 
 tracts generally, entirely unaffected by her coverture, but 
 it is doub\fid whether she may make contracts di^'ectly 
 with her husband.
 
 .555 EFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. I 376 
 
 When the statvite saj^s that she may contract as if 
 sole, it is presumed to mean it ; ^ her contracts are not 
 afTcctod by coverture at all ; ^ she may make all kinds 
 of contracts which an unmarried woman may make,* 
 including contracts of suretyship,^ promissory' notes,* 
 contracts binding her equitable separate property,^ etc. 
 An implied jjromise rises against her in cases Avhen it 
 would rise against a.femme sole.'' And on her contracts 
 made under such a contract she is liable at law and in 
 damages.* But when her contracts with her husband 
 are considered, other principles are brought into play.^ 
 
 1 Edwards i'. Schoeneman, 10-1 111. 27S, 283. 
 
 2 Worthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 207, 308. 
 
 3 See Pelzer v. Campbell, 15 S. C. 581, 601 ; 40 Am. Rep. T05 ; infra, 
 n. -1. 
 
 4 Hart v. ttrigsbv, 14 Bush, 542 ; Mavo v. Hutchinson, 57 Me. 546 ; 
 Maior )'. Holmes, 124 Mass. 108, 103 ; Witte v. Wolfe, 16 S. C. 256, 268, 
 26'J ; Pelzer v. Campbell, 15 S. C. 581, 601 ; 40 Am. Rep. 705. 
 
 5 See Messer v. Smyth, 58 X. H. 298, 299. 
 
 6 Witte V. Wolfe, 16 S. C. 2m, 26.S, 269. 
 
 7 Spafford v. Warren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51 ; Hickson v. Williams, 41 
 N. J. L. 35, 38 ; Ackley v. Westervelt, 86 N. Y. 448, 453 ; post, i 381. 
 
 8 Worthington v. Cooke. 52 Md. 297, 298. 
 
 9 Discussed ante, I 43. 
 
 ^ 876. Effect of statutes requiring formalities. 
 
 Rule. If a statute u-hich eirables a married u'oman to 
 contract requires her contracts to be executed in a certain 
 way, this reqtiirement must be substayttially complied with 
 to give her contract any validity; but if she has the ca- 
 pacity to contract independently of the statute which 
 requires the formalities, a contract not complying there- 
 with may still be valid. 
 
 Tliis rule has reference, more espeeiallj% to deeds of 
 married women. Before the legislatures began to se- 
 cure married women's property to their separate use, 
 thej' ])rovided for tlieir release of dower, and their con- 
 veyance of the reversion in their realty, by joint deed 
 with their husbands ; and these statutes usually re- 
 
 /
 
 I 310 EFFECT OP STATUTES CONSTRUED. 5o6 , 
 
 quired the wife's acknowledgment to be taken apart 
 from her husband, and to be accompanied by her dec- 
 laration that she acted freely and of her own accord. ^ 
 Under such statutes, there is no question but that the 
 deed of a married woman not so executed was abso- 
 lutely void ;^ for the statute gave her a jiower, the only 
 power that she had, and the deed not being a good exe- 
 cution of the power was not valid under the statute, 
 and could not be valid by virtue of any other capacity 
 of hers, because she had none.^ Such a deed could not 
 ratify ; * any act of hers to make it good would have to 
 be equivalent to a new deed,^ and would not rola'.e 
 back but would take effect only from the time of i'.s 
 execution.* Nor, probably, could the legislature cure 
 the defect in such a deed.^ Nor could such a deed be 
 reformed, i^erfected, or enforced in equity,^ for though 
 it lies within the peculiar province of equity to reform 
 defective deeds,^ and enforce them as agreements to 
 give deeds,'" this jurisdiction of equity is founded on 
 the general capacity of the parties to contract" — a ca- 
 pacitj^ which a married woman did not have ; '- and 
 besides, equity could not reform or perfect the execu- 
 tion of a statutory power,^^ Of course, the above rea- 
 soning does not apply to deeds of equitable separate 
 property in States where n, married woman holds such 
 property as if sole." How far it applies to statutory 
 separate estate is the difhcult question. As to this 
 property, it is generally said tliat it cannot be conveN^ed 
 unless the statute so provides,'^ and that it can be con- 
 veyed only in the mode prescribed by statute.'^ A 
 married woman's implied power to dispose of her stat- 
 utory separa'e estate has already been discussed.'' 
 Where she has no implied power, and there is no ex- 
 press power given, she conveys it just as she conveyed 
 her property a" common lav.-.'s Where there is an ex-
 
 557 EFFECT OF STATUTES COXBTKUED. ^ 376 
 
 press power given, but it is coupled with a provision 
 tliat it must be executed in a certain way, then a deed 
 not so executed would be void,'^ like the deeds already 
 discussed. Where slie is expressly empowered to con- 
 vey "as if unmarried," tliough there is a further pro- 
 vision that her husband must join,2o her defective deed, 
 or deed not properly acknowledged and recorded, 
 provided that if her husband's joinder is required lie 
 has joined, is valid between the parties, ^^ and may be 
 corrected and enforced in equity as if it were the deed 
 of an unmarried woman.22 So if she has the power to 
 contract generally, ^^ or to contract witli reference to 
 her property ,2* her defective deed may be enforced as a 
 contract in equity,^ or she may be estopped thereby.-^ 
 It is therefoi-e only when a married woman has the 
 capacity to convey as if sole, or the general capacity to 
 contract ijcrsonally or with reference to her property, 
 that her deeds not executed with the formalities re- 
 quired by statute for deeds can have any validity 
 whatever. As already suggested, slie may be required 
 to execute a deed as if sole, or under a particvilar stat- 
 ute relating only to married women. Under the lat- 
 ter statutes, the privy acknowledgment is absolutely 
 necessary,^' and the certificate on the deed must show 
 that all the formalities required bj' the law have been 
 conformed to.^^ The certificate cannot be aided by out- 
 side proof,-'^ or corrected in equity.^" Substanlial com- 
 pliance with the statute is, however, all that is required, 
 the precise words of tlie staUite need not be used.^^ The 
 certificate is p7-ima facie ev'dence,^'' but is not conclu- 
 sive^ tliat the law has been complied witli, and except 
 as against bona fide purchasers,^* it may be impeaclied.^^ 
 
 1 See discussion in 2 Scribner Dow. ch. 13 ; jynst, §J 394-40S. 
 
 2 Holland v. Moon, 3n Arlc. 120, 121 ; Leonis i\ Luzzarovich, r.o C U. 
 52, 57 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 IMd. 3S7, 31)2 ; Sliroyer v. Nickell, .%'> Mu. iG4, 
 2G7, CG8 ; Rosentlial v. Mayhugli, 33 Ohio St. 155, 159 ; Gillespie v.
 
 g 376 BFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. 558 
 
 Warford, 2 Cold. 6C2, CaS , Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 52.3, 532; inrra, 
 n. 8. 
 
 3 .See Shroyer j'. Nickell, .55 Mo. 264, 267 ; Silliman r. Cummins, 13 
 Ohio, 116, llii. 
 
 4 Buchanan v. Hagned, 95 Pa. St. 240, 243. 
 
 5 Miller v. Shackleford, 3 Dana, 280, 2'J7. 
 
 6 Doe V. Hovvland, 8 Cowen, 277, 284 ; 18 Am. Dec. 445. 
 
 7 Discussed post, ? 378. 
 
 8 Williams v. Walker, Law R. 9 Q. B. D. .576, 581 ; Drury v. Foster, 
 2 Wall. 24, .34 ; Holland v. Moon, 3.i Ark. 120, 124; Stidman v. Mat- 
 thews, 29 Ark. 6.50, 6.58, 662 ; Simpson v. Montgomery, 25 Ark. 365, 373 ; 
 Leonis v. Lazzarovici., 55 CaU .52, 55 ; Atwater r. Buckingham, 5 Day, 
 492, 497 ; Breit v. Yeaton, 101 III. 242, 262; Patterson v. Lawrence, 90 
 111. 174, 180 ; 32 Am. Dec. 22 ; Lindley v. Smith, 58 111. 2.50; Martin t'. 
 Hargardine, 46 111. 422, 425 ; Rogers v. Higgiiis, 48 111. 211, 216 ; Stevens 
 V. Parish, 2;) Ind. 260, 263 ; Grapengether v. Fcjervary, 9 Iowa, 163, 173; 
 Blivckburn v. Pennington, 8 Mon. B. 217 ; John.son v. Reardon, 11 Md. 
 465, 469, 470 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. .3,87, 394; Townsk v ;•. Chapin, 12 
 Allen, 476, 479 ; Hord v. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101, 104 ; White, 16 N. J. L. 
 202, 2!4 ; Marvin v. Smith, 46 N. Y. .571, 574 ; Wiswall v. Hall, 3 Paige, 
 31.3, 317 ; Knowles r. MoOaulv, 10 Paige Ch. .342, 347 ; Green r. Branton, 
 1 Dev. Eq. .500, .503 ; Purcell r. Goshorn, 17 Ohio, 105, 124 ; 49 Am. Dec. 
 448 • Davenport r. Savi!,6 Ohio St. .5o'.l, 566 ; Carr v. Williams, 10 Ohio, 
 3a5, 310 ; 36 Am. Dec. 87 ; Rosoburgh v. Sterling, 27 P.a. St. 292, 293 ; 
 Wright V. Dufield, 58 Tex. 218, 225; Cross v. Everts, 23 Tex. 528, 532. 
 
 9 Simpson v. Montgomery, 25 Arlt. 365, 373. 
 
 10 See Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. a87, 39.3. 
 
 11 Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264, 267. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, U 197-216. 
 
 13 Bright v Bovd, 1 Story, 478, 4S7 ; McBride v. Wilkinson, 20 Ala. 
 662, 667; Ellet r. Wade, 47 Ala. 4-56, 464 ; Mereau v. Detchemendy, 18 
 Mo. .5'22, ,531 ; Silliman r. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 118. Contra, Clavton 
 V. Frazier, 33 Tex. 91, 100. 
 
 14 Gebb V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, .392. See Jones r. Rees", 65 Ala. 134, 
 141 ; Chew v. Beall, 13 Md. 348, 360 ; Finch v. Marks, 70 Va. 207, 209. 
 
 15 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 429 ; 14 Am. Rep. G7. 
 
 16 Gilchrist v. Borie, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 346, 359 ; gupra, notes 1, 8. 
 
 17 Ante, ? 372. 
 
 18 Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 429 ; 14 Am. Rep. 67 , Grapengether 
 V. Fejervarv, 9 Iowa, 163, 173 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. a87, 392 ; Young, 7 
 Cold. 461, 479 ; Lightfoot v. Boss. 8 Lea, a50, a51 ; Hawlev v. Trovman, 
 29 Gratt. 728, 720 ; Radford )•. Carwile, 18 W. Va. 573, 670 ; Tavlor v. 
 Meade, 4 DeGe.x, J. & S. 597, 607. 
 
 19 Silliman?'. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 118 ; cases cited «i(pra, nn. 1,8. 
 
 20 See Hall r. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, 520. 
 
 21 See Scranton v. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68, 89. 
 
 22 See Bedford v. Morton, 106 V. S. 3^8, 341 ; Edwards v. Schoene- 
 man, 104 111. 278, 284 ; Scranton )•. Stewart, .52 Ind. 68, 8 ) ; Phillips ?'. 
 Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 389 ; Dreutzer r. Lawrence, 58 Wis. 594, 598, 599. 
 
 23 See Love v. Watklns, 40 Cal. .547, 5.59 ; 6 Am. Rep. 624 ; ante, ? 376. 
 
 24 Baker v. Hathway, 5 Allen, 10.3, 105 ; ante, U 374, 375, 
 
 25 ,smiman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 119,
 
 559 EFFECT OF STATUTES CONSTRUED. g 377 
 
 26 Powell, 98 Pa. St. 40", 41^ Othorwiso no estoppel : Leonis r. 
 Lr.zzarovioh, 55 Cal. 52, 58 ; Drury v. Foster, 2 WaJl. 24, :« ; South, iiaw 
 Rev. Oct. 1882, article by lion. S. D. Thompson ; post, H 40^-420. 
 
 27 Deed is mere waste paper without : Cross r. Everts, 2S Tex. 523, 
 ."^".2 ; Ivlariner v. Saunders, 5 Uilm. 125 ; Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 
 52, 57. 
 
 23 Basrby r. Emberson, TOMo. 139, 140 ; Gill v. Fauntlerov, 8Mon. B. 
 177, 180 ; Boiling v. Teal, 76 Va. 487, 4;i4 ; Mullins v. Weaver, 57 Tex. 5, 6. 
 
 29 Jourdan,9 Serg. & R. 268. 274 ; U Am. Dec. 724. See Elliott v. 
 Peirsol, 1 McLean, 11:1 Peters, 32-< ; Pendleton v. Button, 3 Conn. 
 40(j, 412; Martin v. Harg:irdine, 46 111. 322, 325 ; O'Ferrall r. Simplot. 4 
 Iowa, ;i81 ; Smith v. Hunt, 13 Ohio, 2(i0, 208 ; 42 Am. Dec. 201. 
 
 30 Barnett v. Shackleford, 6 Marsh. J. .T. 532, 534 ; 22 Am. Dec. 100 ; 
 Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, IKi. 118 ; supra, n. 8. 
 
 31 Muir V. Galloway, Gl Cal. 408, 502 ; Gregory v. Ford. 5 Mon. B. 
 471, 481 ; Browu v. Farran, 3 Ohio, 140. 155. 
 
 32 Young V. Duvall, 109 U. S. 573, 577 ; Smith v. McGuire, 67 Ala. 
 C4, 37 ; Priest v. Cummings, 16 Wend. 617, 631. 
 
 .33 Evster v. Hathawav, 50 111. 521, 524 ; Ford ?•. Teal, 7 Bush, ire, 
 15^ ; Marsh v. Mitchell, 2(i X. J. Eq. 4H7, 499 ; Louden v. Blythe, 16 Pa. 
 St. 532, 542 ; 27 Pa. St. 22, 2.i ; 55 Am. Dec. 527. 
 
 34 De Arnaz v. Escaudon, 59 Cal. ^86, 489 ; Kerr v. Russell, 69 111. 
 666,670; 18 Am. Rep. 38 ; Johnston ('.Wallace, 53 Mis.s. 331, 337 ; 24 Am. 
 Rep. 699 ; Baldwin v. Snowden, 11 Ohio St. 203, 212 ; Shrader v. 
 Decker, 9 Pa. St. 14, 16 ; Louden v. Blythe, 27 Pa. St. 22, 25 ; Hill v. 
 Patterson, 51 P.i. St. 289, 290 ; Davis v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 516, 519 ; 
 Harkins v. Forsythe, 11 Leigh, 294, 304. 
 
 35 Cridge v. Hare, 98 Pa. St. 561, 565 ; supra, notes 33, 31. 
 
 ^ 377. Effect of statutes, local and foreign. 
 
 Rule. The capacity of a married woman to contract 
 personally, or as to movables, depends on the laiv of the 
 place ivhere the contract is made; to contract as to im- 
 m,ovables, on the law of the place tvhere they lie. 
 
 Though the general rule is that the validity of mar- 
 ried women's contracts, like that of other contracts, 
 depends on the law of tlie State where they are made,^ 
 there is another view, that this depends on tlie law of 
 their domicile.^ There is much confusion among the 
 cases relating to this subject. The points decided have 
 already been discussed.* 
 
 1 Scudder v. Union, 91 U. S. 406, 411 ; Drake x\ Glover, 30 Ala. 382, 
 389; Nixon j'. Haliev, 78 111.-611,615; Hallev v. Ball, 60 111. 2.50, 252; 
 Baldwin r. Gray, 16 Mart. (La.) 192, 193 ; Saul r. Creditors, 17 Mart. 
 (La. I 56 1, 597 ; Andrews ?>. Creditors, 11 La. 464,476; Bell v. Packard, 
 ro Me. lOr,, no ; 31 Am. Rep. 251 ; Bank r. Williams, 46 Miss. 618, 629 ; 
 12 Am. Rep. 319 ; Millikin v. Pratt, 125 Muss. 374, 377, 3S1 ; 28 Am. Rep. 
 241 ; Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 24G ; Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 48, 51 ;
 
 §§ 378-378 a kffecx of statutks construkd. 530 
 
 Pearl v. Hansborourrh, 9 Humph. •12fi, 4^5; Holmes v. Kevnolds, 55 
 Vt. 3.1, 41 ; De Greuchy v. Wills, Law K. 4 C. P. D. 362, ;;fr4 ; Dicey 
 Dom. p. 1'j5. 
 
 2 Dow V. Gould, 31 Cal. 629, 652 ; Frierson v. Williams, 57 Miss. 431, 
 4B2. See Kelly v. Davis, 28 La. An. 773, 774 ; ante, U 33, 34. 
 
 3 Ante, I 37. 
 
 I 378. Prospective and retrospective effect of acts. — 
 The validity of a contract, and tlie rights of the parties 
 thereunder, depends upon the law existing at the time 
 it is made. I Thus, a statute providing that "all con- 
 tracts of married women shall be valid," does not affect 
 existing ones,- and a note made before the passage of 
 such an act is invalid, though delivered thereafter;* 
 but if delivery is authorized afterwards the note is 
 good.* There is much disiiuto as to whether a statute 
 can cure the defects in deeds of married women.^ The 
 remedy can be clianged from law to equity.^ 
 
 1 Edwards v. Schoeneman, 104 III. 27S, 2S2 ; Loomis v. Briisli, .« 
 Mi:;h. 40, 47; Kclcert v. Reuter, 31 X. J. L. 133 ; ante, U 19-23. 
 
 2 Lee v. Lanahan, 5!) Me. 478, 4S1 ; Eryaiit v. Merrill, 55 Me. 5:5, 5:(;. 
 
 3 Taylor v. Boardman, 92 111. 566, 568 ; caite, i 338. 
 
 4 Taylor v. Boiirdman, 92 111. 56S, 568. 
 
 5 Discussed ante, J -X 
 
 6 Williams v. King, 43 Conn. 5^9, 571 ; ante, J 23, n. 13. 
 
 I 378 a. Tho statutos in th.9 difibront States. — It is not 
 within tho plan of this Avork to discuss minutely tlio 
 state of the law on any particular toiiic in each particu- 
 lar State, but some recent cases which seem to cover 
 the subject of contracts of married women in different 
 States very fully are cited in a noto.^ 
 
 1 Marlow v. Barlew,53 Cal. 456, 459 ; Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 
 53, 5.V-59; Wells v. Caywood, 3 Culo. 437, 404 ; Williams v. Hugunui, 69 
 111. 214, 218 ; IS Am. Itcp. 607 ; Thoraas v. Passage, 54 Ind. 108, 111-113 ; 
 Spafford v. Warren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51 ; Yates v. Lurvcy, 65 Me. 221, 222 ; 
 J jnne v. Marblo, w Mich. 319, 321 ; Reed v. Burrs, 44 Mich. 80, 82; 
 Musick V. Dodson, 76 Mo. 319, 321 ; 43 Am. R'-p. ThO ; State v. Scott, 10 
 Neb. 83, 86 ; Moss^r %k Smith, oS N. II. 2 I3, 2J9 ; Eekert v. Router, 33 
 N. J. L. 266, 27) ; Huylor v. Atwood, 26 N. J. Eq. 504, 506; Saratoga v. 
 Pruyn, 90 N. Y. 250, 254 : Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 83 N. C. 300, 302, 304 ; 
 Pippen V. Wesson, 74 N. C. 4 ;7, 4 !7, 455 ; Ross v. Lunder, 12 S. C. 592, 
 594 ; Houghton f. Milburn, 54 Wis. 554, .563, 564 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, 
 51 Wis. 201, 203, 213 ; ICavanaugh v. O'Neil' 53 Wis. 101, 105,
 
 561 SPKCIAL IvINDS OF CONTRACTS. g 379 
 
 Article III. — Spkcial, Kinds of Contract.s 
 
 § 379. Contracts in personam and ia rem. 
 
 i 380. Executory and executed contract:!. 
 
 i 381, Express and implied contracts. 
 
 I 33X Contracts made alone and jointly with husband. 
 
 ? 383. Purchases and sales. 
 
 ? 384. Covenants and bonds. 
 
 J 383. Promissory notes. 
 
 J 336. Releases and receipts.- 
 
 § 337. Hont, repairs, and family expenses 
 
 J 3S3. Submission to arbitration. 
 
 i i 389. Employment of agents. 
 
 ? 3!)0. Liabilities as stoelvholdtT. 
 
 ? 391. Contracts as surety. 
 
 ? 392. Contracts as trader, 
 
 g 39S. iliscollaneous contracts, etc. 
 
 § 379. Co:[itract3 of marriod women in porsonam and in 
 rem. — 111 considering the contract.s of a married woman 
 it ti important to distinguish between her personal con- 
 tracts, which bind her personally, and her contracts 
 with reference to her .separate property, which are bind- 
 ing thereupon.! The distinction originated in equity, 
 wliich recognized her separate ownership of property 
 settled to her sole and sejiarate use, and her capacity to 
 change the same with her contracts. ^ Such contracts 
 were not enforcible against her personally, but only 
 against the property, Avhich became a kind of artificial 
 person,^ iii a proceeding in retn.^ And so, under stat- 
 utes creating statutory separate estate, the courts con- 
 tinued to hold that her contracts to be valid sliould be 
 " with reference " to her estate,^ and that mere per- 
 sonal contracts were void,* unless expressly authorized.^ 
 The distinction, originally one botli of capacity and of 
 remedy, has in some States under the statutes become 
 one of capacity only, the woman being liable as if
 
 I 380 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 562 
 
 unmarried on all eoniracts made ■with refercnco to 
 her estate.* On this point, however, much confusion 
 exists.^ 
 
 1 See Grissell, 12 Ch. Div. 484 ; Wort'jingtou v. Cooke, .i2 3rd. 297, 
 .WS ; Pawley v. Vogel, 42 Mo. 2ill, 302 ; Walker v. Deaver, 79 Mo. 684, 
 C74 ; Uoughertv v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C 300, 302 ; Smith v. Oooch, S3 N. C. 
 276 ; Groene v. Frondhof, 1 Disn. 504, 505. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, \i 206, 207. 
 
 3 Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 83 N. C. 300, .302. 
 
 4 Pawley v. Vogel, 42 Mo. 2',il, 302, 301 ; ante, i 211. 
 
 5 Russel r. People, 39 Mich. 671, 673 ; ante, i 370. 
 
 6 Bank v. Porter, 99 U. S. 325, 3.T2 ; ante, ? 370. 
 
 7 See Bailey v. Pearson, 29 N. II. 76, 87 ; ante, ? 371. 
 
 8 See Kavanaugh v. O'Neill, 54 Wis. 101, lOG ; ante, U 372, 373. 
 
 9 See Eckert ;•. Reuter, .33 N. J. L,. 266, 263 ; Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 
 88 N. C. 300, 304 ; ante, U 211, 237-239, 370, 372, 373. 
 
 g 380. Executory and executed contracts. — Tliere is 
 among the cases frequent reference made to a distinc- 
 tion between executory and executed contracts of mar- 
 ried women, all the latter being .said to be void unless 
 the married woman had tlie capacity to contract gen- 
 erally.^ The real distinction seems, however, to be 
 between contracts binding a married woman person- 
 ally and contracts binding her property, ^ as promises 
 to pay money if charged on her property are valid, 
 though executory,^ and as she may, by comijl^'ing^vlth 
 the same formalities, bind her projjertj'' by an agree- 
 ment to give a deed as well as bj' a deed itself.* How- 
 ever she may be estopped by her agreement to perforin 
 a statutory power,* she cannot be compelled to specific- 
 ally perform such a contract.^ 
 
 1 Stevens v. Parish 29 Ind. 260, 263 ; Shroyer v. Nickell, £5 Mo. 
 264, 26S ; Andriot v. Lawrence, 33 Barb. 142, 143. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, ? 379. 
 
 3 Girault v. Adams, 61 Md. 8, 13 ; ante, i 206. 
 
 4 See Townslev v. Chapin, 12 Allen, 476, 478 ; Donkel v. Hunter, 
 61 Pa. St 382, 384 ; post, 'i 407. 
 
 5 See Felkne v. Tighe, 33 Ark. 357, 363 ; post, | 407. 
 
 6 Bright v. Boyd, 1 Story, 478, 487 ; post, I 407.
 
 563 SPECIAL, KINDS OF CONTRACTS. ^^ 381-382 
 
 § 381. Express and implied contracts of married women. 
 — A promise will not be imialied bj^ law when the law 
 would not recognize an express promise ; ' so that, at 
 common law, there was no implied assumpsit against a 
 married woman ; - and her payment during coverture 
 on account of an antenuptial debt did not affect the 
 running of the Statute of Limitations.' But when she 
 can contract she may be suable on the common counts ; * 
 if she occupies premises, the law raises an implied prom- 
 ise to pay rent ; ^ if she orders materials, the law implies 
 a contract to pay for them.^ But if she buj^s necessaries, 
 the implied promise is one of the husband's,^ for he is 
 liable therefor.* And if she receives money claimed 
 by another, there is no implied i^romise to pay it back.^ 
 
 1 Tucker v. Cocke, 32 iUss. 18-!, 190 ; Farrar v. Bessey, 2-J Vt. 89, 91. 
 
 2 Tucker v. Cocke, 32 Miss. 184, 190. 
 
 3 Farrar v. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89, 92. 
 
 4 Hickson v. Williams, 41 N. J. I^. 35, :« ; Spafford v. Warren, 47 
 Iowa, 47, 51. 
 
 5 Ackley v. Westervelt, 86 N. Y. 448, 453 ; post, i 387. 
 
 6 Vail V. Meyer, 71 Ind. ICO, 163. 
 
 7 Sliaw V. Thompson, 16 Pick. 178, 200 ; 26 Am. Dec. 655. 
 
 8 Discussed ante, {I 64, 81, 95. 
 
 9 Piatt V. Hawkins, 43 Conn. 139, 143. 
 
 I 382. Contracts of married women alone and jointly 
 with thsir husbands. — The joinder of a husband with 
 his wife does not, independently of statute, affect her 
 capacity to contract,' for the status of married women 
 cannot be destroyed by agreement ; ^ so that the joint 
 bond' or note* of husband and wife is the note or bond 
 of the husband alone. But a husband's joinder in his 
 wife's disposition of property to which he is entitled 
 by hiS marriage rights makes such disposition effect- 
 ual.^ His joinder may be required by statute,^ and in 
 such cases he may so contract as not to bind himself,' 
 this being the effect of his joinder in Louisiana.* When
 
 \ 383 SPECIAL, KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 5(34 
 
 he joins, his wife is not discharged of her obligation by 
 the adjudication that he is a bankrupt.^ Whether a 
 wife must have her liusband's joinder to a contract with 
 reference to her separate property when she cannot 
 dispose of such property without his joinder, does not 
 seem to be settled ; some cases seem to infer the nega- 
 tive,^" while others point towards tlie affirmative.'^ It 
 is a general rule that a married woman cannot bind by 
 contract property whieli she cannot dispose of.i'^ 
 
 1 Marshall v. Eutton, 8 Term Rep. .545, 540 ; infra, notes 3, 4. 
 
 2 Stewart M. &, D. \\ 172, 181. 
 
 3 Borrance v. Scott, 3 Whart. 309, 313 ; 31 Am. Dee. .509 ; post, \ 384. 
 
 4 Cummings v. Wilkie, 3 Grant Cas. 140, 147 ; post, \ 385. 
 
 5 See Palmer v. Davis, 2.S X. Y. 242, 247 ; ante, \ ^48. 
 
 6 See more fully, 7X)x^ ? 309. 
 
 7 B}' expresslj- reserving his immunity. 
 
 8 Lehman !•. Barrow, 23 La. An. 185, 188. 
 
 9 Alters c. Forbes, 59 Md. 374, ."Ca 
 
 10 Thomas v. Passage, .54 Ind. 100, 113 ; Major v. Svmmes, 19 Ind. 
 117, 120 ; Ward v. Servoss, 15 Abb. Pr. 279, 280. 
 
 11 Matthews r. Murehison, 17 Fed. Rep. 700, 767; Pierce v. Osman, 
 79 Ind. 250, 260 ; Hall r. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, .520 ; Townslev v. Chapin, 
 12 Allen, 470, 479 ; Cozzens v. Whitney, 3 R. I. 79, 83 ; post, \ 407. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, \ 206. 
 
 \ 383. Purchases and sales of marriod women. — Gener- 
 ally speaking, a married woman cannot contract to 
 buy or sell property,^ because a contract to buy is a 
 mere personal contract, ^ and a contract to sell is not 
 one of the modes usually specified for the disposition 
 of married Avomcn's property.* Still, an agreement to 
 sell is a contract Avith reference to the property, and 
 may be valid as such.* But with a married woman's 
 actual purchases and sales it is different. It is not one 
 of her privileges to buy without paying,^ and therefore 
 where she may acquire by purchase,* she may h\\\ on 
 credit, and be bound for the purchase money.' A 
 promise to pay for separate property is a contract with 
 respect to her .separate property.^ So if she follows
 
 565 SPECIAL, KINDS OF CONTRACTS. g 354 
 
 tho modes proscribed she niaj'- sell her property,* and 
 is bound by her acceptance of any consideration,'" as 
 when in part payment she took the release of a debt of 
 her husband." If her sale is void, and the purchaser 
 has paid her the purchase money, it is generally settled 
 that he must boar the loss ; '* she may recover the i)rop- 
 erty without restoring the purchase money ,'^ though in 
 some cases this has been denied.'* 
 
 1 Johnston r. Jones, 12 Men. B. 326, 329. See Morrison v. Kiiistra, 
 55 Miss. 71, 74; Rose v. Bell, 38 Barb. 25, 27; De Hay v. liennis, H 
 Eicii. Eq. 27 
 
 2 Rose ?'. Bell, 3S Barb. 25, 27. See rtnte, ?? 223, 373, 370, SSO. 
 
 3 Walker v. Owen, 79 Mo. 2G4, 2fiS ; post, I -107. 
 
 4 Baker v. Hathwav, 5 Allen, 103, 104, 103 ; Diirfee r. McClurg, fi 
 Mich. 223, 232 ; Albin v. Lord, 39 N. H. 196, 202. 
 
 5 Strong V. Waddell, 56 Ala. 471, 473 ; ante, ? 223. 
 
 6 Discussed ante, H 223, 373. 
 
 7 Davton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757 ; Tiemeyer v. 
 Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 516, 521 ; 39 Am. Rep. 674 ; ante, U 223, 273. 
 
 8 Messcr v. Smith, 53 N. H. 298, 299 ; ante, i .".72. 
 
 9 Discussed ante, U 205, 236 ; post, U 394-40!*. 
 
 10 Meiley v. Butler, 26 Ohio St. 535, 537 ; post, I 391. 
 
 11 Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155, 1G5. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, § 368 ; post, ? 412. 
 
 13 Alexander v. Saulsbury, 37 Ala. 375, 378 ; Wood r. Terry, 30 Ark. 
 385, 393 ; Oglesby v. Pasco, 7.i 111. 164, 170 ; Glidden v. Strupler, 52 P^. 
 St. 400, 404 ; McLaurin v. Wilson, 16 S. C. 402, 410 ; ixjst, i 41.5. 
 
 14 Pilcher r. Smith, 2 Head, 203, 211 ; jwst, § 41.5. 
 
 g 384, Covenants and bonds of married women. — Gen- 
 erally a married woman's seal adds nothing to the valid- 
 ity of her contract, it does not, for example, estop her 
 as to the consideration.^ Her covenants, like her sim- 
 ple contracts, Avere void at common law;^ no judg- 
 ment or damages could be recovered on them at law,^ 
 nor has any case presented itself in which one of them 
 has been enforced in equity.* By statute she is some- 
 times exijressly authorized to covenant, and on such a 
 covenant she is liable at law," But statutes authoriz- 
 ing her to convey, to make deeds, etc, do not render 
 
 II. & W. — 48.
 
 ^ 384 SPECIAL, KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 5G6 
 
 valid her covenants in snch deeds, etc,* r-,o that a war- 
 ranty deed of a married woman is no better than a 
 quit-claim deedJ Still a covenant for title in a deed of 
 her property may be valid as a contract " with respect " 
 thereto ; ^ and covenants for purposes immediately con- 
 nected with tlie use, etc., of her property may be valid 
 under her implied powers.® Tliere are cases in which 
 a married woman has been lield estopped by her cove- 
 nants, though she could not have been held liable in 
 damages for tlie broach thereof.^" So her bonds were 
 void ; ^* tliough in equity, one to secure purchase 
 money was held valid as to the property purchased,'^ 
 and one expressly charging her separate property may 
 be valid." Nor can she file a bond in a judicial pro- 
 ceeding" unless expressly authorized.'^ 
 
 1 Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 683. 
 
 2 Cruzen v. McKaig, 57 Md. 454, 462 ; Martin v. Dwelly, 6 "Wond. 
 9, 13 ; 21 Am. Dec. 243 ; Pilcher v. Smith, 2 Head, 208, 211, 
 
 3 Porter v. Bradley, 7 R. I. 538, 542, 
 
 4 See Pilcher v. Smith, 2 Head, 208, 211. 
 
 5 AVorthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 207, 307. 
 
 6 Whitbeck r. Cook, 15 Johns. 483, 4 )0 ; 8 Am. T>oo. C72. H. P., 
 Botsford V. Wilson, 75 111. i:i3, ]:;4 ; AldridK ■ r. Biirlisoa, 3 Bliickf. 201 ; 
 Griner v. Butler, 61 Ind. .362, 366 ; 28 Am. Hep. CT'i ; Nuiinall r. White, 
 3 Met. (Ky.) 584, 5%^■, Preston v. Evans, 5<; Ml, 47fl,-4!tl; Bohford, V. 
 Pearson, 7 Allen, 504, .^15 ; Hovoy v. .''mlth, 2: ."^^ch. 170, 173 ; Oront v. 
 Townsend, 2 Hill, .551; Sawyer -i'. Little, UVt. •::4. Contra, Nelson 
 V Harwood, 3 Call, 3'jl ; infra, n. 10. 
 
 7 Botsford v. Wilson, 75 111. 133, 134. (By statute.) 
 
 8 Richmond v. Tibbies, 26 Iowa. 474, 4^1 ; Bosfo-.-l r. Pearson, 7 
 Allen, 504, .505 ; ante,l '-72. Not a covenant in her husband's deed: 
 Griffin v. Sheffield, 38 Miss. 3.53, 302. 
 
 9 Kolls V. De Lever, 41 Barb. 203, 211 ; Houghton v. Milbourne, 54 
 Wis. 554, 564 ; ante, I 373. 
 
 10 Davis V. Tinsrle, 8 Men. B. .543; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14, 
 21; Nash r. Spofford, 10 Met. l'J2 ; Calcord v. Swan, 7 Mass. 201; 
 Wadlcigh )■. (Jlines, 6 N. H. 17 ; 23 Am. Dec. 705 ; Hill v. We.st, 8 Ohio, 
 222, 2J5 ; Fletcher v. Coleman, 2 Head, 384. 
 
 11 Wilson %K Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 480, 481 ; Huntley v. V/hltner, 77 
 N. C. 392, 393 ; Schnyder r. Noble, 94 Pa. St. 286, 289. 
 
 12 Schnyder v. Noble, 94 Pa. St. 286, 289. 
 
 13 Woolscy V. Brown, 11 Hun, .52, 53 ; infra, n. 1.5. 
 
 14 Ward V. Whitney, 12 Phila. 246. 
 
 15 Woolsey v. Brown, 74 X. Y. 82, 84 ; supra, n. IZ.
 
 567 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. § 385 
 
 ^ 385. Promissory notos of married womon. — At com- 
 mon law the promissory noto of a married woman was 
 void ; * a mortgage for the solo purpose of securing it 
 Avas void ; ^ if made joinllj'- with another it was void as 
 to her ,^ but valid as to ]icr co-promissor ; * so as to a 
 surety ; 3 it was equally void in the liands of bona fide 
 assignees for value without notice;*' by accepting a 
 note from a married woman purchaser a A'cndor did 
 not lose his lien.^ Now a party endeavoring to enforce 
 a promissory note must show that it falls Avithin some 
 equitable or statutory exception ; ^ in Michigan, for 
 example, it must be shoAvn that it was for something 
 connected Avith her separate estate ;' i:i Louisiana, that 
 it benefited her.i" Under an act enabling a married 
 Avoman to contract as if sole, she niay make a promis- 
 sory note," and A'alidly indorse a note of her hus- 
 band's firm,''^ and execute a note in blank, ^^ and be lia- 
 ble, though her husband joined Avith her and has been 
 adjudged a bankrupt. ^^ Under an act enabling her to 
 contract Avith reference to her separate property, a note 
 with reference to something else is not valid ;'^ but a 
 note for.reimirs on the same is A'alid.'® In equity her 
 note might be a charge, as any other promise to pay 
 might.'" At common law she could in her own name 
 indorse a note draAvn to her order, Avith her husband's 
 consent,'^ and her said indorsement passed a good 
 title ; '^ and his said consent could be indirectly 
 proved ; '^ but she could not be liable as indorser.^' 
 Under a statute enabling her to dispose of her separate 
 property jointly Avith her husband, liis joint indorse- 
 ment of her separate note Avas not required, but onl}' his 
 consent express or imijlied.^'' And she can be liable as 
 indorser only when she can be liable as maker. ^^ Her 
 acceptance of a bill giA'en for the debt of another is AOid, 
 Avhero she cannot bind herself for the debt of another.'*
 
 g 386 SPECIAL KIND13 OF CONTRACTS. 568 
 
 1 Vance v. Wells, 6 Ala. 7^7 ; Simpers i'. Sloan, 5 Cal. 4.i7, 458 ; 
 Taylor v. Boarrtman, 92 III. 5i56, "16? ; Jones v. Crosthwaite, 17 Iowa, 
 393', 3'J6 ; Shannon v. Canney, 4-1 >'. H. 5!)3, ')94 ; ante, i 356. 
 
 2 Hodges V. Price, 13 Fla. 342, 343 ; Sperry v. Diclilnson, 82 Ind. 
 132, 135. 
 
 3 Davis V. Foy, 15 Miss. 64, G7. 
 
 4 Eobinson, 11 Bush, 174, 173, ISO. 
 
 5 Willingham v. Leake, 7 Baxt. 453, 457. 
 
 6 Kenton v. McClellan, 43 Mich. 564, 505 ; Cooley v. Barcroft, 43 
 K. J. L,. 363, 366. 
 
 7 Willingham t'. Leake, 7 Baxt. 453, 457. 
 
 8 Buhleri). Jennings, 4ft Mioh. 538, 539;. Saratoga 1'. Prnyn,90N.Y. 
 250, 250. 
 
 9 Buhlcr V. Jennings, 43 Mich. 538, 539. 
 
 10 Taylor v. Carlisle, 2 La. An. 579, 580. 
 
 11 Messer v. Smyth, 58 N. H. 298, 299. See Marlow v. Barlew, 53 
 Cal. 456, 453 ; WooJ i'. Oxford, 52 Cal. 412 ; Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 
 Ma£3. 28. 
 
 12 Kenworthy i>. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28. 
 
 13 Hord V. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101, 103 ; Morrison i'. Thistle, 67 Mo. 
 5'36, GOO. 
 
 14 Goodnow r. Hill, 125 Mass. 587. 
 
 15 Kenton v. McClellan, 43 Mich. 554, 563 ; ante, I 370. 
 
 16 Parker v. Kane, 4 Allen, 343, 347 ; ante, U 372, 373. 
 
 17 Hord V. Taubman, 73 Mo. 101, 103 ; ante, U 206, 237. 
 13 Meakens v. IIo:iighe, 17 Mo. 237, 300. 
 
 19 Stevens v. Beals, 10 Cush. 291. 293. 
 
 20 McClain v. Weidemoyer, 25 Mo. 36i, 3C7. 
 
 21 Norris v. Lantz, 18 Md. 260, 263 ; ante, I 350. 
 
 22 Whitridge v. Barry, 42 Md. 140 ; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md- 1. 
 
 23 See Shannon v. Canney, 44 N. H. 532, 533. 
 
 24 Cooley v. Barcroft, 43 X. J. L. 363, 366. 
 
 § 386. Beleases and receipts of married women. — A 
 release is a contract, and works as an e^topijel, while a 
 receipt is a mere statement — a mere admission of pay- 
 ment, and not conclusive. When a married woman is 
 entitled to certain property, her sole receipt therefor, 
 unless impeached, is a perfectly good discharge ; ^ the 
 receipt of her husband, except as her agent in fact, 
 being, on the other hand, worthless.^ But a married 
 woman is not bound by a seal,^ is not estopped,* where 
 she could not contract ; and as, if she accepted part of 
 her property for the whole, or something in jjlaco of
 
 569 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. § 387 
 
 her legal rights, she would really dispose of such rights 
 in wliole or in part, lier release is not valid except as a 
 receipt, unless she can contract as if unmarried,^ or has 
 full power of disposition over tlie rights released.* At 
 common law slie could give neither release nor receipt 
 as her legal existence Avas gone,' and lier present prop- 
 erty rights vested in her husband.® 
 
 1 See Gore u. Carl, 47 Conn. 291,2!)^; Windsor v. Bell, 61 Ga. fi71, 
 67-J ; Nevins v. Gourlev, 'Jo 111. 20f>, 213 ; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1 ; 
 Keud V. Earle, 12 Gray," 423, 425 ; Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. 8t. 58, fiO. 
 
 2 Rleper, 70 Mo. 352, 45S. Consult ante, U 84-80. 
 
 3 Radford v. CarwUe, 13 W. Va. 573, 5S3 ; ante, ? 384. 
 
 4 Powell, 98 Pa. St. 403, 413 ; post, 5J 412, 415. 
 
 5 Con.sult ntite, I 071. 
 
 6 Consult ante, ?? 205-207, 233-239, 370, 372, ,373. 
 
 7 Kelso t'. Tabor, 52 Barb. 125, 128 ; nnte, § 357. 
 
 8 Moblev 1'. Leophart, 47 Ala. 2.57, 2G1. See Kidwell v. Kirk- 
 patrick, 70 Mo. 214, 216 ; ante, U 141-183. 
 
 § 387. Married women's contracts for rent, repairs, and 
 family expenses. — At common law a married woman 
 could, of course, not loaso property, and in lier lease- 
 holds her husband had very full rights.^ When she 
 can lease by statute expressly, she is liable for Vaq rent 
 at law,^ A lease is, in fact, the purchase of a term, and 
 a married woman is liable for the rent just as she would 
 be for purchase money.' If she can lease, she is liable 
 on an implied promise for the use and occupation of 
 premises which she holds after the exjiiration of the 
 lease, and this though her husband and family are 
 living with her.* For repairs on her property at com- 
 mon law she was in no way liable,^ and even for re- 
 pairs on hor equitable separate estate, she was liable 
 only if she made the contract in such a way as to bind 
 her said estate.* From her mere knowledge that re- 
 pairs were being made on her property at her hus- 
 band's request, no promise on her part to pay therefor 
 can be implied.' But when she is collecting the rents
 
 § 387 SPKCIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 570 
 
 of lier separate pi-operty, and allows out of them for 
 repairs, she is bound.^ So a contract for repairs is 
 bonefieialto her estate,^ and is a contract with refer- 
 once thereto,'" and is a contract which, owing to her 
 ownership of laer separate property, slie may by im- 
 plication njalie.i' Fi'om a purchase by tlie wife of 
 family supplies, a promise to pay on the part of tlio 
 husband and not of tlie wife is implied.'^ If slie ex- 
 pressly contracts to pay tlierefox-, slie is liable only if 
 she is liable generally on her contracts,*^ or expressly 
 charges her estate.'* For a purchase of family neces- 
 saries is not of itself a contract with reference to her 
 separate estate,'^ nor is it a contract which she can 
 make by virtue of her powers implied from her owner- 
 ship of her proi^erty.'s In some States her property is 
 made jointly liable with her husband's for all family 
 supi:)lies," but this is a liability of her property and not 
 of herself.'* 
 
 1 Discussed ante, ? 145. 
 
 2 Cruzen v. McKiiig, 57 Mfl. •154, 462 ; Worthlngton v. Cooke, 52 
 Mil. 2!)7, :«)S. 
 
 3 Bush V. Babbitt, 25 Hun, 213, 214 ; ante,ll^'\ 283. 
 
 4 Ackley v. Westervelt, 83 N. Y. 448, 453. 
 
 5 Crane v. Kelley, 7 Alien, 250, 251, 
 
 fi See Wilson v. Jones, 40 IMd. 34;), 357, 358. 
 
 7 BickforU v. Dane, 53 >\ II. 185, 186. 
 
 8 Cheney i'. Pierce, 38 Vt. 515. 
 
 9 See Batchelder v. Sargent, 47 N. H. 262, 266. 
 
 10 Vail V. Meyer, 71 Ind. 159, 164 ; ante, § ."72. 
 
 11 Parker v. Kane, 4 Allen, 346, 317 ; ante, 5 373. 
 
 12 Shaw V. Thompson, 16 Pick. I'JS, 200. 
 
 13 Yates v. Survey, 65 Me. 221, 222. See Cummlngs ?'. Miller, 3 
 Grant Cas. 146, 147. 
 
 14 See Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 601 ; nutc, ?J 203, 207, 237. 
 
 15 Schneider v. Garland, 1 Mackey, .350; ante, J 372. 
 
 16 Thomas r. Passage, 54 Ind. 100, 114 ; ante, ? 373. 
 
 17 Childess v. Mann, 33 Ala. 20S, 207 ; Van Platen v. Krueger, 10 111. 
 App 627, 629; Fitzgerald v. McCartv, 53 Iowa, 702, 71i) ; Bergen x\ 
 Forsythe, 17 Mon. B. 551, 555 ; J^ee v. Morris, 3 Bush, 210, 211. 
 
 18 Frost V. Parker, 21 N. W. Rep. 507, 509.
 
 571 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. §^ 338-389 
 
 I 338. A married woman's submission to arbitration. — 
 A submission to arbitration is a contract and its valid- 
 ity depends on the capacity of parties to contract ; ^ 
 therefore, at common law, a married woman could not 
 be compelled to perform an award.- Xow, a married 
 woman cannot submit to arbitration any rights which 
 she could not dispose of by such a contract;^ but she 
 may submit claims arising out of her equitable sepa- 
 rate estate ; * under a power to manage, slie may sub- 
 mit a claim arising in the course of management;^ 
 and under a power to dispose, she may submit any 
 claim to arbitration,* Even though she could not be 
 compelled to perform an award, if she has agreed to 
 one, the other party cannot relieve himself of his obli- 
 gation by alleging her coverture.' 
 
 1 Spurek v. Crook, 19 111. 415, 428. 
 
 ■i Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 III. 164, 170. 
 
 3 Spurek V. Crook, 19 III. 415, 428 ; Palmer v. Bavls, 28 N. Y. 242, 250. 
 
 4 Palmer v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 242, 2.50. 
 .5 Duren v. Getchell, 55 Me. 241, 248. 
 
 6 Palmer v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 242, 250. 
 
 7 Palmer v. Davis, 28 N, Y. 242, 248 ; ante, ? 3fi8. 
 
 §389. Married women's employmont of agents. — A 
 married woman's cai^acity to bind herself for the com- 
 pensation of her agents can hardly be said to be coter- 
 minous witli her capacity to act by agent.i But she 
 can bind lier separate estate in equity for such compen- 
 sation ; ^ is bound by contracts for labor, services, etc., 
 "with respect" to her separate estate;^ and when she 
 has the power to " have and hold lier i>roperty as if 
 unmarried," lias the incidental power to employ agents 
 to attend to it.^ Her contracts for counsel fees are sep- 
 arately discvissed.* 
 
 1 See discussion ante, § 87. 
 
 2 Stev-eus V. Keed, 112 Mass. 515, 517; Owen v. Cawlev, 3(1 ?:. Y. 
 600,605.
 
 gg 390-331 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 572 
 
 3 Albin V. Lord, 39 N. H. 196, 202 , ante, ? 372. 
 
 4 Leonarrl i-. Rogaii, 20 Wis. 340, 342 ; cuile, i o73. 
 
 5 iVM<, SciTS OK Mabkieb Womkx, i 403. 
 
 g 390. Married women as stockholders. — A married 
 Avoinan's subscription to stock is an executory agree- 
 ment, and, as such, void at common law;' but a note 
 given for stock has been held Ijenelicial to lier separate 
 estate, and therefore a charge thereupon ; - and by stat- 
 ute in some States, she may be a subscriber.' When she 
 is holder of stock as her separate property, she is liable 
 for the assessments thereupon as any other person 
 is* — the general statutes apply to married women* — 
 and her liability is one of principal and not of surety .^ 
 
 1 Rice ?'. Columbus, 32 Ohio St. 380, 385. 
 
 2 Williams v. King, 43 Conn. 569, 572. 
 
 3 WellSf. Bank, 24 La. An. 273,274. See Cal. Civ. Coflf>, ?? 285, 323, 
 561 , 575, M8 ; 7>o«<, H^l- 
 
 4 Anderson v. Line. 14 Fed. Rep. 405, 40r. ; Tlobart v. Johnson, 19 
 Blatcbf. 35;», .',62 ; The Reciprocity Bank, 22 X. V. n, 15. 
 
 5 The Reciprocity Bank, 22 X. Y. 9, 15 ; nnlf., ? 369. 
 
 6 Hobart v. Johnson, VJ Blatchf. 359, 362 ; pott, I 391. 
 
 I 391. Married women's contracts as surety. — At com- 
 mon law a married woman could not be a surety 
 because -she could not contract at all.' In equity, though 
 in most States a contract made with intent to charge 
 equitable separate property therewith is enforcible, 
 even if made for the benefit of another,'* in some States 
 such contracts are enforced only if beneficial to the 
 woman or tlie property, and suretyship contracts are 
 void.^ But the general rule is that all deeds, mort- 
 gages, etc., of a married woman, made in at-cordance 
 ^vith the law, are valid, no matter whom they benefit,* 
 for a general power or enabling act does not limit a 
 married woman to contracts for her benefit.* But some 
 statutes expressly except suretyship contracts,^ and 
 under these a contract of a married woman jointly with
 
 573 SPECIAL KINDS Oy COXTHACTh. I 332 
 
 another, for his debt, is void as to her ; ' nor is a contract 
 between lier and her husband any consideration in fa- 
 vor of the payee for her indorsement of her husband's 
 note.^ And a suretyshiji contract is not a contract 
 "with reference," etc., to her separate property ^^ unless 
 it is charged thereon ; "^ nor is it a contract which she 
 is empowered to make by inipLication from her power 
 to hold, enjoy, etc." Her accejitancc of bill of exchange 
 for goods sold another is a suretyship contract ; ' ' but 
 her liability as stockholder is not the liability of a 
 surety.'^ The rules are the same whether a wife goes 
 surety for her husband or for a stranger,'^ and her lia- 
 bilities in the former case have already been fully 
 discussed.^' 
 
 1 Schmidt V. Postel, 63 111. 59, 60 ; miie, U 1*4. •"•56. 
 
 2 ilcVe.v V. Cantrell, 70 X. V. 295,237 ; 26 Am. Rep. 6*5 ; ante, J 134. 
 
 3 Perkins v. Klliott, 21 X. J. Eq. 526, 528, 6:« ; ante, {{ 134, 206. 
 ■1 Comogj-s V. Clarke, 44 Md. lOS, ill ; ante, i 134. 
 
 5 Hart r. Grigsby, H Bush. 542; Mayo r. lliitcliiiisoii, 57 Me. 54fi ; 
 Miijor i: ilolmt-s, 124 Muss. lOS, lO.i ; Witte i-. Wolfe, lit S. C 256, 2«>S, 
 26;); Pel-/!er i'. Campbell, 15 S. C. 5S1, 601; 40 Am. Rep. 705; ante, 
 a 1:M, nn 
 
 6 Ga. Code, 1S73, J 17S3 ; ante, f 134. 
 
 7 Brent v. Mount, 65 Ga. 92, !i;!. 
 
 S Reed v. Buys, 44 Mich. 80, S2 ; Richards r: Proper, 44 Mlclu 96, OS. 
 
 Reed i: Buys, 44 Mich. SO, 82 ; State v. Scott, 10 Xeb. 83, 87 ; infra, 
 n. 11; ante, I 3. 
 
 10 See State i-. Scott, 10 Xeb. 83, 86 ; Xunn r. Glvhan, 45 Ala. 370, 375. 
 
 11 Busscl r. People, 39 Mich. 671, 673 ; Iluvler v. Atwood, 26 X. J. 
 Eq. 504, 506 ; Kavaiiauffh r. O'Xeill, 53 Wis. 101, 105 ; ante, i 372. 
 
 12 Cooler V. Bancroft. 43 X. J. L. 303, :;6.i. 
 
 13 Hobart i'. Johnson, 19BIatchf. 359, 362. 
 
 14 2 Bish. M. \V. { ."71. 
 
 15 See, therefore, fully, ante, J 134. 
 
 1 892. Contracts of married womon in course of trade. — 
 
 ■\Vhen a statute authorizes a married women to trade, 
 
 she may make all contracts which fall within the usual 
 
 course of her business.' 
 
 1 Barton »-. Beer, S5 Barb. 7s, SO : Wilthaus t-. Ludecus. 5 Rich. Eq 
 326, 32'.i. Discussed poi-f, M.\u;ui:i) WoMiix.TiiAUKas, i^ 464-4*1.
 
 g 93 SPECIAL KINDS OF CONTRACTS. 574 
 
 I 393. Miscellaneous contracts of married women. — 
 Special acts in some States authorize special contracts 
 of married women, such as contracts for tlie insurance 
 of her husband's life,i and her property .^ 
 
 1 Married Woman's Act, 18S2, Englani, ch. 75, J 11 ; Ala. Code, 
 1S76, ? 2:«:f; Del. Kev. 1874, p. 478; N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 640; Vt. R. S. 
 1S30, JJ 2^40, 2:}4:j, 2345 ; W. Va. R. S. 1879, ch. 122, H h, 6. 
 
 2 Bernhelm v. Beer, 56 Miss. 14!).
 
 575 EEEDs OF marrip:d womkn. I 394 
 
 ' CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 DKEDS OF MARRIED "WOMEN. 
 
 \ 394. At common law. 
 
 { 395. Under statutes. 
 
 J 396. Of dower. 
 
 \ 397. Of equitable separate property. 
 
 \ 398. Of statutory separate property. 
 
 I 399. Joinder of husband. 
 
 { <100. E.xecutlon by wife. 
 
 { 401. Certificate of acknowledgment, etc. 
 
 \ 402. Confirmation of invalid deed by wife. 
 
 \ 403. Confirmation of invalid deed by statute. 
 
 f 404. Confirmation of invalid deed by equity. 
 
 J 405. Impeachment of married women's deeds. 
 
 { 406. Married woman's powers of attorney. 
 
 \ 407. Agreements of married women to give deeds. 
 
 { 408. Miscellaneous points as to deeds of married women. 
 
 g 394. Deeds of married women at common law. — At 
 common law a married woman line] no legal existence 
 and no present property right.s,' and therefore her 
 deed, whether of dower * or of her own propei'ty,^ was, 
 like her other contracts,* a mere nullity.* She could 
 be barred of her dower or divested of her property 
 only by line and common recovery.* P'ines and com- 
 mon recoveries have never existed in this country, and 
 now do not exist anywhere,' but statutes have taken 
 their place.** In some States, independently of statute, 
 the joint deed of husband and wife has always been 
 recognized as if authorized by the common law.' 
 Whenever a wife held the position of an unmarried 
 woman, as Avhen her husband was civilly dead,^" or 
 had abandoned the realm," or as to lier equitable sepa- 
 rate property,'^ she could deed her own property as if 
 unmarried.
 
 ? 335 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 576 
 
 1 Blythe V. Bargain, 68 Ala. 370, 375 ; ante, ?? 184, 331, ^ 
 
 2 Raiiuels v. Gehnor, 18 Cent. L. J. 182 (Mo.) ; ante, U 270-272. 
 
 3 Gpbb V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 392 ; Bagley v. Emberson, 79 Mo. 139, 
 lio ; post, U -iO--^*. 
 
 4 Ante, \\ 375, 368. 
 
 5 Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. 632, m% ; post, U 40:-!0J. 
 
 6 Leonis v. Lazzarovich, .55 Cal. 52, 55 ; Hartley v. Fcrrell, !) Fla. 
 374, 378; Bressler v. Kent, 61 111. 426, 427; 14 Am. Rep. 67; Lane v. 
 McKeen, 15 Me. 304, .305 ; Lawrence v. Heister, 3 Har & J. 371, .377 ; 
 Helms V. Franciscus, 2 Bland, 544, 563 ; 20 Am. Dec. 402 ; Bool v. Mix, 
 17 Wend. 119, 12!) ; 31 Am. Dec. 285 ; Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9, 12 ; 
 21 Am. Dec. 245 ; Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. 632, 6:J7. 
 
 7 Lawrence v. Heister, 3 Har. &. J. 371, 377 ; 1 Bish. M. W. ? 587. 
 
 8 Martin v. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9, 12 ; 21 Am. Dec. 245 ; post, I 395. 
 
 9 Manchester v. Hough, 5 Mason, 07, 68, 69 ; Fowler i\ Shearer, 7 
 Mass. 14 ; Colcad v. Swan, 7 Muss. 2J1; Davey v. Turner, 1 Dall. 11, 
 13, 14, 17 ; Albany v. Bay, 4 Comst. 9. 
 
 10 See Rhea v. Rhenner, 1 Peters, 105, 107 ; ante, ? .3.58 ; infra, n. 11. 
 
 U Danner r. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 351, 355 ; Rosenthal r. Mavhutjh, 
 33 Ohio St. 155, 161 ; ante, J 358. But see Rhea v. Rhenner, 1 Peters, 
 105, 107 ; Beckman v. Stanley, 8 Xev. 257, 261. 
 
 12 Miller v. Xewton, 23 Cal. 5.54, 567 ; ante, ? 205 ; post, ? 397. 
 
 I 395. Deeds of married women under statutes. — Everj-- 
 where statutes have been passed relating to married 
 women's deeds of dower, ' of the reversionary interest 
 in her realty,^ and of her statutory separate estate.' 
 These are statutes expressly referring to married 
 women, as the general statutes do not ax^ply to their 
 deeds,* unless they deed as if unmarried. ^ The gen- 
 eral rule is that a married woman can convey her prop- 
 ertj", except her equitable separate estate,^ only in the 
 mode prescribed by statute.' The deed must be ac- 
 knowledged 8 and certified to,^ substantially as required 
 by the statutes, or it is mere waste paper.i" 
 
 1 Chase, 1 Bland, 206. 22S ; 17 Am. Dec. 277 ; ante, ?? 270-272 ; post, 
 I 336. 
 
 2 Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bland, 514, 563 ; 20 Am. Dec. 402 ; infra, 
 n. 7. 
 
 3 Edwards v. Schoeneman, 104 111. 278, 284 ; post, I 398. 
 
 4 S.-e Applegate v. Tracy, 9 Dana, 215, 224 ; Bell v. Lyle, 10 Lea, 
 44, 45 ; ante, ii 13, 36.). 
 
 o See Edwards v. Schoeneman, 104 HI. 278^ 284 
 6 Ante, i 205 ; post, i 397.
 
 577 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. §§ 336-397 
 
 7 Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 C'al. 53, 57 ; Lewis r. Waters, S Har. & 
 McH. 4M ; Schroyer r. Xiekell, •">•') Mo. 'iW, -J*;;, i;s ; (iik•hn^^t r. liorie, 
 
 1 Dev. & B. Eq. :«(!, 35:); Green r. Brantoii, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, rm ; 
 Brown r. Farran, 3 Ohio, IJO, 15'> ; Itosenthal r. Mayliiigli, .a Otiio St. 
 155,]')0; SiJliman ?'. Cummins. 13 Ohio, IIG, IIH ; Gillespie c. AVorford, 
 
 2 Cold. 632, 6:« ; cases }^ost, H -iO-l, 406, -,07 ; ante, I 23G. 
 
 8 Hepburn r. Dubois, 12 Peters, 345, 374 ; imst, i 401. 
 
 9 Lane v. Dolicv:, G McLean, 200 ; post, ? 402. 
 
 10 Leonis ?'. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 52, .'57; Mariner ?'. Saunders, 5 
 Gilm. 125 ; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523, 532 ; jiost, U 402-404. 
 
 g 396. Deeds of married women of dower. — Dower i.s 
 not separate property ;i in fact, it is not property at all 
 during coverture, ^ and a deed of it operates only as a 
 release, and bj^ "way of estoppel.^ This subject has 
 alread}' been fully discussed. * 
 
 1 Bressler v. Kent, 61 III. 426, 428 ; 14 Am. Rep. G7 ; ante, ? 270. 
 
 2 Moore v. Mayor, 8 X. Y. 110, 113 ; oO Am. Dec. 473 ; ante, ? 262. 
 
 3 Rei.Ti'. Horst, 55 Md. 42, 47 ; ante, \ 272. 
 
 4 Ante, \\ 270-272. 
 
 \ 397. Deeds of married women of equitable separate 
 property. — When a married woman has the capacity to 
 deed her equitable separate property she executes the 
 deed, unless the settlement provides otherwise, as if 
 unmarried.' As to whether or not she has the capacity 
 there are three rules : (1) That she has the cajiacity 
 unless the settlement takes it away ; '^ (2) that she has 
 not the capacity unless the settlement gives it;^ and 
 (3) that she has the capacity to deed away her estate 
 during coverture, but not her reversion.* This has 
 been fully discussed.' Her equitable property which 
 is not separate, she must deed as she does her legal es- 
 tates of the same kind." 
 
 1 American v. Wadhams, 10 Barb. 597, 602. S. P., Essex v. Atliins, 
 14 Ves. 542, 547 ; Radford c. Carwile, 13 W. \'a. 573, 57.S ; ante, H 202, 205. 
 
 2 Chow V. Beall, 13 Md. 348, 360 ; ante, 203-205. 
 
 3 Swift V. Castle, 23 111. 200, 222 ; ante, H 203-205. 
 
 4 Radford r. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 573, 682, 683 ; atitc, H 20;5-205. 
 
 5 Ante, U 203-205. 
 
 6 Clayton v. Rose, 8") X. C. 106, 110; Young, 7 Cold. 461, 477; 
 Hawley v. Troyman, 29 Gratt. 728, 730. 
 
 H. & W. — 49.
 
 Yi 398-399 DEEDS OP married womex. 578 
 
 ? 338. Deads of marriod womoa of statutory separate 
 property. — The general rule is that a married woman 
 has no capacity to dispose of her statutory separate 
 lands unless this is ex^jressly given by statute.' The 
 power to dispose is not, for example, included wi'liin 
 the power to " own, enjoy, and possess, as if unmar- 
 ried," ■■' and when the capacity is not expressly given 
 her, she must dispose of her statutory separate prop- 
 erty' in the same way as she would dispose of property 
 held as at common law,^ and her invalid deed would 
 have no effect.* If the statute expressly gives her the 
 power to dispose of her property', but prescribes some 
 particular mode of disposition — some particular formal- 
 ities — the deed must substantial!}' conform with the 
 requirements of the statute or it will be wholly void.^ 
 If the statute expressly gives her the power of disposi- 
 tion, but names no particular mode of execution, etc., 
 she inaj' execute her deed as if vmmarried, and if it is 
 imperfect, it maj' be confirmed, and will be valid in 
 equity, just as the imperfect deed of an unmarried 
 woman is.^ 
 
 1 Swift V. Lucy, 27 Me. 2S5, 28S ; ante, ? 236. 
 
 2 Parent !). CaUerand, 64 111. 97, 93 ; atite, U 236, 37::. 
 
 3 Hartley r. F?rrell, 9 Fla. 374, 378; Btessler v. Kent, Gl 111. 426, 
 4'::7 ; 14 Am. Rpp. 67 ; Scott, 13 Ind. 225, 227 ; Sliumaker v. Johnson, 35 
 Inv;i, 33, 35; Jewett v. Davis, 10 Allen, 68, 71; Young v. Snydor, 3 
 Grant, 150, 151. 
 
 4 Rogers v. Higgins, 4S HI. 211, 216 ; Lucas v. Cobbs, 1 Dev. & B. 
 223, 232 ; jJOst, 'i 404. 
 
 5 .Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 118 ; ante, ? 305, n. 7. 
 
 6 Edwards v. Schoeneman, 101 HI. 278, 2'!4 ; Scranton v. Stewart, 
 5- lad. 68, 89 ; Silliman i'. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 119 ; post, \ 404. 
 
 I 339. Toindsr of husband in daads of married women. — 
 The husband's joinder in liis wife's deed is generally 
 necessary to render It valid, i and is unnecessary only 
 v.'hen slie is exjiressly authoriz.ed to deed "as if sole," 
 or ''as if unmarried."'- At common law he had an
 
 579 DEEDS OF MARRIED AVOMEX. ^ 399 
 
 actual estate to convej', and it would seem that he had 
 to join as a co-grantor ;3 but Avhen tlie whole estate is 
 vested in the wife, and his assent is required to prevent 
 imposition,* his mere signature to the deed is enough, 
 and lie need not be named in the body of the deed.' 
 But his assent cannot be proved bj^ parol,* althougli, 
 where his assent was required in writing, liis joinder 
 in a mortgage note was held sufficient, though he did 
 not join in the mortgage at all.' The joint deed of hus- 
 band and wife need not be executed at the same time 
 and f)lace.8 Wliether he shall join is discretionary 
 with liim, and he cannot be compelled to join ;9 so it is 
 a personal right and cannot be delegated ; '" nor can he 
 honestly claim compensation for joining." His joinder 
 is not necessary in his Avife's deed of her equitable sep- 
 arate estate,^^ when she has the power to convey as if 
 sole, 13 nor need he join in her deed executed under a 
 special power." Where, by statute, a husband must 
 join in his wife's deeds, she cannot AAdthout him make 
 a deed good in equity, '» or a good agreement to con- 
 vey.i^ 
 
 1 Alexander v. Saulsburv, S7 Ala. ^:i, .377 ; Ilartlov v. Perrell, 9 
 Fla. 374, 37.( ; Brossler v. KcMt, fil 111. 426, 427 ; 14 Ar.i. Rep. fi7 ; Scott, 
 13 Incl. 225, 227; Shuniukcr v. Johnson, 3.5 Io\v:i, 33, 35; Jewett 
 V. Davis, 10 Alien, 6S, 71 ; Townsley r. Chapiii, 12 Allen, 47(i. 579 ; 
 Buchanan v. Hazzard, 95 Pa. ht. 240, 243 ; Youiij? v. Snj-der, 3 Grant. 
 150, 151. 
 
 2 Hake v. Lawshee, 24 N. J. L. 613, 61G ; 1 Bish. M. W. | .59.3. 
 
 3 See Blythe v. Dargain, 63 Ala. .370, .375 ; ante, ?? 147, 158. 
 
 4 Dous?las 1'. Fulda, 50 Cal. 76, 80 ; Jleagher r. Thompson, 49 Cal. 
 mi, 131 ; Fiiiidenwaldt v. Mullen, 10 Heisk. 226, 231. 
 
 5 Pease ?'. Bridge, 49 Conn. 58, 61 ; Evans r. Summerlin, 19 Fla. 
 85S, 801 ; Chapman v. Miller, 12S Mass. 26), 271 ; Hills v. Bearse, !) 
 Allen, 403, 406; Stone v. Mont?omerv, 35 Miss. 83, 107; Elliott v. 
 Sleeper, 2 N. H. 525, 529 ; Woodward v. Seaver, :« N. H. 29, 31 ; 
 Bu".v's r. Haj'barger, 8 Jones, 76, 81 ; Friedenwaldt v. Mullen. 10 
 Heisk. 220, 231. 
 
 6 Buchanan v. Hazzard, 95 Pa. St. 240, 243. 
 
 7 Cormerhais r. Wesselhoeft, 114 Mass. 559, .552. 
 
 8 Ludlow V. O'Neill, 2) Ohio St. 181, 1S3 ; post, { 402. 
 
 9 Stevens v. Parish, 2J Ind. 230, 263.
 
 g 400 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 580 
 
 10 Meagher v. Thompson, 49 Cal. 180, 101. 
 
 11 Beaudry v. Felch, 47 Cal. 183, 185. Seo Mahoney v. Mackubin, 54 
 Md. 26J. 
 
 12 Burnett v. Hawpo, 2"i Gratt. 481, 437 ; ante, U 202-205. 
 
 13 Seo Edwards v. Schoenenian, 101 111. 278, 2S4 ; ante, ? 371. 
 
 1 1 Thompson v. Murray, 2 Hill Ch. 204, 211 ; atite, §J 202, 205, 211. 
 
 15 Stevens v. Parish, 21 Ind. 260, 20'! ; Miller v. Wetherby, 12 Iowa, 
 415, 421 ; Williamson, 18 Mou. B. 329, 385 ; Armstrong v. Ross, 20 N.J. 
 Eq. lOJ, 120 ; post, i 404. 
 
 16 Townsley v. Chapin, 12 Allen, 476, 479. 
 
 I 400. The execution of married women's deeds. — When 
 a married woman executes a deed under a jjower, she 
 cannot execute it in blank, because she cannot execute 
 it tlirough an agent.^ For the same reason she would 
 not be bound by another's signing her name in her 
 presence.''' In many States, though not in as many as 
 formerly, the statutes provide that in executing her 
 deed a married woman shall be examined apart from 
 her husband, and having had the nature of tJie deed 
 explained to her, acknowledge that she executes it 
 freely, and not through threats or i^ersuadings of her 
 husband.^ This was required when a fine was levied 
 at common law.* In other States she may execute her 
 deed as if sole.^ Whether a private acknowledgment 
 is required or not, Avhen a deed is executed under a 
 power which i^rescribes some acknowledgment, such 
 acknowledgment as is prescribed is a necessary part of 
 the deed:* tliat is to say, a deed without such an ac- 
 knowledgment would not be valid for any purpose 
 because not a perfect execution of the power.' But if a 
 married woman has full power to dispose of her prop- 
 erty, and no acknowledgment is named by the statute, 
 her making or omitting an acknowledgment has pre- 
 cisely the same eflect in fitting the deed for record, or 
 rendering it valid only as between the parties and in 
 equity, as it would have had had she been unmarried.^ 
 So where a privy examination is necessary, it is an
 
 5S1 DEKDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 401 
 
 essential x^art of the execution of the deed,' and the 
 omission thereof is fatal. ^"^ An exaniinatiou apart 
 means an examination out of the presence of her hus- 
 band, so that he cannot communicate with her by 
 Avord, look, or motion. 'i It has been hold that a privy 
 examination means an examination not only out of the 
 l^resence of the husband, but out of the presence of any 
 one but the officer,'^ but this decision is probably not 
 sound.i^ The husband and wife need not acknowledge 
 at the same time." A magistrate who is interested in 
 the transfer is not competent to take the acknowledg- 
 ment ; 1* but his relationship to one of the parties is no 
 disqualification, his certification not being a judicial 
 act.16 
 
 1 Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 33 ; Ilord r. Tiiubmau, 79 Mo. 101, 
 104 ; ante, I 304. 
 
 2 Reasoning In cases supra, n. 1. 
 
 3 See fully 2 Scribner Dow. ch 13. 
 
 4 2 Scribner Dow. p. 321. 
 
 5 See Ind. R. S. ISSl, I 2938 ; Iowa R. S. 1S30, ? 1[);!5 ; Md. R. C. 1878, 
 p. 483, I 30 ; Wis. R. S. 1873, i 2221. 
 
 6 Cross V. Everts, 28 Tex. 532 ; pout, J 404. 
 
 7 Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 1 U. 
 
 8 Edwards v. Schoeneman, 104 111. 278, 284 ; Scrantoii v. Stewart, 
 52 Ind. 63, 89 ; Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 119. 
 
 9 Pratt V. Battles, 28 Vt. 685, 68.) ; 2 Scribner Dow. ch. 13. 
 
 10 Hepburn v. Dubois, 12 Peters, ;>45, 374 ; pod, I 404. 
 
 11 Belo V. Mayes, 79 Mo. 67, 70. 
 
 12 Sibley v. Johnson, 1 Mich. 380, .384. 
 
 13 See Belo v. Maves, 79 Mo. 67, 70 ; Jones v. Maffet, 5 Serg. it R. 
 523, 524 ; Coombes !'. Thomas, 57 Tex. 321, 323. 
 
 14 Newell v. Anderson, 7 Ohio St. 12, 10. Compare Adams v. 
 Buford, Dana, 40.!, 403. 
 
 15 Brown v. Moore, 38 Tex. 645, 648. S. P., Bank v. Conway, 14 
 Bank Reg. 513; Diissaume i\ Burnett, 5 Clarke, 95; Grosbeck v. 
 Seeley, 13 Mich. 330 ; Withers v. Baird, 7 Watts, 227; Scanlau v. Tur- 
 ner, 1 Bail. 421. 
 
 16 Lynch v. Livingston, 2 Seld. 422, 4;>4. 
 
 ? 431. The certificate of acknowledgment. — The certifi- 
 cate is the legal evidence of the execution of the deed ; ^ 
 and it must show that everything has been done which
 
 I 4D1 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 582 
 
 is necessary to the validity of a married woman's deed.^ 
 When a privy examination is required the certificate 
 must show that a privy examination lias been had ; '^ an 
 ordinary certificate such as is used for a person sui J twis 
 will not suffice/ nor will a certificate that the acknowl- 
 edgment was "in due form" ;'^ when the law requires 
 an acknowledgment " out of the hearing" of tlie hus- 
 band, a certificate of an acknowledgment "apart" 
 from the liusband is not sufficient ;* so the omission of 
 " known to me " is fatal ; ' so, of " for the consideration 
 and purposes therein set forth" ;^ so, of "that it was 
 explained to the wife." ^ Still the exact words of the 
 statute need not be used.'" Thus, " freely and of her own 
 accord " is equivalent to "freely as her voluntary act 
 and deed." '^ If the certificate states that she acknowl- 
 edged the deed as a release of dower, when in fact it 
 was a deed of her own projierty, and these words are 
 meaningless, the insertion of tliem does not destroy 
 the effect of the acknowledgment.'- The certificate is 
 prima facie evidence of all that it states ; '^ it is not con- 
 clusive as against the wife, and she may show that in 
 fact there was no privy examination,'* except, perliaps, 
 when the grantee was no party to, and had no notice of, 
 the fraud.'^ But if the certificate is insufficient it can- 
 not be helped by parol proof,'* or reformed in equity,'^ 
 except where this is expressly authorized by statute, as 
 in California.'^ And without a proper certificate the 
 deed is absolutely void." unless tlie facts not certified 
 to were not essential to its validity.^" 
 
 1 Young V. Duvall, lOJ U. S. 573, 577 ; infra, n. 13. 
 
 2 Gill V. FauntlfToy, 8 Mon. B. 177, 17S, ISO, 182, 183. S. P., Toulmin 
 V. Heiili'lhcTsr, 32 Miss. 2fi8 ; Has;bv »'. Emberson,79Mo. 139 ; Brownder, 
 U Ohio «t. 58J ; Mulliiis v. Wea,ver, 57 Tex. 6, 6. 
 
 3 Belo 1'. Maves, 73 Mo. 67, 70. 8. P., Flanagan f. Young, 3* Har. & 
 McH. 38 ; Howell v. Ashmore, 22 N. J. L. 2Cil, 264 ; Jourdan, 9 Serg. & 
 K. 268 ; 11 Am. Dec. 724. 
 
 4 McLaurin i'. Wilson, 16 S. C. 402, 403.
 
 583 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 401 
 
 5 Lucas V. Cobb, 1 Dev. & B. 228, 233. 
 
 6 ButterfieKi v. Bealo, 3 Ind. 203, 207. 
 
 7 Cover. Cather, 23 III. G.'M, 6-11 ; O'Ferrall f. Simplot, 4 Greene 
 162, 163. Compare Bell r. Lyle, 10 Lea, -U, 4.y. 
 
 8 Jacowuj' V. Gault, 20 Ark. 190, lOJ. 
 
 9 Boiling 1'. Teel, 76 Va. •1S7, 4'M ; Chauven v. Wagner, 18 Mo. 
 521 ; Garrett v. Moss, 22 111. ;i63. Compare Belo v. Mayes, 79 Mo. 
 67, 71. 
 
 10 Muir V. Gallaway, 61 Cal. 40S, 502. S. P., Batten v. Bigelow, 1 
 Peters V. C. 452 ; Tubbs v. Gatewood, 26 Ark. 128 ; Calumet i\ Kussell, 
 68 HI. 426 ; Gill r. Fauutlerov. S Mon. B. 177, IsO-ls:! ; (;re£;ory v. Ford, 5 
 Moil. B. 471,481 ; Hollingswortli r. MrDoiiald, 2 liar, .t J. 230; 3 Am. 
 Dec. .54.1 ; Belo v. Maves, 7:i JIo. (.7, 7ii : l.uv.- r. Taylor, 26 Miss. 567 ; 
 Sharp V. Hamilton, 12 X.J. L. 10;i ; Jleriium r. Harseii, 2 Barb. Ch. 
 2:f2 ; Brown v. Farrau, 3 Ohio, 140, l.'w ; Churchill v. Monroe, 1 K. I. 
 209. 
 
 11 Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. 2.56. 
 
 12 Evans v. Summerlin, 19 Fla. 858, 863 ; Hills v. Bearse, 9 Allen, 
 403, 406 ; Delossers v. Paston, 19 Mo. 425 ; Stone r. Montgomerj-, 35 
 Miss. 83, 107. Compare ante, j 272. 
 
 13 Young V. Duvall, lOa U. S. .573, 577. S. P., Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 
 Wall. 513 ; Rhoade-s v. Belin, 4 Wash. C. C. 714 ; Smith v. McGuire, 67 
 Ala. 34,37; Barnet v. Prauskauer, 62 Ala. 486; Blackman v. Hawks, 
 89 111. 512 ; Licknow r. Harding, 65 111. 505 ; Merrick r. Wallace, 19 111. 
 4*6 ; Tracy v. Jenks, 15 Pick. 465 ; Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 295 ; 
 Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87 ; Heeter v. Glascow, 89 Pa. St. 79; 
 infra, notes 14, 15. 
 
 14 Jackson v. Hayner, 12 Johns. 469, 472. S. P., Russell v. Bi^ptist, 
 73 111. 337 ; Eyster v. Hathaway, 50 111. 521 ; Ford v. Teal, 7 Bush, 156 ; 
 Central v. Copeland, 18 Md. 305 ; Fisher r. Meisler,24 Mich. 447 ; Mas- 
 tin V. Hallev, 61 Mo. llifi; Marsh )•. Mitchell, 26 N.J. Eq. 497 ; Priest f. 
 Cummings, 16 Wend. 617, 631 ; jmst, i 40.5. 
 
 15 Davis V. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 516, 519. See Drurv r. Foster, 2 Wall. 
 24,;54: O'Ferrallr. Simpiot,4Iowa,.3,Sl ; Dodder. HoUinsliead, 6 Minn. 
 25; Sfone 1'. Montgomery, 35 Miss. 8! ; Williams '■. Uobsoii, 6 01iio St. 
 510,515; Baldwin v. Snowden, U Ohio St. 203 ; .Shrader r;. Decker, 9 
 Pa. St. 14 ; Hays, 5 Rich. 31 ; Hartley v. Frost, 6 Tex. 208 ; Harklns v. 
 Forsythe, 11 Leigh, 294 ; j^st, i 40.5. 
 
 16 Jourdan, 9 Serg. & R. 268, 274 ; 11 Am. Dec. 724. S. P., Elliott v. 
 Piersol, 1 McLean, 11; 1 Peters, 328; Pendleton v. Bulton, 3 Conn. 
 406, 412 ; Havdeu r. Westcott, 11 Conn. 129 ; Martin v. Hargardine. 46 
 111. 322, :?:5 ; "O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, .381 ; Blackburn v. Penning- 
 ton, 8 Mon. B. 217; .Vdams >: Bnford, 6 Dana. 406, 408; Ridgely v. 
 Howard, 3 Har. & McII. 321 ; Silliman v. Cuniniiiis, 13 Ohio, 116, 118 ; 
 Smith v. Hunt, 13 Ohio, 260, 268 : 42 Am. Dec. 201 ; Harty r. Ladd, 3 
 Oreg. 3.53 ; Watson v. Bailey, 1 Binn. 470 ; 2 Am. Dec. 462 ; Barnet, 15 
 Serg. & R. 729 ; 16 Am. Dec. 516. 
 
 17 Barnett v. Shackleford, 6 Marsh. J. J. 532, 534 ; 22 Am. Dec. 100. 
 S. P., Lindley v. Smith, .58 111. 250 ; Blackburn v. Pennington, 8 Mon. 
 B. 217; Wannell v. Kern, 51 Mo. 1.50 ; Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 
 116, 119 ; post, i 404. 
 
 18 Hutchinson v. Ainsworth, 03 Cal. 286, 288 
 
 19 Smith 1'. McGuire, 67 Ala. 34,37; Leonis v. -azzarovich, 55 Cal. 
 52, 56 ; generally cases cited in this section. 
 
 20 Scranton v. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68, 90 ; ante, i 400,
 
 I 402 BEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 584 
 
 I 432. Confirmation of deeds of marriad women by act 
 of party. — If a married woman's deed is imperfectly 
 executed, it is usually utterly void,' and cannot, there- 
 fore, be ratified by her ;2 her subsequent assent to it,^ 
 during* or after coverture,^ or her parol adoption of it,^ 
 or her declarations of her willingness to do everything 
 necessarj'- to make it valid," give it no validity. To 
 give it effect it must bo re-acknowledged and deliv- 
 ered^ — it must be made a new deed^ — and in such 
 case it does not relate back, but takes effect only from 
 the date of sucli re-acknowledgment and delivery;'*' 
 and so it is defeated by an intermediate valid deed of 
 the same property." As even when a joint deed of 
 husband and wife is required, they need not both exe- 
 cute it at the same time,'- and a married woman rrnxj 
 re-acknowledge and record a deed which she has pre- 
 viously defectively executed.'^ Such new execution 
 may be made during coverture,'* or after the husband's 
 death ; '^ and though no act in pais during coverture 
 will estop her from setting up tlie invalidity of lier 
 deed,"'" she may be estopped by acts after tlie dissolu- 
 tion of tlie marriage, as hy the acceptance of the pur- 
 chase money .'^ After her own death there can be no 
 valid delivery of her deed.'^ In cases where the deed, 
 though defective, is executed h\ her while acting vnih. 
 the powers of afcnime sole, it is not wholly invalid, and 
 may therefore be confirmed.'* 
 
 1 Lucas V. Cobbs, 1 Dev. & B. 22S, 232 ; ante, ? 36S. 
 
 2 Buchanan v. Ilazzard, 95 Pa. St. 240, 2-13 ; ante, U .3fif!, ZCA. 
 
 3 Miller V. Shackleforrt, 3 Dana, 289, 297. 
 
 •J Adams v. Buford, 6 Dana, 406, 40S ; Watson v. Bailey, 1 Binn. 
 470; 2 Am. Dec. 462. 
 
 5 Price v. Hart, 29 Mo. 171, 172. 
 
 G Price v. Hart, 29 Mo. 171, 172 ; ante, ? 3fij. 
 
 7 Adams v. Buford, Dana, 40f>, 408. 
 
 8 Smith V. Shackleford, 9 Dana, 452, 476 ; Boatman t. Currv, 25 
 Mo. 433 ; Doe v. Hovvland, 8 Cowen, 277, 284 ; 13 Am. Dec. 445 ; Newell
 
 585 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g^ 403-404 
 
 r. Anderson, 7 Ohio St. 12, IG ; Jourrlan, 9 Serg. & R. 268, 2Tr. ; U Am. 
 Dec. 7-1-i. 
 
 9 Miller V. Shackleford, 3 Dana, 28J, 2;i7. 
 
 10 Do-^ V. ITowland,8 Con-en, 2T7, 28-1 ; 18 Am. Dec. ■».') ; Buchanan 
 V. Hazzard, 95 Pa. St. 2-10, 2-13. 
 
 11 Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johns. 110, 114. 
 
 12 Newell ii. Anderson, 7 Ohio St. 12, 10 ; ante,, \ 271. 
 
 13 Doe ('. Howland, S Cowen, 277, 28-1 ; 18 Am. Dec. 44o ; supra, n. 8. 
 
 14 Jvewell V. Anderson, 7 Ohio St. 12, 16. 
 
 15 Doe V. HoWland, 8 Cowen, 277, 284 ; 18 Am. Dec. 44.5. 
 
 16 Miller v. Shackleford, 3 Dana, 289, 207 ; post, § 
 
 17 Price V. Hart, 23 Mo. 171, 173. See Evans, 3 Yeates, .507, .508 ; 
 ante, J 276 ; ptist, 
 
 18 Shoenberger v. Hackman, 37 Pa. St. 87 ; Shoenberger v. Zook, 
 34 Pa. St. 24. 
 
 19 See Spafiford v. Warren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51 ; ante, U 366, 400. 
 
 I 403. Confirmation of deeds of married women by cura- 
 tive statutes. — As a general rule, statutes curing the 
 defects in deeds of married women arc void ; ^ but as 
 already shown, in some States they have been held 
 valid,^ especially where the State Constitution author- 
 ized them.^ There seems to be no reason why a statute 
 should be able to cure a defect wliich neither the parties 
 nor a court of equity could remedy.* 
 
 1 Loomis V. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, 47 ; ante, ? 23. 
 
 2 Randall v. Kruger, 23 Wall. 137, 149 ; ante, ? 23. 
 
 3 Goshorn v. Pnrcell, 17 Ohio St. G41, 646 ; 49 Am. Dec. 448 ; Smith 
 V. Turpin, 20 Ohio St. 478, 491. 
 
 4 Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 119. 
 
 § 404. Confirmation of deeds of married women by courts 
 of equity. — Although it lies within the ordinary juris- 
 diction of courts of equity to carry out tlie intentions of 
 parties, and to correct, reform, and compel a re-execu- 
 tion of an imperfect deed,i this jurisdiction is founded, 
 not on the validity of the deed as a deed, but on the 
 evidence which it gives of a contract between the par- 
 ties, on its validity as a contract to give a deed.^ This 
 jurisdiction depends, therefore, on the capacity of the 
 parties to contract to give and take a deed,^ and as
 
 ^ 404 DEEDS OF MARRIED WO?rEN. • 586 
 
 married women have usually no general capacity to 
 contract,* and as a contract to execute a statutory power 
 could not be specitically enforced,^ courts of equity 
 have not been in tlie habit of reforming or giving effect 
 to the imperfect deeds of married women.* Generally 
 a married woman's deed invalid at law is equally in- 
 valid in equityj When she can convey only inider a 
 power wliieh prescribes a certain mode, if that mode is 
 not pursued the power is no more executed in equity 
 than at law, and if equity enforced the deed it would 
 give the grantor an additional jjower.^ But where tlie 
 grantor has the powers of -a. fcmme sole to convey, inde- 
 pendently of the mode followed, equity will reform a 
 defect, and compel a conveyance in accordance with 
 tiie intentions of the parties.' And as a deed of prop- 
 erty is a contract with reference thereto,^" wherever 
 such contracts are valid," although the grantee may 
 perhaps not have a specific performance of an imper- 
 fect deed,''* he may probably enforce it as a contract 
 against the property, and recover any purchase money 
 paid thereupon.'^ For the reasons above given, equity 
 will not prevent a woman from setting up the validity 
 of a deed which in equity and good conscience she 
 ought to recognize, in cases where it would not confirm 
 it ;^* though there are a few cases where equity has up- 
 held the deed of a married woman to prevent great 
 injustice. 1^ 
 
 1 Simpson v. Montgomerv, 25 Ark. 3R.5, STT ; Shrovorr. Niokoll, 5C 
 Mo. 26J, 2f)7. 
 
 2 Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. 387, .392 ; Carr j-. Williams, 10 Ohio, 30o, 310. 
 
 3 Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 2G4, 267. 
 
 4 Discussed ante, l\ 355-,3!13. 
 
 ^ See McBryde v. Wilkinson, 29 ALa. 682 ; Wilks v. Burns, 60 Md. 
 64,71. 
 
 6 Holland v. Moon, 39 Ark. 120, 124 ; ante, \ 359. 
 
 7 Williams v. Walker, Law R. 9 Q. B. D. .576, .5S1 ; Drurvr. Foster, 
 2 Wall. 21. 31; Holland v. Mooi, 39 Ark. 120, 124: Stidman v. Mat- 
 thews, 29 Arlv. G50, 6.')3, 662 ; Simpson v. Montgomery, 25 Ark. 365, 373 ;
 
 587 DEEDS OF MAKRIKD WOMEX. g 435 
 
 Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 C.;l. 52, 5") ; Atvvator t>. Buckingham, 5 Dav, 
 492, 41)7 ; Breit?'. Yeaion, 101 111. 242, 262; Patterson v. Lawrence, UO 
 111. 174, 180 ; 32 Am. Dec. 22; Lindley v. Smith, 58 111. 250 ; Martin v. 
 Hargardine, 46 111. 422, 425 ; Rogers i'. Hlggins, 48 111. 211, 216 ; Stevens 
 V. Parish, 29 Ind. 260, 2G3 ; Grapengether ik Fejervary, 9 Iowa, 163, 
 173 ; Blackburn v. Pennington, 8 Mon. B. 217 ; Jolins v. Reardon, 11 
 Md. 405, 469. 470 ; Gebb v. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 394 ; Town.^ley v. Chapin, 
 
 12 Allen, 476, 479; Shrovor v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264, 207; Bugbv v. 
 Emberson, 7i) Mo. 139, 110 ; Ilord i: Taubman, 79 Mo. 101, 104 ; White, 
 16 N. J. L. 202, 214 ; Marvin v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 571, 574 ; Wiswall r. 
 Hall, 3 Paige, 313, 317 ; Knowlcs v. McCauly, 10 Paige, 342, 347 ; Oreen 
 V. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 503 ; Purcell v. Goshorn, 17 Ohio, 105, 124 ; 
 49 Am. Dec. 448 ; Davenport v. Savil, 6 Ohio St. 559, 566 ; Carr v. Wil- 
 liams. 10 Ohio, 305, 310 ; 36 Am. Doc. 87 ; Roseburgh ?t. Sterling, 27 Pa. 
 St. 292, 293 ; Wrisht v. Dufield, 53 Tex. 218, 221 ; Cross v. Everts, 23 
 Tsx. 528, 532 ; ante, § 359. 
 
 8 See Leonis v. Lazzarovich, .15 Cal. 52, 55, 58 ; supra, n. 7. 
 
 9 Edwards v. Schoeneinan, 104 111. 278, 284 ; Silliinan v. Cummins, 
 
 13 Ohio, 116, 119. See Scranton v. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68, 89; Styers c. 
 Robbins, 76 Ind. 547 ; Wedel v. Herman, 59 Cal. 507. 
 
 10 See Richmond v. Tibbies, 26 Iowa, 474, 476 ; Bosford v. Pearson, 
 7 Allen, 504, 505 ; ante, 'i 372. 
 
 11 See ante, U 206, 238, 372. 
 
 12 Wright V. Dufield, 58 Tenn. 218, 221 ; post, i 407. 
 
 13 Felke v. Tighe, 39 Ark. 357, 363. See Shrover v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 
 264, 26J ; Danner v. Berthold, H Mo. App. 351, 363 ; post, I 407. 
 
 14 Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 34 ; Alexander v. Saulsbury, 37 Ala. 
 375, 378 ; Leonis v. Luzzarovich, ,55 Cal. 52, 55 ; Oglesb.y v. Pasco, 79 111. 
 164, 170 ; Danner r. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 351, 3.58; Glidden v. Strup- 
 ler, 52 Pa. St. 400. 401 ; McLaurin v. Wilson, 16 S. C. 402, 410 ; post, i 412. 
 
 15 See Cahill v. Martin, 7 Law Rec. 361, 379 ; Lawrence, 63 Cal. 129, 
 135; 36 Am. Rep. 762 ; Patterson v. Lawrence, 90 111. 174, 179; 32 Am. 
 Dee. 22 ; Richardson v. Simmons, 47 Mo. 20, 27 ; Glass v. Warwick, 
 40 Pa. St. 140, 145. 
 
 g 406. Impeachment of married women's deeds. — Al- 
 though the deed of a married woman be perfect on its 
 face, .she may show that in fact it was obtained by 
 fraud, ^ or duress,'^ or was improperly executed,'* and 
 that it is therefore void.* As to her right to do this 
 as against a party to the fraud,^ or any party with 
 notice of the defect or fraud,^ or with notice of such 
 facts as should have put him on his guard," or on 
 wlio.se behalf the hu.sband has perpetrated a fraud, ^ 
 there is no doubt ; and if she in fact never executed 
 the deed, and it is a forgery, she may impeach it as 
 against any one ; ^ but if, though she executed the deed 
 iinproiJerly, the certiticate is perfect, she cannot, it
 
 2 405 DEEDS OF MARRIKD WOMEN. 588 
 
 seems, impeach it as against purchasers without no- 
 tice, '" it being a general rule, founded on public policy, 
 that defects of execution cannot be alleged against bona 
 fide purchasers or assignees for value if the certificate b3 
 perfect ; i' as to them, in such cases, the certificate is con- 
 clusive.i''' The officer Avho made the certificate cannot 
 impe?ch the same,^^ nor will the unsupported testimony 
 of the wife be sufficient to overcome the certificate.^* 
 If she acknowledged the signatui'e, she cannot say she 
 did not sign tlie deed ; ^^ nor can she allege that she did 
 not read or iinderstand the deed if she had full ojipor- 
 tvinities for so doing, and alleges no fraudulent conceal- 
 ment ; '^ nor can she deny that she assented when 
 she silently did so ; " her declarations made at the 
 time of the execution are evidence as part of t]ie res 
 gestceJ^ If she has duly executed the deed, and has 
 left it with lier husband, she cannot deny his aiithor- 
 ity to deliver it'^ (but the delivery must be made 
 before her death*). She cannot be estopped from im- 
 peaching her deed by her assent thereto during covert- 
 ure,'! or by Iier mere delivery thereof,^- or even by 
 her retention of the purchase money ;^ she cannot do 
 indirectly by matter in pais what she can do directly 
 only by deed duly acknowledged and recorded.-' As to 
 conveyances to her husband, owing to their relation, he 
 is treated much as he would be were he her trustee, 
 and must show good faith throughout.^^ 
 
 1 Williams t\ Robson, 6 Ohio St. 510, 515; Cridge v. Haro, ns Pa. 
 St. 561, 565. 
 
 2 'Wliitrirlsre r. B.arrv, 42 Md. 140, 15^. ; Eadie v. Slimmoii, 26 X. Y. 
 9, 13 ; Louden v. Blythe, 16 Pa. St. 5;!2, 5-10 ; 27 Pa. St. 22, 25. 
 
 3 Marsh r. Mitchell, 26 N. J. Eq. 497, 499 ; ante, I 401. 
 
 4 Allen v. Lenoir, 53 Miss. 321, Z?.\ ; ante, U 400, 401. 
 
 5 S9e Davis v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 516, 519 ; ante: Vi S4, 110. 
 
 6 Evstpr V. Tlathaw.iv, .% III. 521, .524 ; Ford r. Teal, 7 Bush, 156' 
 1.5S ; Marsh )■. Mitchell. 26 N. J. Eq. 497, 499; Shrader v. Decker, 9 Pa- 
 st. 14, 16 ; 2 Scribner Dow. pp. 370-376. 
 
 7 Louden v. Blythe, 27 Pa. St. 22, 25.
 
 5S9 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEX. 2 406' 
 
 8 Cortral v. Copeland, IS Aid. 305, 3J8 ; ante, U 84. ilO. 
 
 9 Allen v. Lenoir, 53 Miss. 321, 331. See Drury r. Foster, 2 Wall. 
 24, ."4 ; Burr.s v. Lyndo, 6 Alien, 30.5, 3U ; Johnston ■;•. Wallace, 5* 
 Miss. 331, 33.5, 3.33 ; 24 Am. Doc. 6aj ; Coaovor r. Porter, 14 Ohio St. 450. 
 
 10 Johnston v. Wallace, 53 Miss. 331, 336, 337 ; 24 Ain. Dec. 600 ; 
 infra, n. 11. 
 
 11 De Arnaz v. Escandon, .59 Cal. 436, 4S1 ; Kerr v. Russell, 69 111. 
 C06, 670; 18 Ana. Rep. ;W ; Johnston v. Wallace, 5.! MLss. 331, 3:17; 24 
 Am. Dec. 639 ; Baldwin v. .Snowden, 11 Ohio .St. 203, 212 ; Hill v. Pat- 
 terson, 51 Pa. St. 28.), 2:0 ; S.'irader r. Decker, !t P.a. .St. 14, 16 ; T.ouden 
 V. Bl vthn, 27 Pa. St. 22, 25 ; Davis v. Kennedy, &3 Tex. 516, 519 ; Harki.is 
 V. Fo'rsythe, 11 Leigh, 294, 304. 
 
 12 Johnston v. Wallace, 53 Miss. .3.31, 337 ; 24 Am. Dec. 699 ; sitprr, 
 n. 11 ; ante, Hd. ' .... 
 
 13 Central v. Copeland) 18 Md. 305, 313 ; Johnston v. Wallace,. 53 
 Miss. 331, 3;:5 ; 24 Am. Dec. 609 ; Harkins r. Forsytho, I'l Leigh, 204, 304. 
 But see Louden I'. Blythe, 16 Pa. St. 532, .542. 
 
 14 Kerr v. Russell, 60 111. 666, 600. 671 ; IS Am. Rep. 33. 
 
 15 Kerr !■. Russell, 60 lil. OGo, G73 ; 18 Am. Rep. 3S. 
 
 16 Comegvs v. Clarke, 44 Md. 108, 110, 111 ; Fowler r. Trull, 1 JIiiii, 
 40J, 411 ; Walter v. Weaver, 57 Te.x. 560, 571. 
 
 17 Re-xford, 7 Lans. 6, 9. 
 
 18 Louden )■. Blythe, IG Pa. St. 532, 542. 
 
 19 Ackert v. Pultz, 7 Barb. 3.36, 388 ; Baldwin r. Snowden,]l Ohio 
 Si. 203, 213. 
 
 20 Shoenberger v. Ilackman, 37 Pa. St. 87, 04 ; antf, i 402. 
 
 21 Ladd v. Hilderbrant, 27 Wis. 1.35, 144 ; 9 .\ni. Rep. 445 ; ante., i 402. 
 
 22 See Kerr v. Russell, 63 111. 036, 663 ; 13 Am. Rop. 33 ; ante, U 400, 
 "JOl. • 
 
 2! Oglesby v. Pasco, "^ 111. 164, 170 ; ante, ? 402 ; 2)o.st, U 412, 41.3. 
 
 24 Leoiiis r. Lazzarovich, .55 Cal. 52, 58 ; supra, n. 23. 
 
 25 Wit.becW, 25 Mich. 430, 442 ; ante, 5 110. 
 
 g 406. Married women's powers of attorney. — Inde- 
 pendenth' of expre.ss statute, a married Avoman may, 
 where she has over her equitable sejoarate joroperty the 
 powers of a femme sole,^ convey it by power of attor- 
 ney ; ^ but she cannot through an attorney execute 
 even a i^rivate power,' or release her dower,* or convey 
 her property held as at common law,^ unless, as to the 
 last, owing to her husband's civil death, etc., she has 
 t lie capacities of a /ewi me so ?e.* In some States i)owers 
 of attorney are expressly regulated by statute ; " but 
 whether a married woman is ever authorized by impli- 
 cation to convey through an attorney is not settled,^ and 
 II. it w. — so.
 
 g 40«) DEEDS OF MARRIED -WOMEN. ^90 
 
 the difl&cult question relating to this subject is, whether 
 under the statutes authorizing her to convey her statu- 
 tory separate property she may convey by attorney.^ 
 It seems plain that she cannot, if a privy examination 
 is required, for this must accompany tlie conveyance 
 itself ;i" but wliere she may convey as if sole, there 
 seems no reason why she cannot convej' bj' attorney," 
 provided that her husband join in executing the poAver, 
 if his joinder is required in her deed.'-' Of course any 
 power of attorney to be valid must be executed with 
 all the formalities required with the act which it au- 
 thorizes.'^ As to powers of attorney, unconnected with 
 the conveyajice of land, tliey gain no validity by the 
 seal and acknowledgment,'* and their validity is tested 
 as that of other contracts of married Avomen is.'^ At 
 common law a married woman's antenuptial i^ovrcr 
 of attorney was revoked by her marriage.'^ 
 
 1 Discussed ante, i 205. 
 
 2 Because she caii convej' as a.femnie sole. 
 •" Ilord?-. Tanbnian,79Mo. 101, 104. 
 
 •1 Lewis V. Coxe, 5 Har. (Del.^ 401, 402 ; ante, J 271. 
 
 5 Ileywood r. Shreve, 44 N. J. L. 94, 95, 96. See Ken rick t». Wood, 
 Law II. 9 Eq. xa, .^i7 ; Holladay v. Daily, 19 Wall. C06, 601 ; Hooper v. 
 Smith, 23 Ala. 6".3, 642; Holland v. Moon, .39 Ark. 120, 125; Lewis v. 
 Coxa, 5 Har. (Del.) 401, 402 ; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. .53:?, .5.-iS, 5.57 ; Doug- 
 las V. Fiilfla, 50 C-il. 76, 79 ; Dawson r. Shirley, 6 Blackf. 501, o33 ; Pat- 
 ton V. Stewart, IJ Ind. 2o:!, 2 57 ; Wilkinson v. Gettvs, 13 low.-i, 157,153; 
 Steele v. L'^wis, 1 Mon. 9S, 99 ; Chew v. Bank, 14 Md. 319 ; Turton, 6 
 Md. .383 ; Hall v. Callahan, 66 Mo. 316, 324 ; Bocock r-. Pavev, 8 Ohio 
 St. 270, 27S ; Caldwell v. Walters, 18 Pa. St. 79, 82 ; 55 Am. Dec. 592 ; 
 Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. 632, 63S ; Patton v. King. 26 Tex. 6S5 ; 
 Shanlis V. Lancasti-r, 5 Gratt. 110, IIS ; 50 Am. Dec. lOS ; Sumner v. 
 Conant, 10 Vt. 9, 20. 
 
 6 Wright V. Blackrwood, .57 Tex. 644, 648. 
 
 7 See Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, .33 ; Douglas v. Fulda, nO CaL 183, 
 191 ; Butterfleia v. Beall, 3 Ind. 203, 207 ; Cummi::g v. WUliamscn, I 
 Sand. Ch. 17, 24 ; R. L R. S. 1882, p. 423 ; W. Va. R. S. 1878, ch. 65, § 12. 
 Her power of attorney to sell to pav husband's debt is void undnr stat- 
 ute prohibiting her suretj-ship contracts: Veal r. Hunt, 63 Ga. 728, 731. 
 
 8 Holladay v. Daily, 19 Wall. 606, 609, 610. 
 
 9 See cases »upm, n. 5 ; infra, notes 10-13. 
 
 10 Holland v. Moon, 39 Ark. 120, 125; McDanicl v. Grace, 15 Ar!c. 
 465; Mott V. Smith, 16 CtiL 5:», 556, 557 ; GUlcspie r. Vk'orford, 2 Co! 1. 
 632, 638 ; supra, n. 5.
 
 591 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 407 
 
 11 See Vail v. Meyer, 71 Ind. 159, 165 ; Kickford v. Dane, 58 N. H 
 185, 186 ; anU, I 364. 
 
 12 See Holland v. Moon, 33 Ark. 120, 128 ; infra, n. 13. 
 
 13 Holland i\ Moon, 33 Ark. 120, 126; Butterfleld v. Beall, 3 Ind. 
 203, 207 ; Steele v. Lewis, 1 Mon. 48, 49 ; Boeock v. Pavey, 8 Ohio St. 
 270, 278. 
 
 14 Consult ante, I .i84. 
 
 15 See Hey wood v. Slireve, 44 N. J. L, 94, 9.5, 96. 
 Ifi Montague v. Carneal, 1 Marsh. A. K. 351, 352. 
 
 I 4D7. Agreements of married women to give deeds or to 
 convey. — I!: i;; comnionly .said that a wife's executory 
 contract to make a deed of property is absolutely void,' 
 and even her contract to deed property held by her as 
 trustee has been so held.'^ When she is under her com- 
 mon-law disabilities and can therefore make no con- 
 tract,^ .she cannot, under statutes authori.':ing her release 
 of dower,* or her conveyance of her common-law prop- 
 erty by deed jointly with her husband and privily 
 acknowledged,^ make an oral contract to give a dced,^ 
 or one in which hor husband does not join,' or one in 
 which he joins but which is not acknowledged ; ^ and it 
 seems equally settled that such statutes invest her 
 simi^ly with statvitory powers, Avhich must be strictly 
 executed,' and that an agreement to convey is not in 
 itself a conveyance,'" and therefore not an execution of 
 such powers, though executed Avith all the formalities 
 required by such statutes for a conveyance ; " and that 
 such agreements cannot be enforced even in equity,''^ 
 because equity will not reform, correct, or complete the 
 execution of a statutory power.'-* A married woman 
 who holds her equitable separate property with the 
 powers of a/cmme sole can a;.;;rce to convey it,'^ but her 
 husband must join with her if the settlement so pro- 
 vides ; '■^ and as to such i^roperty her imperfect mort- 
 gage is treated as an agreement to give a mortgage, and 
 is enforced as a charge.'^ How far she can agree to con- 
 vey her statutory separate estate is doubtful, when she
 
 ^407 DEEDS OF ;iARKiK3 wo:iKX. 592 
 
 has neithei' Ihe general ownership thereof, nor tlie 
 general power to convey it as if sole, but a parLicular 
 mode for its convej'anco ii provided by statute ; it is 
 it3i?i-tahl that she cannot bind herself under Kuch statutes 
 foi* Its future convcyanco by an agreement not executed. 
 :,aficordin:j to tlio statute,'' and whether she can by one 
 (executed according to the statute is disputed.*^ Tlie 
 (true rule seems (o 1)0 that when a privy acknowledg- 
 ment is nccessarj^, an agreement to convey, thougli 
 -executed with such acknowledgment, could not be en- 
 forced,'* for a contrary ndc would load to the absurdity 
 of a married v.oman being compelled to execute a deed, 
 and to acknowledge that she executed \t freehj nnd of 
 her own accord ; ^^ l)ut when she can convey "ai a 
 femme Hole, even though it be pnnided that Jier Iiusband 
 shall join,-' there i.; no reason why her agreement to 
 convey should not be enforced as the agreement of a 
 femme sole would bo.*^ When she has full ov. ncrsh^p 
 of her property,^' or may contract generally as n femme 
 sole,^^ lier agreement to convey is valid. When her 
 contracts with reference to her separate estate are valid, 
 an agreement to convey or an imperfectly execixtcd 
 deedshovild be valid as such.^ Whenever her contract 
 is valid she can be compelled to specifically enforce 
 it,"'"' though if tliis would require her privy acknoAvledg- 
 inent a ditferent rule miglit apply ; ^' but there are some 
 cases Avhere, though the riglit to specific performance 
 has been denied, Iier land has been held responsible 
 for any money paid on account of, '^or expended on 
 the faitli of,^ the contract. At common law the husband 
 could not by his agreement to convey attect the wife's 
 interest in her lands,'" thougli such an agreement bound 
 him.'' 
 
 1 Miller v. Albertson, 7S Ind. MS, 345 ; Shroyer v. Niokell, 55 Mo. 
 264, 2H8 ; Wrifjht. v. Dufleld, 5.-) Tenii. 21S, 221; cases generally in this 
 section ; ante, { 380.
 
 593 DKEDS OF MARKIKD WOMKX. § 407 
 
 2 Avery v. Griffin, Law R. 6 Eq. GOn, 000 ; po.s-f, § -485. 
 
 3 Norris v. Lantz, 18 Md. 260, 269 ; ante, i MO. 
 
 4 King V. Barnes, 5 Ala. 610, 61-1; Butler r. Buckingham, 5 Day, 
 492,497; 5 Am. Dec. 17'1 ; Watrous ■!'. C'halker, 7 Conn. 2lM, 228; ante, 
 i 267. This is questioned in Dreutzer r. Lawrence, 53 Wis. 594, 598. 
 
 5 Williams v. Walker, Law R. 9 Q. B. D. 576, 581 ; Watrous v. 
 C'halker, 7 Conn. 224, 228 ; Stevens r. Parisli, 2) Ind. 260, 263 ; Thames, 
 3 Me. 50, 51 ; Lanev. McKeen, 15 Me. 304, 305 ; Sleffev, 19 Md. 5, 12, 13 ; 
 Peutz V. Simonson, 13 N. J. Eq. 232, 234 ; Jhirtin v. bwelly, 6 Wend. 
 9, 12 ; 21 Am. Dec. 245 ; Andriot v. Lawrence, 33 Barb. ]-l2, ]'43 ; Todd v. 
 Pitts, 10 Ohio bt. 514, 526 ; Dankel v. Hunter, 61 Pa. fc^t. 382, 384. 
 
 6 Dankel v. Hunter, 61 Pa, St. 382, 384 ; si/pm, n. 5. 
 
 7 Behler v. Weyburn,59 Ind. 143, 145; Gobb v. Rose, 40 Md. 510, 
 520 ; Townsley v. Chapi:i, 12 Allen, 476, 478 ; Kingsley v. Gilman, 
 15 Minn. 59, 01 ; Huff r. Price, 50 Mo. 228, 229 ; ante, i 399. 
 
 8 Leonis t'. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 52,56 ; Watrous v. Chalker,7 Conn. 
 224, 228 ; Lane v. McKeen. 15 Me. 304, S05 ; Pentz v. Simonson, 13 N. J. 
 Kq. 232, 234 ; ante, U 400, 401. 
 
 9 Leonis r. Lazzarovlch, C5 Cal. 52, 57 ; Gillespie v. Worford, 2 
 Cold, 632, 638 ; ante, 'i 404. 
 
 10 See Felkne v. Tighe, 39 Ark. 357, 362. 
 
 n Spo Felkne v. Tighe, 39 Ark. &57, 362 ; Wood v. Terry, 30 Ark. 
 :aj, 391 ; Stedham v. Matthews, 2J Ark. 650, 658. 
 
 12 Stedham v. Matthews, 29 Ark. 650, 658 ; Wills v. Galtman, 
 53 Miss. 722, 732 ; Hawiey v. Twyman, 29 Gratt. 728, 730 ; ante, i 404. 
 
 13 Briglit V. Boyd, 1 Story, 478, 487 ; McBride v. Wilkinson. 29 Ala. 
 662,667 ; Ellett). Wade, 47 A.la. 45l>,4C4 ; Moreaur. Detcheniendy, 18 Mo. 
 522, 531 ; Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 116, 118. Contra, Clayton v. 
 Frazier, 33 Tex. 91, 100. Otherwise as to private powers: 2" Wash. 
 Real Prop. ;J00, et seq.; Waterman, Spec. Perf. J 387. 
 
 14 Stead V. Nelson, 2 Beav. 245, 248 ; Wainwright ^}. Hardesty. 
 2 Beav. 363, 305 ; Felkne v. Tighe, 39 Ark. a57, 369 ; Butler r. Bucking- 
 ham, 5 Day, 492, 497 ; 5 Am. Dec. 174 ; Klcher v. Smitti, 2 Head 
 208,211. 
 
 15 Gelston x\ Frazier, 26 Md. 320, 344 ; supt-a, n. 7. 
 
 16 See Hall v. Eccleston, 37 Md. 510, 520; Whitelv ;•. Stewart, 
 63 Mo. 360, 363 ; infra, n. 23. 
 
 17 Shroyer i\ Nickell, 55 Mo. 264, 268 ; supra, notes 5-8. 
 
 18 Prn, Dankel v. Hunter, 01 Pa. St. 382, as4. Contra, Stedham ?■, 
 Matthews, 29 Ark. 650, 658 ; siqyra, notes 9-13. 
 
 19 Stedham v. Matthews, 29 Ark. 6.50, 658 ; supra, n. 11. 
 
 20 See Leonis r. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 52, 58 ; Love r. Watkins, 
 40 Cal. 517, 559 ; 6 Am. Rep. 624. 
 
 21 Kingsle\' v. Gilman, 15 Minn. 59, 61. See Hall v. Kccleston, 
 37 Md. 510, 520 ; siipra, n. 7. 
 
 22 See Dreutzer v. Lawrence, 53 Wis. 534, 598, 599. 
 
 23 Brown, 94 Pa. St. 362, 367 ; Dreutzer v. Lawrence, 58 Wis. 594, 
 598, 599. 
 
 24 Love ?'. Watkins, 40 Cal. .547,559; 6 Am. Rep. 624; Spafford r. 
 Warren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51. 
 
 25 Baker v. Hathway, 5 Allen, 103, 105. HusbaiKl may have to 
 join : Behler v. Weyburn, 591ud. 143, 145 ; supra, n. 7.
 
 § 408 DEEDS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 594 
 
 26 Love V. Watkins, 40 CiI. 547. 5ja ; 6 Am. Kep. 624 ; Baker v. 
 Hathway, 5 Allen, 103, 105 ; Kingsley v. Gilman, 15 Miiin. 59, 61. 
 
 27 Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 55 Cal. 52, 58 ; supra, n. 20. 
 
 23 Felk!ie r. Tighe, 39 Ark. 357, 363 ; fehroyer v. Nickell, 5.5 Mo. 
 264, 269 ; Martin r. Dwelly, 6 Wend. 9, 12 ; 21 Am. Dec. 245 ; Rosen- 
 thal !'. Mavhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155, 165; Warner v. Sickles, Wright, 
 81, 82 ; Pilclier v. Smith, 2 Head, 208, 211. 
 
 29 Shroyer %\ Xickell, 55 Mo. 264, 2&S. 
 
 .30 Tevis V. Richardson, 7 Mon. 654, fiol ; Weed ?>. Terrv, 2 Doug. 
 (Mich.) 344 ; 45 Am. Dec. 2.57 ; Williams v. Christie, 4 Duer, 29. 
 
 31 Steffey, 19 Md. 5, 12 ; post, ? 407. 
 
 g 408. Miscellaaeous points as to deeds of married 
 women. — A joint deed of husband and wife is binding 
 on the husband though invalid as to the wlfe.^ A deed 
 from a married woman to her husband may be invalid, 
 though it would have been valid if executed to a 
 stranger in the same way.^ The alteration of a married 
 woman's deed by the grantee is fatal to its validity.* 
 When she may '• deed" she may make any deed, abso- 
 lute or conditional,' of gift or of purchase.^ 
 
 1 Gill V. Fauntlerov, 8 Mon. B. 177, 182 ; Central v. Copeland, 18 
 Md. :«5, .320 ; Johns v. Reardon, 11 Md. 465 ; Hoover v. Wells, 33 Jliss. 
 536 ; Real v. Harmon, 3S Mo. 435 ; Curtiss v. Follett, 15 Barb. 337 • New- 
 comb V. Smith, Wright, 20!!. 
 
 2 Preston v. Fryer, 38 Md. 221, 225 ; ante, ?| 42, 43. 
 
 3 Hord V. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101, 103. 
 
 4 Smith V. Wilson, 2 Met. (Ky.) 235, 237. 
 
 5 Comegvs v. Clarke, 44 Md. 108. Ill ; McFerrin v. White, 6 Cold. 
 493.
 
 595 ESTOPPKLS. g§ 409-410 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 ESTOPPELS AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 1 409. Estoppels divided. 
 
 § 410. Estoppels against married women — General rules. 
 
 5 411. Estoppels bj' record against married women. 
 
 2 412. Estoppels by deed against married women. 
 i 41S. Estoppels i)i paw defined. 
 
 § 414. Estoppels injMiis against married women — General rule. 
 
 } 415. Estoppels (?ipai.s — Contracts. 
 
 i 416. Estoppels in pais — False representations. 
 
 i 417. Estoppels ui paiVs — Silence, acquiescence. 
 
 i 418. Estoppels jk pais — Pure torts. 
 
 J 419. E^Gct of participation of husband. 
 
 i 420. Estoppels after dissolution of marriage. 
 
 g 409. Estoppels divided. — Estoppels are of three 
 kinds ;! (1) Estoppels of record, consisting mainly of 
 judgments, the material contents of which parties and 
 privies cannot dispute — are estopped from disputing — 
 such matters being res adjudicata. (2) Of deed, consist- 
 ing mainly of statements in deeds or instruments under 
 seal, which the parties to such deeds or instruments are 
 not allowed to deny. (3) In pais, consisting of state- 
 ments or representations by words or conduct made 
 by one person to another and relied on by that other, 
 so that it would damage that other for such person 
 to deny them, which such person is not allowc i to 
 deny. 
 
 1 See Bigelow Estoppel, Introduction ; post, U 4:0-lW. 
 
 § 410. Estoppels against married women — General rules. 
 — In accordance with section 409, one maj' be estojaped 
 by a judgment, by a deed, bj' a contract, or bj' a tort ; 
 and the general rule as to married women is that they 
 can be estopped only by valid judgments ' or deeds ; ^ 
 by contracts olily so far as they have the capacity to
 
 g 413 ESTOPPELS. 596 
 
 contract ; 3 and only by torts of a kind for which they 
 Avould be liable* It is clear that a married woman 
 under disabilities cannot be estopped just as if she 
 were sui jm'is,^ and the only way of determining in 
 Avhat cases she maybe estopped is to ascertain, first, 
 whether the alleged estopi^cl grows out of a jugdinent, 
 deed, contract, or tort ; and second, whether such 
 judgment, deed, contract, or tort is binding as such on 
 tlie married woman. To illustrate: A judgment is 
 obtained against a married woman on a void note ; she 
 moves to have it set aside, alleging her coverture and 
 its consequent invalidity ; it is a general principle that 
 when a jierson api:)lies to have a judgment sot aside he 
 cannot allege any ground which lie might have alleged 
 in the suit as a defense ; it is held that tliis rule does 
 not apply to married women, because tlie judgment is 
 invalid.^ Again, a married woman makes a deed of 
 certain property, and the deed being imperfectly exe- 
 cuted is utterly void ; but after receiving the purchase 
 money slie sues tlie grantee in ejectment ; held, she is 
 not estopped from setting up her title, because the 
 deed is invalid.^ A married woman, by a valid instru- 
 ment, assigns a mortgage to her liusband in blank ; slie 
 is estopjjed from denying liis right to pledge it, because 
 tlie assignment is valid.^ A married woman stands by 
 and sees the public use a part of lier property as a 
 road ; she is not estopped from closing the road up, 
 because there is no contract or tort, and she can dispose 
 of her property only in the way prescribed by statute.^ 
 A married woman allows her husband to collqct her 
 rents several times ; she is thereby esto])ped from sub- 
 sequently denying his authority to do so, because she 
 can collect her rents herself, and may do this by agent, 
 and by her conduct has constituted her husband her 
 agent.'" A married woman, by representing that che
 
 597 ESTOPPELS. g 413 
 
 13 unmarried, secures credit ; she vi not estopped from 
 setting up her coverture as a defense, when sued on 
 tills debt, for though she has committed a fraud, it is 
 one connected witli her contract, and one, tJierefore, for 
 whicli s'le would not be liable.^' But when a married 
 woman represented tliat certain property of liers be- 
 longed to her husband, for the purpose of deceiving hij 
 creditors, slie was held estopped from setting up her 
 title to t!io proi^erty as against tliese creditors, because 
 this fraud vras unconnected with any contract of hers, 
 and one for wliicii siie miglit have been sued.'- Thougii 
 tliese cases illustrate tlie rules, there are many cases 
 which, witliout any reference to any rules but on gen- 
 eral grounds of equity, seem to recognize a fai- wider 
 liability on the part of married women to be estopped." 
 In the citations under this section the cases are col- 
 lected. 
 
 1 Griffith V. Clarke, 18 Md. 457, 464 ; Morse v. Toppan, 3 Grar, 411, 
 412. See on this point, Faithonie v. lilaquiri', 6 IMauIe tt s. 7.< ; 
 Ga!nbetta?'.Broch,4lC'aI.72,82,8J; Dovle r. Kf II v, 75 111.574 ; Klson r. 
 O'Oowd, 40 Incl. 3()0, 30G ; Van Meter v. Wolfe, '27 Iowa, 'Ml, 'Mi ; i;:i Iowa, 
 3:)7, 404 ; 19 Iowa, l.'iG ; Gootlirie v. Howard, :f: Iowa, 54, 55 ; Spaliiini,' >: 
 Watlion,7 Bush,65.>, 66:! ; Case r. Itihelin, I Marsh. J. J. -Z'.t, Mo ; r.arncs 
 V. Burbridge, 15 La. An. 6:s, (;j'i ; Mai^rndir v. Buck, 56 Miss. ;!I4, ;;;5 ; 
 GreeiH'. Branton, 1 Dcv. E'l. 5 d,5(i! ; Jlartuian r.Ogborn,54 l*a. ist. I'Jo, 
 123 ; Graham v. Long, 65 Pa. .St. 3^3, 3SG; t'aldwoll v. Vv'alters, Is I'a. 
 St. 70, 8{ ; Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 2U0, 39'J ; Baxter v. Dear, 24 Tex. 
 17,21; post, i-i^i^- 
 
 2 Oglesby v. Pasco, 73 111. 164, 170 ; Glidden v. Stampler. 52 Pa. St. 
 400, 406. See on IaU point, Drury v. Foster, 2 W;iU. 24, 3.i ; Alexander 
 V. Saulsburv, 37 Ala. 375, S7S; Wood v. Terrv, KOArk. 3S.5, 3!)3; Mor- 
 rison V. Wilson, 13 Cal. 4;)8, 501; Kerr v. Russell, 69 111. 666,673; 18 
 Am. Rep. 634 ; Blam w. Harrison, 11 111. 384, IMS ; Scranton r. .Stewart, 
 52 Ind. 68, 94 ; Behler v. Wovburn, 59 Ind. 143, 145 ; Patterson v. 
 Frazer, 5 La. An. 6.86, 587; Comegys v. Clarke, 44 Md. lOS, 110, 111 ; 
 Lowell V. Daniels, 2 Gray, 101 ; Merriam v. Bo:;ton, 117 Mass. 241, 244 ; 
 Nash V. Spofford, 10 Met. 1!)2 ; Norton v. Nichols, 35 Mich. 148, l.'iO ; 
 Hopper V. Domarest, 21 N. J. L. 5-5, 541 ; Grant ?'. Towiisend, 2 Hill, 
 554, 557 ; Green v. Branton, 1 Dev. Kq. 500, 503 ; Dukes r. Spangler. "5 
 Ohio St. ll!l, 127; Rose::thal r. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio .St. I"5, 161, Ik: ; 
 Todd V. Pittsburgh, 19 Ohio St. 514, ,526 ; Rumfeldt v. Cleineis. 4(i I'n. 
 St. 4.55, 4.57 ; Pcttit v. Fretz, 33 Pa. St. 118, 120 ; McLaurni r. Wilson, 16 
 S. 0. 4'>'^ 410 ; Walter v. Weaver, .57 Tex. uro, .571 ; It'K'ford ?•. Carwile, 
 13 W. Va. 573, 683 ; Godfrey v. Thonitou, 46 Wis. 677, 6.,0 ; p^st, J 412. 
 
 3 Matthews v. Murchlson, 17 Fed. Rep. 760, 766 ; Powell, 08 P-^. 
 St. 403, 413. See ou this ))oi-.!t, Scliwartz r. Saunders, 46 111. I'l, 24 ; 
 Spafiford V. Warrea, 47 Iowa, 47, &1 ; Prestoa v. Evaus, 50 Md. 476,
 
 2 410 ESTOPPELS. 59S 
 
 401 ; Dann v. Cudnev, 13 Mich. 239, 242, 2-13 ; P.odino v. Killeen, &3 
 N. V. 93, 9fi : Xash v. Mitchell, 71 X. Y. 199, 200 : 27 Am. Rep. 3>< ; 
 Towles V. FLsher, 77 >'. C. 437, 443 ; Innis v. Templeton, 9.5 Pa. St. oi, 
 60 ; Mason r. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193, 195 ; snpra, n. 2 ; infra, ii. 4 ; post, 
 a 414-417. 
 
 4 Oglesby v. Pasco, 73 III. 164, 169. On this point, see Jones 
 V. Keaney, 1 Dru. & War. 134, 167; Vaughan r. Vandorstegen, 2 
 Drew. 363, .379; Wright v. Leonard, 8 Jur. X. S. 415; Cannam v. 
 Farmer, 3 Ex. 698 ; Adeiphl v. Fairhurst. 9 E.x. 422, 421 ; Lush, Law 
 R. 4 Ch. App. 591,597; Matthews r. Murchison, 17 Fed. Rep. 760, 
 766 ; Mover v. Adams, 2 Fed. Rep. 182, 1S7 ; Bank v. Lee, 13 
 Peters, 107, 118, 121 ; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. as2, 392 ; Reis v. 
 Lawrence, 63 CaL 129, 1.^5; Lathrop v. Soldiers, 45 Ga. 483, 486 ; Pat- 
 terson V. Lawrence, 90 111. 174, 179 ; 32 Am. Rep. 22 ; Leeders v. Allen, 
 98 111. 468. 471 ; Hackett r. Bailey, 86 III. 74, 77; Anderson r. Armi- 
 stead. 69 111. 452, 4.>5; Schwartz ?'.-6aunders, 46 111. 18,24; M'ilson f. 
 Loomis, 55 III. 352, 3.57 ; Catherwood v. Watson, 65 Ind. .576, .580 ; Sum- 
 mers V. Hoover, 42 Ind. 1-53, 1.57; Peck v. Henslev, 21 Ind. .^44,345; 
 Law r. Long, 41 Ind. 586, .506; Gatting v. Rodman, 6 Ind. 289, 293; 
 State V. Holloway, 8 Blackf. 4.5, 47 ; Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, .^32, 341 ; 
 C'rouse v. Morse, 49 Iowa, 382, a86; Corning v. FowK'r, 24 Iowa, 584, 
 587 ; Connollv v. Branstler, 3 Bush, 702, 703 ; Rusk v. Fonton, 14 Bush, 
 490, 493 ; Davis v. Tingle, 8 Mon. B. 539, .S13 ; Mcintosh v. Smith, 2 La. 
 An. 756. 757; Bancroft v. Curtis, 108 Mass. 47; Lowell r. Daniels, 2 
 Gray. 161 ; Dann v. Cudnev, 13 Mich. 239, 241 ; Palmer r. Cross, 1 
 Smedes & M. 48, 68; Murfav r. Fox, 11 Mo. 5.5.5, .565; McBeth v. 
 Trabne, 69 Mo. 652,6-57; Read v. Hall, 57 X. H. 482, 481; Besson v. 
 Eveland, 26 X. J. Eq. 468, 478 ; Carpenter, 27 X. J. Eq. 502, .504 ; 25 
 X. J. Eq. I'i4, 201 ; Svracuse v. Wing, 85 X. Y. 421, 426 ; Bradstreet v. 
 Pratt, 17 Wend. 44, 46 ; Ludner v. Sahler, 51 Barb. 322, 324 ; Dempsey 
 V. Tvler, 3 Duer, 7^ 100 ; Wilson )•. Fuller, fiO How. Pr. 4S0. 481 ; 
 Towles V. Fisher, 77 X. C. 437, 443 ; Todd r. Pittsburgh, 19 Ohio St. 
 614, .5i5, 526 ; Earlv v Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. .5.8, 60 ; Keen v. Hartman, 48 Pa, 
 St. 497, 499; Mcfulloush v. Wilson, 21 Pa. St. 436, 442 ; McClure v. 
 Douthitt, 6 Pa. St. 4!4, 417 ; Mason v. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193, 195 ; Wilkes 
 r. Kirkpatri'^k. 1 Humph. 54, M; Coolev t-. Steele, 2 Head, 605, 608; 
 Smith V. Armstrong, 24 Wis. 446, 4.50 ; post, U 416-418. 
 
 5 Wood V. Terry, 30 Ark. 389, 303 ; Glidden v. Strupler, 52 Pa. Sf 
 400, 404, 405. Estopped by acts and declarations in all matters in 
 respect to which she is sui juris: Xash v. Mitchell, 71 X. Y. 199, 200 ; 
 27 Am. Rep. 3.8. But see infra, n. 13. 
 
 6 Griflath V. Clarke, 18 ild. 4.57, 464. There are cases cmitra, see 
 post, I 411. 
 
 7 Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 111. 164, 170 ; Rumfeldt v. Clemens, 46 Pa. 
 St. 455, 457. See post, i 412. 
 
 8 Flanagin v. Hambleton, rA Md. 222, 232. 
 
 9 McBeth r. Trabne, 69 Mo. 612, 657 ; post, J 417. 
 
 10 Early v. Rolfe, ft5 Pa. St. 5.8, 60, 61 ; post, ?? 417, 419. 
 
 11 Wilson r. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 4«0, 481 ; Keen r. Coleman, 39 Pa. 
 St. 299, 302. There are cases contra, see ijost, U 416, 418. 
 
 12 Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 111. 164, 169 ; post, U 416-118. 
 
 13 See Matthews r. Murchison, 17 Fed. Rep. 760, 766 ; Reis v. Law- 
 rence, 63 Cal. 129, 135 ; Patterson v. Lawence, EO 111. 174, 179 ; 32 Am. 
 Rep. 22; Xorton i'. Xichols, 35 Mich. 148, 1.50; Richardson v. Sim- 
 mons, 47 Mo. 20, 27 ; O'Brien v. Hilburn, 9 Tex. 297, 299 ; Godfrey v. 
 Thornton, 46 Wis. 677, 690.
 
 599 ESTOPPELS. I 411 
 
 I 411. Estoppels by record against married women.. — As 
 a general rule, a judgment is binding only on the 
 parties to trie suit, and on them only if they are compe- 
 tent.^ A judgment on a contract is in the nature of a 
 contract ; it is a specialty and creates a debt ; and to 
 have that effect, it must be taken against one callable of 
 contracting a debt.' A judgment, accordingly, against 
 a married Avoman, on her void contract,^ or warrant of 
 attorney,* or by confession when she cannot contract,* 
 is void and does not estop her. Such a judgment 
 against a married woman under disability is a manifest 
 error, like a judgment against a dead person.^ The 
 principle tliat a party is estopped from alleging, in 
 order to impeach a judgment collatoralh', Avhat he 
 alleged or might have alleged as a ground for defense 
 in the suit, does not apply to a c^ise where the defendant 
 was a married woman under disability.^ But this has 
 been expressly denied,^ and it has been hold that a 
 judgment against a married woman, if fairly obtained, 
 is binding on her,® and that she is estopped thereby 
 from setting up in a collateral suit that she was afcmme 
 covert, whether she had alleged this defense," or had 
 allowed the suit to go by default." In cases where she 
 is sued on a valid cause of action, slie is esto^jped by 
 the judgment as any other person is.^- And where she 
 is liable Vvitli her husband, as on her antenuptial con- 
 tracts,^^ and on her torts,'* she is bound thereby,'" 
 although her husband, having full power to manage the 
 suit, has neglected it,** unless he has colluded with 
 the plaintitr," and her property may be seized under 
 such a judgment if entered generally against them 
 both.'8 If her land bo seized under a void judgment, 
 she is not estopped from recovering it in ejectment.'* 
 
 1 Eigelow Estoppel, pp. -46-18. 
 
 2 Morse v. Toppau, 3 Gray,4U ; Barnes v. Burbridge, 15 La, An. 628.
 
 I 412 ESTOPPELS. 600 
 
 3 Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457, 4ft4. See Doyle v. Kelly, 75 111. 574 ; 
 Morse v. Toppan, 3 Grav, 411, 412 ; Ma^ruder v. Buck, 56 Miss. 314, 315 ; 
 Corrigan v. Bell, 73 Mo."53, 57 ; ante, U •'5*«. "HO. 
 
 4 Faithorne v. Blaqnire, 6 Maule & S. 73; Graham v. Long, 65 
 Pa. St, 383, 336 ; ante, §? 406, 410. 
 
 5 Barnes r. Burbridge, 15 La. An. 6-2S, 629. 
 
 6 Spalding r. M'athen. 7 Bush, RiO, 663 ; Case v. Ribelin, 1 Marsh. 
 J. J. 2y, 30. 
 
 7 Griffith r. Clarke, IS Md. 457, 464. 
 
 8 Elson V. O'Dowd, 40 Ind. 300, 306 ; Van Meter v. Wolfe, 27 Iowa, 
 341, .^4. 
 
 9 Gambetta v. Bro'-h, 41 CaL 7», 82, 83 ; Elson r. O'Dowd, 40 Ind. 
 sno, .306 ; Goothrie r. Howard, 82 Iowa, 54, 55; Van Meter v. Wolfe, 
 27 Iowa, ail, :W4 : 23 Iowa, 397, 404 ; 19 Iowa, 136. See under special 
 act in Penn., Hartman r. Ogborn, 54 Pa, St, 120, 123. 
 
 10 Gambetta ?'. Broch, 41 Cal. 7J>, 83. 
 
 11 Elson v. O'Dowd, 40 Ind. 300, 306. 
 
 12 Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. 666, 673 ; Baxter v. Dear, 24 Tex. 17, 21 ; 
 ante, t 410. 
 
 13 Discussed aii/e, ? J 67, 305. 
 
 14 Discussed onf«, ? 66; ;>o.>!t, ? 418. 
 
 15 Green r. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 504. 
 
 IS Green r. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 5W ; post, ? 461. 
 
 17 Green r. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, .504 ; post, § 461. 
 
 IS Howard r. Xorth, 5 Tex. 290, 299 ; 51 Am. Dec. 760. 
 
 19 Caldwell r. Walters, IS Pa. St. 70, S3 ; 55 Am. Dec. 592. 
 
 g 412. Estoppels oy deed against married women. — A 
 married woman is not estopped by her invalid deed.^ 
 8he may, for example, recover the property conveyed 
 thereby in ejectment, thougli she has received the pur- 
 chase money.* But where the said purchase money 
 does not vest in the husband, as at common law,^ but 
 becomes separate property of the wife, the courts have 
 revolted again.st this rule as most unjust, and have 
 either held lier bound to restore the said money,* or 
 have charged the same on the property as a debt.' If 
 she could be estopped by her invalid deed, she would 
 be able to convey her property ■\^-ithout reference to 
 the statutes relating to conveyances of married women,* 
 and the said statutes would be in effect repealed.' She 
 is not estopped by her seal from showing that the deed
 
 601 ESTOPPELS. I 412 
 
 was made ■without the consideration required by law,^ 
 or from showing that the deed is void because exe- 
 cuted in blanlc* But she is estopped, it seems, from 
 saying tliat slie did not sign a deed which she has duly 
 acknowledged, 1" or that she did not read'^ or under- 
 stand '- it, or did not intend to deliver it when she left 
 it in the hands of her husband and he delivered it.^* 
 Hy hel" deed, voidable on account of infancy, but rati- 
 fied by receipt of the purchase money during covert- 
 ure, she is estopped,'' and so she is by her deed, valid 
 because made after her husband had ijermanently left 
 her and the State ; '^ and Avhen she has validly assigned 
 a mortgage to her husband in blanl?, she is estopped 
 from denying his right to pledge it.'^ But her valid 
 deed estops her only from denying it to be a convey- 
 ance;" she is not, unless she can contract indei^end- 
 ently, estojjped by her covenants therein,'* and may 
 set up an after-acquu-ed title.'^ The effect of her deeds 
 of dower,^* and her right to impeach her deeds,^' have 
 already been discussed. 
 
 1 Alexander v. Saulsburv, CT Ala. 3T5, 378 ; M'ood v. Terrv, 30 
 Ark. aS-i, »Xi ; Morrison r. Wilson, 13 Cal. 4't8, 501 ; Oglesbv ". Pasco, 
 79 III. 164, 170; Behlcr i: Wtyburn, 59 lad. 143, 145; Pattenson v. 
 Frazer, 5 La. An. .>S6, 587; LowcU v. Daniels, 2 Grav, IGl ; Green v. 
 Branton, 1 Lev. Eq. 50C, 503; Lukes v. Spangler, 35 Ohio St. 119, 127 ; 
 Todd ■». Pittsburgh, 19 Ohio St. 514, 526; Glidden r. Strupler, 52 Pa. 
 St. 400, 406 ; Rumfi'ldt r. Clemens, 46 Pa. St. 445, 4.57 ; Pettit v. Fretz, 
 33 Pa. St. 118, 120 ; McLaurin v. Wilson, 16 S. C. 402, 410 ; Wilkes v. 
 Kirkpatrick, 1 Humph. .54, 5S. Contra, Xorton r. Nichols, 35 Mich. 
 148, 150 ; Godfrey v. Thornton, 46 Wis. 677, 6J0. See ante, U 402-405 ; 
 post, { 415. 
 
 2 Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 111. 164, 169 ; Glidden v. Strupler, 52 Pa. St. 
 400, 406 ; supra, n. 1. 
 
 3 As in Rumfeldt i'. Clemens, 46 Pa. St. 417, 418. 
 
 4 Pitcher v. Smith, 2 Head, 208, 211 ; ante, I 404. 
 
 5 Shroyer v. Xickell, 55 Mo. 264, 26^ ; ante, i 404. See 8 Am. La\y • 
 Eev. N. S. 299, 300 ; article by s. D. Thompson. 
 
 6 Discussed ante, U 395, 400, 401. 
 
 7 Glidden v. Strupler, 52 Pa. St. 4(0, 403. See Morrison v. "Wilson, 
 13 Cal. 408. 501 ; Behler ?•. Wevburn, 5') Ind. 143, 145 ; Todd v. PitU- 
 burgh, 19 Ohio St. 514, 526 ; Pettit v. Fretz, 33 Pa. St. 118, 120. 
 
 8 Radford v. Carwile 13 W. Va. 573, 68.3. 
 
 H. & W. — 51.
 
 g 413 ESTOPPKLS. 002 
 
 9 Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 33. 
 
 10 Kerr v. Russell, 69 III. 666, 673 ; 13 Am. Rep. 634 ; ante, i JOO. 
 
 11 Comegys v. Clarke, 44 Md. 108, 110, 111 ; Fowler v. Trull, 1 Hun, 
 40J, 4U. 
 
 12 Walter v. Weaver, 57 Tex. 560, 671. 
 
 13 Ackert v. Pultz, 7 Barb. 338, 333 ; Etildwin r. Snowaeii, U Ohio 
 St. 203, 2V,i. 
 
 14 Scranton xk Stewart, 52 Ind. 6S, D4. 
 
 15 Reis V. Lawrence, 63 C\al. 129, 135 ; Daiiner v. Berthold, 11 Mo 
 App. 351, 365 ; Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155, IGl, 162 ; ante, 
 J 394. 
 
 16 Flanagin v. Hambleton, 54 Md. 222, 232. 
 
 17 Preston v. Evans, 53 Md. 476, 491. 
 
 18 Blain v. Harrison, 11 111. 384, 386 ; Shumaker v. Johnson, 35 Ind, 
 33, as ; Preston v. Evans, 5fi Md. 476, 491 ; Merriam v. Boston, 117 Mass, 
 241, 244 ; Nash v. Spofford, 10 Met. 192 ; Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. I,. 
 525, 641 ; Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill, 554, 557 ; Jackson v. Vanderhey- 
 den, 17 Johns. 167 ; 8 Am. Dec. 378 ; Bartlett v. Boyd, 34 Vt. 256, 2G1 : 
 ante, i 384. 
 
 19 Blain v. Harrison, 11 III. 384, 386 ; Shumaker v. Johnson, 35 Ind, 
 33, 38 ; Nash v. Spofford, 10 Met, 192 
 
 20 Ante, 1272. 
 
 21 Ante, i 405. 
 
 § 413. Estoppels in pais defined. — An estoppel m pais is 
 one which is not created by record or by deed, but which 
 results from a siini^lo contract or tort ; tlie par:y who i.^ 
 estopped by an estoppel in pais is prevented from 
 bringing evidence to conti'adict certain representations 
 that he lias made by word or conduct ; and these 
 representations may be in the nature of a warranty and 
 contract/ or in the nature of a fraud and tort,^ One is 
 not estopped from denying all his representations, bui 
 only tliose made under certain circumstances. The rule 
 has been laid down as follows : To establish an estoppel 
 in pais, it must be sliown : First, that the person sought 
 to be estopped has made an admission or done an act 
 with the intention of influencing the conduct of another, 
 or that he had reason to supijose would influence his 
 conduct, inconsistent with the evidence lie proposes to 
 give, or the title he propo.ses to set up. Second, that 
 the other party has acted upon or been influenced by
 
 603 KSTOPPKLS. 2? 414-415 
 
 such act or declaration. Third, tluit sucli party will be 
 l^rejudiced by allowing the trutli of tlie admission to 
 be disproved.' 
 
 1 SeeCurdi'. Dodds, GBush, 681, 685; po4<, SHl-l-113- 
 
 2 See Oglesby v. Pasco, 73 111. 164, IGO, 170 ; post, U 416-4;s. 
 
 3 Crouse v. Morso, 40 Iowa, 382, 337, 3S8 ; Brown, 35 N. Y. 510, 541. 
 
 § 414. Estoppels in pais against married women — General 
 mlo. — lleferring to section 413, a married woman may 
 be estopi^ed in pais by a declaration in the nature of a 
 contract or warranty, or in the nature of a fraudulent 
 representation or tort, and she is estopped in one case 
 or the otlier only when slie can render herself liable by 
 such a contract ^ or tort.^ But the usual requirements 
 to an estoppel in general^ apply to estoppels against 
 married women, and a married woman is not estopped 
 unless her representation has been relied on,* and unless 
 the other party would be injured by her denying it.^ 
 
 1 Powell, 98 Pa. St. 403, 413 ; ante, § 410, n. 3 ; post, J 415. 
 
 2 Oslesby v. Pasco, 7'J III. 104, 169 ; ante, ? 410, n. 4 ; i»)st, ? 418 
 
 3 Crouso V. Morso, 4S Iowa, 382, 387, 383 ; ante, I 413. 
 
 4 Carpenter, 27 N. J. Eq. 502, 504. 
 
 5 McGregor v. Siblej', 69 Pa. St. 388, 3^4. 
 
 § 415. Estoppel in pais — By contract. — A married 
 woman's liability to be estojjped by her contracts is 
 coterminous with her capacity to contract ; ^ if the con- 
 tract is valid it estops her ; if it is invalid it does not.'' 
 The contract may be either express or implied, but a 
 contract which she could not expressly make will 
 never be implied against a married woman.^ How far 
 she is cstojiped by her deeds has been discus.sed.'' Not 
 only does tlie deed itself, if invalid, not estop her,* but 
 her acceptance of the purchase money,® and her recog- 
 nition of the grantee's title,' does not estop her, for such 
 conduct could worlc an estoppel only on the ground of 
 implied contract (the existence of an actual intent to de-
 
 § 415 ESTOPPELS. G04 
 
 fraud not being considered hero ^), and the law woilld not 
 imply a contract whero she had no capacity to contract, 
 and her deed was therefore void.' But her assent or 
 contract will be implied when she could expressly con- 
 tractji" as where she sells a horse which is her separate 
 property, and allows the money to be paid to her 
 husband ; in sucli case slie cannot afterwards deny his 
 authority to receive it.'i When she can contract as if 
 unmarried, she can be estopped as if solc.i- Whatever 
 she can do herself can estoj) her if done by her 
 husband with her consent, his agency for her being 
 implied.'^ This is the case when she holds him out as 
 her agent in her separate business.^^ She is estopped 
 by her contract binding on her equitable separate prop- 
 erty ; 1^ when she assents to the sale of her clioses in 
 action, she is estojiped from ai^plying for her equity of 
 redemption out of them ; ^® in equity as to this property 
 she is generally a/emme sole, and is estojjped as such.^^ 
 If slie can contract, slie can be estopi^ed from denying a 
 party's title to property which she has allowed him to 
 improve under claim of title through her;'* if she 
 cannot, she is not bound even for improvements put 
 upon her own property with her consent.^' j^ji ^p. 
 parent exception to the rule laid down in this section 
 is the case where the j^roperty of a married woman is 
 sold under void judicial proceedings ; in such case, if 
 she has received the purchase money, she is estopped 
 f i"om setting up her title.^" There is a case in which a 
 married woman was held estopped from claiming her 
 dower by her mere statement made during coverture, 
 at the sale of her husband's land, that she would not 
 claim dower."' 
 
 1 Banner v. Beithold, 11 Mo. App. 351, 358 ; Powell, 98 Pa. St. 
 403, 413 ; ante, i 410. 
 
 2 Nash V. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 199, 200 ; 27 Am. Kep. 38 ; Marable V. 
 Jordan, 5 Humph. 417, 418 ; 42 Am. I>ec. 441 ; ante, i 410.
 
 605 ESTOPPEiiS. § 416 
 
 3 Tucker v. Coelce, n2 jriss. 184, 100 ; Farrr.r v Eessoy, 2 1 Vt. 80, 92 ; 
 ante, I :«1. 
 
 4 Ante, 5 4:2. 
 
 5 Todd V. Pitts'ourgh, 19 Ohio St. 514, IZi ; ante, { 4:i 
 
 6 Oglesbv r. Pasco, 79 III. Ifi4, IGO. S. P., Aloxjindor v. Saulsburv, 
 37 Ala. 375, 378; Green !•. Braiiton, 1 Dev. Eq. 5110, 50.!; Rumfeldt ?'. 
 Clemens, 4fi Pa. St. 455, 457; Pettit v. Fretz, 33 Pa. St. 118, 120; 
 Glidden v. Struplcr, 52 Pa. St. 400, 403, 406 ; McLaurin v. Wilson, 16 
 S. C. 402, 4 10. Compare i^ost, I 420. 
 
 7 Glidden v. Struplcr, 52 Pa. St. 400, 404. 
 
 8 Seepos?, JH'C, 41S. 
 
 9 See cases siipra, notes 3-6. 
 
 10 Spafford v. Warron, ■^7 Iowa, 47, 51 ; wife, § 3S1. 
 
 11 Dan:i v. Cudney, 13 Mich. 239, 242, 243 ; post, U 417, 419. 
 
 12 Nash V. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 19", 200 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38. 
 
 13 Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 i:i. IS, 24; Earlv v. Rolfo, !:5 Pa. St. 
 5S, GO ; ante, ?? 84, 88 ; post, ? 419. 
 
 14 Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 93, 96. 
 
 15 See Drake r. Glover, 30 Ala. 382, .":0 ; V.'ood r. Terry, 30 Ark. 
 389, 393 ; Schwartz r. Saunders, 46 III. 18, 24 ; Dann v. Cudney, 13 
 Mich. 2:'n, 242; Glidden v. Struplcr, 52 Pa. St. 4C0, 400; O'Brien v. 
 Hilburn, Tex. 297, 299. 
 
 16 Lush, Law R. 4 Ch. App. 591, 602 : Wright v. Arnold, 14 Mon. B. 
 638,642. 
 
 17 See an</?, ? 203. 
 
 18 Spafford v. Warren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51. 
 
 19 Corning v. Fowler, 24 Iowa, 534,537; mite, ? 131. 
 
 20 Shivers v. Simmons, 54 Miss. 523; 23 Am. Rep. 372; Snaith v. 
 Warden, i:i Pa. St. 424, 430; Mccullough r. Wilson, 21 Pa. St. 436; 
 Freeman Void Judic. Sales, § 4S ; 8 Am. Law Rev. N. S. 298, 299. 
 
 21 Connolly !•. Branstler, 3 Bush, 702, 703. But see ante '2 270, 276. 
 
 § 416. Estoppels in pais against married women — 
 False representations. — The false rei:iro.scntation.s of a 
 party sui juris may afifect his rights and obligBtions 
 either as a contract or as a tort.^ When one repre.sents 
 that the property he sells is his own, he warrants the 
 title, and if liis representation is false he is liable for 
 breach of contract, and is estopi^ed from .setting np a bet- 
 ter title subsequently acquired.^ Aceompanyinjj such 
 a warranty there may or thero may not bo a knowledge 
 of the falsity of the .statement and an actual intention 
 to deceive. If a representation is made with Vaq inten- 
 tion of deceiving another, and such other is deceived >
 
 § 416 ESTOPPKLS. 606 
 
 and acts on the representation, not only may he sue the 
 maker thereof for any damage that results, but such 
 maker cannot set tip the falsity of the representation to 
 the other party's damage — he is estopped from alleging 
 his own frand.3 In the case of a party under the dis- 
 ability of coverture — a party who at common law is 
 liable for her torts* but not on her contracts-' — it is 
 necessary to determine whether the representation is in 
 the nature of a contract or tort. If there is no guilty 
 knowledge or fraudulent intent, but the representation 
 is a mere agreement or promise that a certain fact is 
 true, and the other party, by acting on this promise to 
 his damage, has paid a consideration therefor, the 
 representation can bind the wife only as a contract, and 
 estop her only if she had the cajiacity to make such a 
 contract; 6 thus, the covenant of a married woman in 
 her deed, that the title is good, is not binding on her if 
 she has no capacity to contract, and she is not estopped 
 thereby from setting up a subsequent title.' If, on the 
 other hand, there is guilty knowledge or fraudulent 
 intent, her representation isa fraud, and she is estopped 
 from denying its truth ; * thus, where in order to defraud 
 her husband's creditors she represented that property 
 of hers belonged to him, she was estopped from after- 
 wards, as against these creditors, setting up her own 
 title.8 •But if the false representation relates to her 
 capacity to contract, whether made in good faith or 
 w'ith fraudulent intent, she is not estopped thereby ;^o 
 she cannot by her statements give herself a capacity 
 she does not possess" — a rule Avhich applies equally to 
 parties under the disability of infancy ;^^ thus, she is 
 not estopped by her representations that she is un- 
 married,^^ or that she has separate property which she 
 can charge," from setting up her coverture when sued 
 on the contract, or from showing that she had no
 
 607 ESTOPPELS. ? 417 
 
 separate property to charge. This, however, as far as 
 ]t applies to statements made with the intention to 
 deceive, has been denied in California, Illinois, and 
 New Hami^shire.'^ The representation by a, femme sole 
 that she is married is very different ; she is sui jiiris, 
 and is estopjjed from denying coverture.'^ These 
 representations may be made by conduct as well as by 
 words, and the intent to deceive may be inferred ; so 
 that questions not discussed in this section may arise, 
 and must be separately treated.*' 
 
 1 See Oerlesby v. Pasco, 79 III. l&l, 169 ; Curd v. DoiUls, C Bush, 
 681, ftS5 ; ante, U ■ilO, 413. 
 
 2 See Blain v. Harrison. 11 111. 384, 386 ; ante, § 412. 
 
 3 Hamilton i'. Zimmerman, 5 Sneed, 39, 49 ; ante, I 414. 
 
 4 VaugUan v. Vauderstegen, 2 Drew. 363, 379 ; ante, § 66 ; post, U 418. 
 
 5 >"orris v. Lantz, 18 Md. 260, 263 ; ante, U 355-393. 
 
 6 Discussed ante, '( 415. 
 
 7 Preston v. Evans, 55 Md. 476, 491 ; ante, U 3-84, 412. 
 
 8 Discussed pos?, ? 418. 
 
 9 Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 111. 161, 169, 170 ; post, § 418. 
 
 10 Keen i'. Hartman, 48 Pa. St. 497,499. S. P., Liverpool v. Fair- 
 hurst, 9 Kx. 422, 429 ; Caunam v. Farmer, 3 Ex. 698 ; Wright i'. 
 Leonard, 11 Com. B. N. S. 258 ; Oglesbv v. Pasco. 79 111. IW, 171 ; 
 Lowell V. Daniels, 2 Gray, 161 ; Dempsev v. Tvler, 3 Diier, 7:'., 100; 
 Wilson V. Fuller, 160 How. Pr. 480, 481 ; Keen v. Coleman, .■?9 Pa. St. 
 299, 302 ; Glidden v. Simpler, 52 Pa. St. 400, 406 ; Mason v. Jordan, 
 13 B. I. 193, 195. 
 
 11 Wilson V. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 480, 481 ; supra, n. 10. 
 
 12 Brown v. Durham, 1 Boot, 272 ; Conroe r. Birdsall, 1 Johns. Cas- 
 127 ; 1 Am. Dec. 105 ; Keeni'. Hartman, 48 Pa. St. 497. 499 ; Houston v 
 Turk, 7 Yerg. 13. 
 
 13 Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. St. 299, 302 ; supra, n. 10. 
 
 14 Patterson v. Frazer, 5 La. An. 586, 587 ; Erwin v. McCalop, 5 
 La. An. 173. 
 
 15 Bels V. Lawrence, 63 Cal. 129, 1.35 ; Patterson v. Lawrence, 
 90 111. 174, 179 ; 32 Am. Rep, 22 ; Bead v. Hall, 57 JS. H. 482, 483. 
 
 16 Mace v. Cadell, Cowp. 232 ; Batthews v. Galindo, 1 Moore & P. 
 565 ; Langford v. Foot, 2 Moore & S. 349. 
 
 17 Post, ii 4V-419. 
 
 § 417. Estoppels in pais against married women — Si- 
 lence, acquiescence. — Since such estoppels as arise out of 
 a failure to assert a right, or out of silence and acqui- 
 Bscence in the rights claimed by others, arise only
 
 g 417 ESTOPPELS. 608 
 
 because front such silence and acquiescence a repre- 
 sentation is implied/ it is clear that a married -woman 
 can be bound by her silence and acquiescence only in 
 cases when she would have bound had she expressly 
 made the statement which is implied. ^ Thus, when a 
 married woman makes an invalid deed she is not 
 estopi)ed, by afterwards recognizing its A'alidity and 
 allowing the grantee to improve the property, from 
 asserting her title, for she would not be estopped from 
 by expressly telling the grantee that she would never 
 claim any title thereto ;' but if she could contract as a 
 femme sole, and allowed her grantee to improve prop- 
 erty on the faith of a title given him by her, she could 
 not deny the validity of that title.* Nor, if she can 
 grant a right of way only in the mode prescribed by 
 statute, can she estop herself from closing up a way by 
 allowing it to be used Avithout complaint.^ When a 
 party not her husband, in her presence, makes a claim 
 of right inconsistent with her rights, and she allows 
 another to act upon such claim of right without setting 
 up her rights, she is or is not estopped from afterwards 
 setting up her rights, just as she would have been had 
 she expressly said that she had no rights.* Thus, 
 when another claims the right to collect money due to 
 her, and such money is jiaid to him in her presence, 
 she is estopped from denying his right to receive it:' 
 she has by her conduct made him her agent.^ In some 
 cases silence can speak as loudlj^ as words, and when 
 it appears that a married woman Avas silent with 
 respect to a matter not conneetetl with her contract, 
 knowing her rights, and that her silence was relied on 
 as a disclaimer of right in herself, and an assertion of 
 right in another, her intention to deceive must be im- 
 plied, and she is bound by her tort just as she Avould 
 have been had she expressly asserted that the title was^
 
 609 ESTOPPELS. § 418 
 
 in such other person.^ The usual case in whicli these 
 questions arise is wliere the wife is silent while her 
 husband asserts rights inconsistent with her own.^" 
 
 1 See Crouse v. Morse, 49 Iowa, 382, 3S.~, 388 ; Brown, 35 X. Y. 519, 
 541 ; Hamilton i\ Zimmerman, 5 Sneed, 39, 48. 
 
 2 See Marable v. Jordan, 5 Humph. 417, 418; 42 Am. Dec. 441; 
 I'arrar v. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89, 92 ; ante, i 415. 
 
 3 Glidden v. Strupler, 52 Pa. St. 400, 404. 
 
 4 Spafford v. AVarren, 47 Iowa, 47, 51. 
 
 5 McBeth v. Trabne, 69 Mo. 642, 657 ; Todd v. Pittsburgh, 19 Ohio 
 St. 514, 625, 526. 
 
 6 See Savage v. Foster, 9 Mod. 35, 37 ; Lush, Law R. 4 Ch. App. 591 ; 
 Bank v. Lee, 13 Peters, 107, 118, 121 ; Mover v. Adams, 2 Fed. Rep. 
 182,187; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382, 3H0"; Seeders v. Allen, 98 111. 
 468, 471 ; Hackett v. Bailey, 86 111. 74. 77 ; Schwartz !\ Saunders, 4611!. 
 18,24; Anderson r. .\rmistead, 69 111. 452, 455; Wilson v. Loomis, 55 
 111. 3o2, 3.57 ; Peck v. Hensley , 21 Ind. 344, 345 ; Catherwood v. Watson. 
 65 Ind. 576, 580; Gatlinif v. Rodman, 6 Ind. 289,293; Stater. Hollo- 
 wav, 8 Blackf. 45, 47 ; ('orning v. Fowler, 24 Iowa, 5S4, 587; Crouse 
 V. Morse, 49 Iowa, 3^2, 3sS ; Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 3.32, 341 ; Wright 
 V. Arnold, 14 Mon. B. 6:J8, 642 ; Davis v. Tighe, 8 Mon. B. 539, 543 ; 
 Kangely v. Spring, 21 Jle. 130, loS ; Dann v. Cudnev, 13 Mich. 239, 241; 
 McBeth V. Trabne, 69 Mo. 642, 657 ; Carpenter, 27 N. J. Eq. 502, .504 ; 25 
 ?I. J. Eq. 194, 201 ; Bradstreet v. Pratt, 17 Wend. 44, 46 r Todd r. Pitts- 
 burgh, 19 Ohio St. 514, 525 ; Earlv v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. 58, 60 ; McClure v. 
 Doutbitt, 6 Pa. St. 414, 417 ; Smith r. Armstrong, 24 Wis. 446, 450. 
 
 7 Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. 58, 60, 61. 
 
 8 Dann v. Cudnev, 13 Mich. 239, 244 ; Ludner r. Lahler, 51 Barb 
 322, 324 ; City v. Raven, 5 McCord, 46-5, 469 ; ante, U 84, 86. 
 
 9 Oglesbv r. Pasco, 79 III. 164, 169 ; Davis v. Tingle, 8 Mon. B. 539. 
 543 ; 2)"st, U J18, 419. 
 
 10 Discussed 7Jo«^ ? 419. 
 
 § 418. Estoppels in pais against married women — Pure 
 torts. — Coverture cannot be invoked as a cloalc for 
 wrong doing,! ^nd so, even at common law, a married 
 woman is liable jointly with her husband for hor torts.- 
 But as lier contracts were voi<I, and as tlie law couid 
 not allow her by her mere statements to give herself 
 capacity, it was held that she v,-as not liable for torts 
 consisting of false and fraudulent representations tliat 
 she was unmarried and could contract, but only for 
 pure torts.3 Since an estoppel arising out of tort is 
 founded on the person's liability'' for the tort,* it has been 
 held, generally, that married women are not estopped
 
 ^ 419 KSTOPPELS. GIO 
 
 by their false and fraudulent representations that tliey 
 are unmarried, or have property which they can charge 
 by contract ; tlaougli tlie contrary rule prevails in Cali- 
 fornia, Illinois, and New Hampshire.' But she is es- 
 topped by any tort unconnected with her contract,^ 
 and by her tort connected therewith if tlie contract is 
 validJ A representation that certain property of liers 
 is her husband's, made for the purpose of deceiving 
 builders, is a pure tort, and estops her ; ^ and so are 
 any false and fraudulent representations of tliis kind." 
 She is estopped by a statement tliat a bill of exchange 
 has been accepted by her husband, wliich statement 
 led to the discount of the bill,io and by statements made 
 under oath.^^ 
 
 1 Rusk V. Feiiton, 14 Bush, 490, 493 ; 29 Am. Rep. 41^.. 
 
 2 Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 363, 373 ; ante, J 03 ; }>ost, 
 U 421-426. 
 
 3 Adelphi i\ Fairhurst, 9 Ex. 422,429 ; Owens v. S!iodgrass,6 Duua, 
 229, 230 ; Keen v. Hartman, 4i Pa. St. 497, 4J9 ; ante, I 410. 
 
 1 Ante, 11 410, 4\4. 
 
 5 Cases cited ante, l 416. 
 
 6 Wright V. Leonard, 8 Jur. N. S. 415, 41G" Jones v. Kearney, 1 
 Dru. & War. i:i4, 167 ; Lush. Law R. 4 Ch. App. 5j1, 597; Matthews v. 
 ilurchison. 17 Fed. Rep. 760, 766 ; Oglesbv v. Pasco, 79 111. 164, 169 ; 
 Davis V. Tingle, 8 Men. B. MU, i>43 ; Carpenter, 2.-) N. J. Eq. 194, 201 ; 
 Fowles !'. Fisher, 77 X. C. 437, 443, 444 ; McCullough v. Wilson, 21 Pa, 
 St. 436, 442 ; Mason v. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193, 195. 
 
 7 See Lathrop v. Soldiers, 45 Ga. 433, 486. 
 
 8 Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 III. 164, 160 • O'Brien v. Hilbuni, 9 Tex. 297. 
 299. 
 
 9 See cases cited supra, n. 6 ; ante, i 417, n. 6. 
 
 10 Wright V. Leonard, 8 Jur. X. S. 415, 416 (divided court). 
 
 11 Lathrop v. Soldiers, 45 Ga» 483, 486 ; Cooley v. Steele, 2 Head, 
 605,608. 
 
 2 419. Effact of acts of husband as estoppels against 
 wife. — In considering the etlect of a liusband's acts 
 and representations as estoppels against his wife, it 
 must be remembered : (1) That at common law the 
 wife was under the control of her liusband,and subject 
 tohiswiU;! (2} that the husband is in somo respects
 
 611 ESTOPPELS. 2 419 
 
 the agent in law of his wife ; ^ and (3) tliat the iiusband 
 is very commonly the wife's agent in fact.' In the first 
 place, owing to this fiction of coercion, she is prima 
 facie not bound by any statement made by her husband 
 in her presence;^ it is presumed that she is silent 
 througli fear, and tlirougli deference to her husband as 
 her husband ; ^ and it must affirmatively apj^ear that 
 she was actuated by otlier motives — that is to say, tliat 
 she intended to deceive/ or tiiat she voluntarily made 
 her liusband her agent and mouthpiece ; ' tlie question 
 of motive, it seems, being a question of fact for the 
 jury .8 Since a married woman is liable for a tort com- 
 mitted in lier husband's presence only if lier active 
 jjarticipation therein is affirmatively made to appear,' 
 it is clear tliat slie sliould not be bound by his fraud 
 simply on account of lier non-interference.^" In the 
 second place, leaving out of consideration the question 
 of coercion, she is estopped by her husband's acts only 
 ■when he is her agent in law or in fact.'^ As to her 
 personalty, if slie stands by and allows her husband to 
 sell it, and the purchaser relies on lier silence, she is 
 estojiped from afterwards setting up her title,''^ because 
 at common law her husband had the right to sell it 
 without her consent,^' and because, under the statutes, 
 she has usually the right to sell her separate property, 
 and therefore to sell it through an agent, and by her 
 presence and silence she constitutes her husband her 
 agent ; '* and so, at common law, she was estopped from 
 claiming her equity of a settlement out of her choses 
 in action, if she allowed her husband to disjiose of them 
 in her presence without making any objection.'^ Thus, 
 she is estopped by her husband's sale of her horse,'^ or 
 of her negroes,'' or by his collection of her funds,'^ if 
 she was present and made no objection. But owing to 
 the intimacy of the marriage relation, and to the fact
 
 I 419 ESTOPPELS. 612 
 
 that it i.-j natul'al and proper that a husband should to 
 some extent iwssess and manage his wife's property,^* 
 it is not a fraud on his creditors for his wife merely to 
 allow him to possess and manage her property, and 
 she is not estopped, as a stranger would be, from set- 
 ting up lier title to tlie same.'^* Her husband's creditors 
 should inquire of her as to her rights, and in such case, 
 if she or her husband, in her presence, should inalce 
 any false statements, it is clear that this would be a 
 fraud and she would be estopped.^^ There is no reason 
 why a married woman should not lend her property to 
 her husband to use in his business,^^ and no reason 
 why, if she has made no exjiress disclaimer of title, and 
 has not knowingly allowed his creditors to give him 
 credit, supposing her to have no rights,^^ she should be 
 estopped from having back her own. Of course, if she 
 has made him her general agent with respect to prop- 
 erty over which she lias the rights of a femme sole, she 
 is estopjjed from going behind his acts, so that she cannot 
 claim the repayment of money paid to him as her 
 recognized agent,^' and if she has put joroperty in his 
 hands to do business with, not as a loan but as capital, 
 she cannot, as against the creditors of that business, 
 claim the property back.^ With respect to her real 
 estate, diftcrent considerations arise : The husband 
 could not dispose of the wife's interest at common 
 law,-fi and even under most modern statutes she can 
 dispose of it only in the mode prescribed by statute ; '^'' 
 but if she and he join in a contract which is void as to 
 her.,ho i.^ nevertheless bound, ^^ and is estopped tliereby ; 
 and if ho must join with her in order to enable her to 
 set up her rights, tlie fact that he is estoi^ped may 
 deprive. her of her remedy.-'^ By allowing him to take 
 the title to her realty in his own name, slie estops her- 
 self from setting up her title as against bona fide jjur-
 
 613 ESTOPPELS. § 419' 
 
 chasers for value,'* or creditors with a lien,'^ but not 
 from accepting afterwards tlie legal title, even though 
 the husband is insolvent.*'^ When she owns realty or 
 personalty as a femme sole, and allows her liusband to 
 hold Iiimself out as owner thereof, she is estopped by 
 all his acts with respect tliereto,^-^ 
 
 1 Scarborough v. Watkins, Mon. B. 540, M5 ; 50 Am. Dee. 528; 
 ante.il 80,62, SSI. 
 
 2 Ante, ?§ 82, 8-1. 
 
 3 Ante, U 8-»-S8. 
 
 4 Bank r. Lee, 1.1 Peters, 107, 118, 121 ; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 
 382,390 ; Murray I'. Fo.x, II Mo. .5.m,.56.5 ; Palmer y. Cross, l.Smedes&M. 
 48, 6S ; Carpenter, 27 >f. J. Kq. .502, .t04. 
 
 5 Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 3S2, 390 ; supra, n. 4. 
 
 6 Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382, 391 ; O'Brien v. Ililburn, 9 Tex. 
 297, 299. 
 
 7 See Dann v. Cudney, 13 Mich. 2.39, 241 ; ante, U 84, 86. 
 
 8 Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. St. 58, 61 ; onte, S 86. 
 
 9 Ante, \ 66 ; post, \ 421. 
 
 10 Carpenter, 27 N. J. Eq. 502, 504 ; supra, n. 4. But see .State i'- 
 Hollo\vay,i< Blackf. 15, 47. 
 
 11 See McCaa v. Woolf, 42 Ala. 389 ; Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 1U« 
 18 24 ; Galling v. Kodman, 6 Ind. 289, 293 ; ante, I 85. 
 
 12 Drake v. Glover, .30 Ala. .182, 390 ; infra, notes 14-18. 
 
 13 McCaa v. Woolf, 42 Ala, 389 ; ante, U 103, 170, 176. 
 
 14 Wortraan v. Price, 47 111. 22,24; Schwartz i'. .Saunders, 46 111. 
 IH, 24 ; Daim i>. Cudney, 13 Mich. 23!», 244 ; Lndner v. Lahler, 51 Barb. 
 322, 324 ; City v Raven, 5 McCord, 465, 46J ; Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. .St. 
 58, 60 : ante, H 84-,88. 
 
 15 Lush, Law R. 4 Ch. App. .591, .597 ; Wright v. Arnold, 14 Mon. B. 
 6:«, 642. 
 
 16 Dann v. Cudney, 13 Mich. 239, 241-24.X 
 
 17 O'Brien i>. Hilburn, 9 Te.x. 297, 299. 
 
 18 Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa. .St. .>S, 60. 
 
 19 Discussed ante, U 118 rt-121. 
 
 20 Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 332, 341 ; ante, ? 121. 
 
 21 See Oglesby v. Pasco, 79 111. 164, 169 ; ante, U -IIG, 418. 
 
 22 Hoe ante, U 4.5, 87. 
 
 23 See ante, ?? 416, 418. 
 
 24 Early v. Rolfe, 95 Pa, St. .'«, 60 ; ante, I 85. 
 
 25 Wilson V. Loomis, -55 111, 3.52, 3.57. 
 
 26 Hall V. Callahan, 6!; Mo. 316, 324 ; ante, ?? 8.5, 143. 
 
 27 Gebl) V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 392 ; ante, H 400, 401, 412. 
 
 28 See atite, 5? 382, 408. 
 
 29 Hufif I). Price, .50 Mo. 228, 230. 
 
 H. <fe W.— 52.
 
 2 420 ESTOPPELS. 614 
 
 30 See Darnaby, 14 Bush, 4S5, 488 ; ante, 5 132. 
 
 31 Besson ?-. Eveland, 26 X. J. Eq. 468, 473 ; Read}' v. Bragg, 1 Head, 
 511,515; ante, i 132. 
 
 32 Summers v. Hoover, 42 Inrl. 153, 157 ; Bancroft v. Curtis, 108 
 Mass. 47,49; Payne v. Twyman, 68 Mo. 339, 340 ; Syracuse i'. Wiug, 
 85 N. Y. 421, 426. 
 
 33 See Anderson v. Armistead, 69 III. 452, 455. 
 
 g 420. Estoppels against married women arising from 
 acts done after tlie dissolution of coverture. — By an act 
 after the dissolution of coverture, a widow may estop 
 herself from setting up the invalidity of an act done 
 during coverture. i Thus, if a widow, who has during 
 coverture executed an invalid release of dower, stands 
 by and allows her late husband's property to be sold 
 clear of dower, she is estopped from setting up her 
 right to dower ; ^ so if a widow continues to hold and 
 enjoy the consideration of jiroperty disposed of by her 
 during coverture by an invalid instrument, slie is es- 
 topped from setting up her title to the property so dis- 
 posed of.^ But unless there is some new act — some 
 new consideration or deed — a widow is not estopi^ed 
 hy acts done during coverture whicli did not estop her 
 as a married woman.* 
 
 1 H.-irt V. Giles, 67 Mo. 175, 170 ; Reed v. Morrison, 12 Serg. & R. 
 18, 24 ; Bullock V. Grillin, 1 Strob. Eq. 60, 65 ; ante, U 267, 275, 276. 
 
 2 Hart v. Giles, 67 Mo. 175, 170. 
 
 3 Bullock V. Griffin, 1 Strob. Eq, 60, 65. 
 
 4 See ante, U 366, 402.
 
 615 TORTS OF MARRIED WOMEN. ^ 421 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 TORTS OF MARRIED WOMEX. 
 
 § 421. General consirterations. 
 
 2 422. Antenuptial torts. 
 
 ? 42;?. Postnuptial torts. 
 
 I 424. Torts connected with contract. 
 
 ? 42.5. Liability for, how enforced. 
 
 § 421. General considerations relating to torts of married 
 women. — Wrongs and contract are very ditterently 
 regarded b3' the law, and coverture gives a wife no 
 imniiinitj' from responsibility for her wrong-doing;' 
 whatever immunity .slie enjoys results, not from the 
 disabilities of coverture, but from the fact that v/ives 
 are subject to their husbands,^ and that the law pre- 
 sumes that wrongs done by them in their husbands' 
 presence were done by the command and coercion of 
 the latter.^ Except -when the act is committed in the 
 husband's presence, a wife is as fully responsible for 
 her torts as Sifemme sole,* tliough tlie procedure against 
 her is, of course, different.' As heretofore shown, the 
 husband is liable, as husband or as joint wrong-doer, 
 for all torts of his wife,* His liability is co-extensive 
 witli hers,^ and when he is sued as husband with her, 
 he cannot show that he tried to prevent the tort, even 
 in mitigation of damages.* But though his liability 
 may cease with the dissolution of coverture, hers does 
 not.' His liability is not abolished by iinjjlieation.i" 
 
 1 Ilawli V. Harnian, 5 Binn. 43, 45. 
 
 2 See ante, H 3:), 02, 41!) ; }r>st, ? 427 ; infra, n. 3. 
 
 3 Zeliff V. Jennings, 61 Tex. 45S, 471 ; 1 Blsh. JL W. I 703. 
 
 4 Discussed jiost, H 422—124. 
 
 5 Discussed post, 5 425. 
 
 6 Discussed ante, I 66.
 
 ?2 432-423 TORTS of married avoien. 616 
 
 7 Austin %\ Wilson, 4 C'ush. 273, 27o ; Zeliff i'. Jennings, 61 Tex. 
 458, 471. 
 
 8 Yeates v. Reed, 4 Blackf. 4G3, 4&5. 
 
 9 Rowing IT. Manly, 49 N. Y. 192, 201 ; 10 Am. Rep. 346. 
 10 Zelifif V. Jennings, CI Tex. 4.5S, 471 ; ante, \ 06. 
 
 \ 422. Antenuptial torts of married women. — For torts 
 of anj" kind, except those against the man she inarries,i 
 committed before marriage, a woman remains liable 
 after her marriage ; ^ and her husband is generally 
 liable therefor witli lier.^ 
 
 1 See ante, \ 49. 
 
 2 Hawk V. Harman, 5 Binn. 43, 44 ; ante, ? 66. 
 
 3 IJiscussed ante, \ 66 ; post, 425. 
 
 \ 423. Postnuptial torts of married women. — For all 
 torts committed by a married woman during coverture, 
 in person, except sucli as are committed under the co- 
 ercion of her liusband,^ and sucli as are intimately 
 connected with her invalid contracts,^ and such as are 
 committed against lier husband,* slie is liable as fully 
 as if unmarried.* Thus, she may be sued, and a judg- 
 ment obtained may be satisfied out of all her property, 
 for assault and battery,* for trespass,' for conversion,^ 
 for slander,^ for fraud and false and fraudulent repre- 
 sentations unconnected with her invalid contracts, ^" for 
 l)urning property,'' for poisoning geese, ''^ etc. But at 
 common law she could not be hold responsible for the 
 act of another as her agent, '^ because she could not con- 
 tract, and therefore could not appoint an agent ;'* still, 
 so far as she may, under statutes, appoint an agent, or 
 act by agent, she may be responsible for agent's 
 torts.'* When the act complained of Avas committed 
 in the presence of her husband, the presumption is 
 that it was committed by her tlirough the authority 
 and coercion of her husband, and that she is not liable 
 at all ; '* ])ut this j)resumi)tion maj' be rebutted by
 
 617 TORTS OF MARRIED AVOMEN. § 424 
 
 showing tiiat she actively and voluntarily participated 
 in the wrong, and in such case she is as fully respon- 
 sible as if her husband had been absent." 
 
 1 Estill V. Fort, 2 Dana, 237, 238 ; infra, notes 13, 14. 
 
 2 Nolan v. Traber, 49 Md. 460, 46^ ; 33 Am. Rep. 277 ; infra, notes 
 16, 17. 
 
 3 Barnes v. Harris, Busb. lo, Ifi ; poxt, J 424. 
 
 4 Abbott, 67 Me. 30t, 307 ; 24 .\m. Rep. 27 ; anie, ? 4S. 
 
 5 Wright V. Leoiiiir'l, 11 Com. B. X. S. 2M, 268 ; 30 Law J. Com. P. 
 36.5; Hall n. White, 27 Conn. 488, 4;i4 ; Veates v. Reeil,4 Blacl^f. 463, 
 465; Clement %'. Wafer, 12 La. An. 6.»a, 601; ca.ses ante, I 66; iiifrti, 
 notes 6-12 
 
 6 Roaflcap v. Sipe, 6 Gratt. 213, 217. See Cassin v. Delanev,:!? X.V. 
 178 ; Simmons v. Brown, 5 R. I. 2'j;). 
 
 7 Bailev r. Houston, .t.S Mo. 361, 367 ; Carter r. Jackson, 56 X. H. 
 366, 368 ; Vanneman v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 39, 42 ; Hawk v. Harman, 5 
 Binn. 43, 44. 
 
 8 Catterall v. FCen.von, 3 Afl. & E. X. 8. 310 ; 2 Gale & B. 345 : 
 Estill I'. Fort, 2 Dana, 2:17, 238 ; Tol>ev v. Smith, 15 Gray, .535 ; Heckl.^ 
 V. Lurvev, 101 Ma.ss. :i44 ; 3 Am. Rep. .366 ; Peak i\ Lemon, 1 Laiis. 
 295 ; Rowing v. Mauly, 49 X. Y. 1112, 198, 199 ; 10 Am. Rep. 346. 
 
 9 Baker v. Young, 44 III. 42, 48 : McElfresh ?•. Kirkendall, 36 Iowa, 
 224, 228 ; Tail i\ Culbertson, .57 Barb. !i, 10 ; Fowler v. Chichester, 26 
 Ohio St. 9, 14 ; Roadcap i'. Sipe, G Gratt. 213, 217. 
 
 10 Baum V. Mullen, 47 N. Y. .577, .579. See Vanghan r. Vander- 
 stegen, 2 Drew. 363, 379 ; Davis i\ Tingle, 8 Mon. B. 539, 543 ; post, I 424. 
 
 11 Ball V. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 428. 
 
 12 Matthews v. Fiestel, 2 Smith, E. D. tlO, 91. 
 
 13 Rawlings v. Bell, I Com. B. 9.59 ; Estill v. Fort, 2 Dana, 2.37, 2.38 : 
 Coke Litt. i 274, n. 4, \ 678 ; in/j-a, n. 1.5. 
 
 14 Rawlings v. Bell, 1 Com. B. 9.59 ; ante, \ 3»M. 
 
 15 Furguson i'. Brooks, 67 Me. 251, 2.58, 2.59 ; Vanneman v. Powers, 
 .56 X. Y. 39. 43 ; Baum i'. Mullen, 47 JS. Y. 577, 579 ; Graves v. Spier, ai 
 Barb. :J49, 386 ; ante, U 8.5, 88, mi. 
 
 16 Nolan r. Traber, 43 Md. 460, 463 ; 33 Am. Rep. 277 ; ante, I 6S. 
 
 17 Carleton v. Haywood, 49 N. H. 314, 318, 319 ; ante, \ 66. 
 
 ? 424. Torts of married womaa connected with invalid 
 contracts. — For her torts, .so intimately connected with 
 her invalid contracts that in order to hold her liable 
 for them her invalid contract Avould have to be sub- 
 stantialh'^ enforced, a married woman is not responsi- 
 bie.i TIius, she cannot be sued for getting credit by 
 false and fraudulent representations that she is un- 
 married,-' or has property she can charge,^ or for mis-
 
 I 425 TORtS OF JIAKRIED AVOMEX. 618 
 
 using property of which she is a bailee/ or for 
 misappropriating inoney intrusted to her.* But if her 
 contract is valid, the rule does not apply; thus, she is 
 liable for false and fraudulent representations made in 
 etiecting a valid sale of her separate proiierty.fi 
 
 1 Liverpool r. Fairhursrt, 9 Ex. 422, 42^) ; Wright r. Leonard, 
 
 I I Cora. B. >'. S. 2.>S, 2fi^ ; Cannam v. Farmer, .■? Ex. C;w ; Zi^genhiigen v. 
 Church, 5 Ch. L. N. :K4 : Ogleshr v. Pa.sco, 79 III. Ifi4, 171 ; Owens v. 
 Siiodgrass, Duna, a;:1, 2^.0; Lowell r. Daniels, 2 Gray, 161 ; Andrews 
 /-. Ormsbee, II Mo. 400, 402 ; Ciirkton r. Haywood, ■!■> N. H. 314, 320; 
 Demiisev v. Tyler, 3 Duer, Tl, 100; Wilson r. Fuller, 60 How. Pr. 
 4-0, 4S;i ; 'Barnes r. H;,rri.'!, Busb. 1.7. 1'? ; Keen r. Coleman, 3!) Fix. St. 
 2lfl. mi; Keen r. Hartman, 4S Pa. St. 497, 4W ; Glidrten v Simpler, 
 52 Pa. St. 400, 404; Mason 7-. Jordan, 13 R. 1. 1:«. I!i5 ; Woodward r. 
 Barnes, 4fi Vt. 33fi ; 14 Am. Rpp. fiifi ; ante, ? 416. Bnt s-^e Reis v, 
 Lawrence, 6:5 Cal. 129, I.S-t ; Patterson v. Lawrence, UO IlL 174, 179 ; 
 32 Am. Rep. 22 ; Read i\ Hall, 57 X. H. 482, 4S3. 
 
 2 Liverpool r. Fairhurst, 9 Ex. 422, 429 ; lupra, n. 1. 
 
 3 See Patterson v. Frazer, 5 La. An. 586, .iS" 
 
 4 Barnes r. Harris, Bnsb. 15, 16. 
 
 5 Andrews r. Ormsbee. 11 Mo. 400, 402 ; Carleton v. Haywood 
 49 N. H. 314, 320. 
 
 6 Baum v. Mullen, 47 N. Y. 577, 579. 
 
 I 425. Enforcement of marriad women's liability for 
 tort. — Independently of .statute a married woman can- 
 not be sued alone,' and therefore in all suits against 
 her for torts her husband must be joinded.^ He may 
 bo joined simply because he is her husband* — as in the 
 case df her antenuptial torts,* or of torts committed out 
 of his presence and with which he has nothijig to do,^ 
 or as a joint wrong-doer* — as Avhen they both were 
 concerned in the tort.' His liability in .these cases has 
 been eLscAvhere discussed.^ It i.s said that for some 
 wi'ongs there cannot be a joint suit, because such wrongs 
 do not admit of joint commission* — slander being such 
 a Vv'rong.'o And it is said that in even a joint suit for 
 conversion against husband and wife, the allegation 
 should be that the conversion "was to the use of the 
 husband, not to "their " or to " her " use." When the 
 husband is joined as husband only, it should be alleged
 
 619 TORTS OF MARRIED WOMEN. ? 425 
 
 that the wrong was committed by the wife.^- The wife 
 should be summoned, though by an appearance for 
 her such summons is waived ,^^ and the husband has 
 full power to appear for her and to manage the suit, 
 and she is bound tliough the suit be lost tlirough his 
 negligence ; 1^ this applies, of course, only to suits 
 prosecuted as at common law.^^ All evidence which 
 would have been admissible against the wife, could 
 she have been sued alone, is admissible against the 
 husband wlien he is sued witli lier.^i^ When they are 
 sued jointly, one may be acquitted and the otlier found 
 guiltj^^^ — tliough the acquittal of tlae husband will not 
 save him from judgment on account of his being hus- 
 band, but onl}' from judgment as joint wrong-doer.^^ 
 The judgment is usually entered against them both 
 generally,*^ and may be satisfied out of the property 
 of the husband, or the wife, or both. 2" The husband's 
 property may be taken, '-'i and the wife's also, whether 
 separate,-- or held as at common-law ;2^ a judgment of 
 this kind estoi^s her as if she were sole.-' But, it is 
 said in Texas, the judgment may du-ect her property 
 to be first exhausted.^ In some States, tliough the 
 husband must still be joined for conformity, he is by 
 statute saved from liability.^^ She may be sued alone 
 after the dissolution of coverture — by divorce,-^ or by 
 actual or civil death. ^* So when she may bj'' statute 
 sue and be sued alone, her torts maj'^ be enforced 
 against her alone.^ And when she may be sued alone 
 in resiiect to all matters relating to her separate prop- 
 erty, she may be sued alone for all torts connected with 
 it;^" for example, for setting fire to her separate house 
 and thus burning another's furniture ; ^' for a fraud 
 connected with the sale of her separate lands ;^2 for 
 injuries resulting to persons using her separate stages ; ^ 
 for deiu-edations of her cattle;^* for injuries resulting
 
 g 425 TORTS OF MARRIED WOMEX. 620 
 
 from the mismanagement of her separate property ;S5 
 for her negligence connected with it ; *« for maintaining 
 a nuisance on it,^^ and, it is said, for refusing to give iip 
 the property of another and holding it under a claim 
 that it was her separate property ;^ but not for receiv- 
 ing stolen goods, for no title to them vested In her, and 
 they could not be her separate property .=** 
 
 1 Kowing r. Manlj-, 40 X. Y. 192, 201 ; 10 Am. Rep. 346 ; post, ? 
 
 2 Catterall v. Kenvon, 3 Ad. A E. N. S. .•?10 ; 2 Gale & T). 545 ; 
 Ball r. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 428; Burt v. McBaiii, 29 IMieli. 2ro, 2ii2 ; 
 McKeovrn v. Johnson, 1 McCord, 578, 579 ; 10 Am. Dec. 6US ; ante, J 06. 
 
 3 Boadcap t'. Sipe,6 Gratt. 213, 217 ; ante, ? 66. 
 
 4 Hawk V. Harman, 5 Binn. 43, 44 ; ante, ? 66. 
 
 5 Marshall v. Oakes, 5i :Me. 30?, 309 ; ante, ? OS. 
 
 6 Kowing V. Manly, 49 X. Y. 192, 201 ; 10 Am. Rep. 34G ; ante, i OG. 
 
 7 Carter v. Jackson, 58 >'. H. 365, 363 ; ante, i 06. 
 
 8 Discussed fully, ante, ? OC 
 
 9 Carter v. Jackson, 50 X. H. 366, 368. 
 
 10 Roadeap v. Sipe, 6 Gratt. 213, 217 But see 2 Bish. M. W. ? 260 ; 
 cases cited ante, \ 423, n. 9. 
 
 11 Estill r. Fort, 2 Dana, 237, 238 ; cases ante, ? 423, n. 8. Except 
 uader separate property act : liagebrush v. Ragland, 78 III. 40. 
 
 12 JIcKcown V. Johnson, 1 McCord, 578, 579 ; 10 Am. Dec. 608. 
 
 13 Smith r. Taylor, 11 Ga. 20, 22-24 ; post, ? 452. 
 
 14 Green r. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 501 ; post, ? 400. 
 
 15 Lansing r. Holdridgo, 5S How. Pr. 449, 451 ; post, \ 4f50. 
 
 16 Ball !•. Bennett, 21 Ind. 427, 42S. See Austin t-. Wilson, 4 Cush. 
 273, 275 ; ZeliDf v. Jennings, 61 Tex. 4.38, 471. 
 
 17 Dailv r. Houston, 5S Mo. 361, 367, 36S ; Reugler v. Lilly, 26 
 Ohio .St. 4!>, 49 ; Roadcap r. Sipe, 6 Gratt. 213, 218. 
 
 18 The broader language of the cases seems unjustifiable. 
 
 19 Hall r. White, 27 Conn. 488, 494 ; Smith r. Taylor, 11 Ga. 20, 22 ; 
 Baker i: Young, 44 111. 42, 48; Tait r. Culbertson, 51 Barb. 9, 11; 
 Corn V. Brazelton, 2 Swan, 273, 275 ; Zeliflf v. Jennings, 61 Tex. 458, 471. 
 
 20 Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 290, 299 ; 51 Am. Dec. 769 
 
 21 Sec cases ante, { 66. 
 
 22 Smith v. Taylor, 11 Ga. 20, 22; Chauvlcr v. Fliege, 6 La. An. 
 .56, 58 ; Brown 7-. Kemper. 27 Md. 606,673. But see Vanderheyden v, 
 Mallon, 1 Comst. 452, 462. 
 
 21 Green v. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 504. 
 
 24 Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. 666, 673. 
 
 25 Zelitr I'. Jennings, ni Tex. 458, 471, 
 
 26 Burt I'. McBain, 29 Mich. 260, 262 ; Md. Acts of 18.S0, ch. 253, | CI. 
 
 27 Kowing v. Manly, 49 X. Y. 192, 201 ; 10 Am. Rep. 343 ; Stewart 
 M. & D. 11 448, 449.
 
 621 TORTS OF MARRIED AVOMEX. \ 425 
 
 28 2 Addis. Torts, 1125 ; Wright v. Leonard, 11 Com. B. X. S. 2ri.S,2fi.S ; 
 Kowing V. Manly, ii N. Y. rj2, 2ul ; 10 Am. Hep. iH(J. 
 
 23 See Lansing r. Iloldrldgo, 5S IIow. Pr. 419, ATA. 
 
 30 Rowe V Smith, 15 X. Y. 2:;o, 233. See Ferguson v. IJrooks, fi7 
 Me. 251,20.1. 
 
 31 Lansing v. Holdrldge, TA How. Fr. 410, lot. 
 
 32 Baum v. Mullen, 47 N. Y. 577, 573. 
 
 33 Gillies v. Lent, 2 Abb. X. S. 45.5 ; Peak v. Lemon, 1 Lans. 295, 299. 
 U Rowe V. Smith, 45 N. Y. 230, 233 ; 55 Barb. 417 ; 33 How. Pr. 37. 
 
 a5 Eagle i'. Swayze, 2 Daly, 140, 112. 
 
 36 Fiske v. Bailey, 51 X. Y. 150, 153. 
 
 37 Rowe i'. Smith, cited supra, n. 34. 
 
 38 Peak v. Lemon, 1 Lans. 295, 2!t9, 301. 
 
 33 Musser v. Lewis, 50 IS'. Y, Super. 431, 44a
 
 g 426-427 CRIMES OF makried women. 622 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 CRIMES OF MARRIED WOMEX. 
 
 4-6. Married women's liability for crime. 
 ? 427. Proof of married women's guilt. 
 
 \ 426. Liability of married women for crime. — A mar- 
 ried woman continues liable for any crime committed 
 before her marriage,^ and during coverture may ren- 
 der herself liable to prosecution for any crime as if 
 unmarried,'- with the following exceptions : (1) She can- 
 not be guilty of conspiracy Avith her husband ; ^ (2) or 
 of larceny for appropriating his goods.* (3) She can- 
 not be prosecuted for receiving goods her husband has 
 stolen;^ (-1) or for aiding him to escape detection in a 
 crime he has committed.* This subject is fully treated 
 in Desty's ''American Criminal Law."' 
 
 1 This has never beea questioned. Compare ante, \ 422. 
 
 2 See cases cited ante, \\ 43, 63 ; Desty Crim. Law, \\ 15 «, Ifin, 17a ; 
 1 Russell Crimes, '-^'A. 
 
 :i People c. Mather, 4 Wend. 220 ; 21 Am. Dec. 122 ; Desty Crim. 
 Law, ( 17 a. 
 
 4 Com. V. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 4.50 ; ante, ?} 47, 49. 
 
 5 Reg. r. Brooks, Dears. C. C. 184 ; Desty Crim. Law, J 17a. 
 
 6 Reg. !•. Goode, 1 Car. & K. 135; Desty Crim. Law, J 17a, 
 
 7 Dtsty Crim. Law, W 15a-17a. 
 
 \ 427. Proof of gxiilt of married women. — To con\-ict a 
 married woman for an act which would be criminal 
 were she unmarried when it was committed, it must 
 afiirmatively appear : (1) That her husband was absent 
 at the tinie,^ for, from his presence his coercion is im- 
 plied ; 2 (2) or that being present he did not or could 
 not coerce her;^ (3) or that it is a crime 'malum in se 
 (murder, robbery, treason, etc.* ) ; or peculiarly fem- 
 inine^ (as keeping a bawdy house*) ; or specially cov- 
 ered by a statute expressly referring to married woman.' 
 
 i
 
 623 CRIMES OF JIAIiniED WOMEN', g 427 
 
 1 Rex V. Morris, Russ. <fe R. 270 ; Desty Crim. Law, ? 16 «. 
 
 2 ^n/e, U 417, 424 ; Desty Crim. Law, ? 18 a. 
 
 3 Nolan v. Traber, 49 Md. 46y ; 33 Am. Rep. 277. 
 
 4 Com. V. Xeal, 10 Mass. 152 ; 6 Am. Dec. 105; Desty Crim. Law 
 ? 16 a. 
 
 5 Pennybaker v. State, 2 Blackf. 4»4. 
 
 6 Com. V. Cheney, 114 Mass. 281 ; Desty Crim. Law, J 16 a. 
 
 7 See Md. Rev. Code 1878, art. 12, l 42.
 
 § 428-429 SUITS of married women. 624 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 SUITS OF marrif;d women. 
 
 Art. I. In General, §? 428-437. 
 
 II. Suits by Married Women, §§ 438-447. 
 
 III. Suits Against Married Women, H 448-459. 
 
 IV, Management of Married Women's Suits, 
 
 \l 460-463. 
 
 Art I. — Suits of Married Women, in General,. 
 
 ? 428. Preliminary note. 
 
 I 4-0. Rights anrt remedies distinguished. 
 
 I 430. Effect of marriage on pending suits. 
 
 \ 431. Suits of married women at common law. 
 
 I 432. Suits of married women in equity and by statute. 
 
 i 433. Suits between husband and wife. 
 
 \ 434. Effect of dissolution of marriage on pending suits. 
 
 J 4.3.5. Law of forum governs remedies. 
 
 J 436. Law of time of suit brought governs remedies. 
 
 ? 437. Costs. 
 
 I 428. Preliminary note. — The topic of parties to mar- 
 ried women's suits is treated in " Hawes on Parties ' ; 
 the practice in tliese suits is in no two States tlie same, 
 and the subject is a very broad one, so that a minute 
 discussion thereof is not attempted. 
 
 §429. Bights and remedies distinguished, etc. — ZTM 
 JUS, ibi remedmm is a familiar maxim,' but the right 
 and the remedy are quite distinct. Thus, while tlie 
 right depends, generally speaking, on the law of the 
 place where'' and the time when^ it arose, the remedy 
 depends on the law of the place where, ^ and the time 
 when'' llie suit is brought; and a statute enabling a 
 married woman to sue alone gives her no new rights, 
 but simply changes the form of procedure.^ While
 
 625 SUITS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 429 
 
 this is true, nevertheless suits of married women can- 
 not be understood without a comprehension of and 
 reference to the respective rights of husband and wife 
 in her proi^erty, of their respective riglats in lier choses 
 in action, in contract, and in tort, and of their respective 
 liabilities for contracts made and wrongs committed by 
 her. Thus, a husband may sue alone for his wife's 
 chattels,' or for the rents of her lands,^ for such prop- 
 erty is absolutely his at common law ; ^ so he may join 
 her in his sviits on her choses in action.^" for in these 
 she has the right of survivorship at common law." He 
 may sue alone respecting the community,''^ since he 
 has during coverture the fall management tliereof.^^ 
 On the other hand, she cannot be a party to a suit for 
 an injury to him," since she has (independently of 
 statute) no right to damages for loss of his services, 
 etc.'^ Nor is she suable after his deatli for necessaries 
 supplied to her during coverture, ^^ for such a debt is 
 his and not hers." Tlie remedy is always subservient 
 to the right, and if a wife gets a judgment against her 
 husband in ejectment, it must be so framed as not to 
 interfere with his marital right to cohabit with her.'^ 
 Rights and obligations not dependent on the marriage 
 state may also modify the remedies of and against 
 married women : lier husband may join Avith her as 
 plaintiff wlienever he is actually injured or interested ; '^ 
 and may be joined with her as defendant whenever he 
 has rights to be affected, or whicli might be affected by 
 the suit ; ^^ or has been a party to the wrong conijilained 
 of, ''I as where he and his wife have jointly ejected the 
 complainant.^^ 
 
 1 Tunks V. Grover, 57 Me. 5.SR, 588. 
 
 2 Oliver v. Robertson, ■)! Tex. 422, 425 : ante, ?? 24-.T7. 
 
 3 Grove v. Todd, tl Md. G;J3, Ml ; 20 Am. Rep. 7fi ; ante, ?? l!>-23. . 
 
 4 Bank v. Williams, 46 Miss, 618, 629 ; 12 Am. Rep. 319 , 2Mst, \ 435 ; 
 ante, a 20. 21. 
 
 H. & \V. - B3.
 
 2 430 SUITS OF MARRIED WOMEX. 626 
 
 5 Shonk r. Brown, CI Px St. 320, 327 ; post, ? 436 ; ante, \ 35. 
 C itatson, 4 Met. ^Ky.) 2Gi 
 
 7 Goddard v. Johnson, 14 Pick. a52 ; ante, f 170 ; Hawes Parties, 
 II &3, W. 
 
 8 Boggs v. Price, 64 Ala. 519; ante, U 141-l4o; Hawes Parties, 
 
 9 Discussed ante, i'l 141-IS3. 
 
 10 Grimth r. Coleman, 5 Marsh. J. J. 600 ; Hawes Parties, U 64, 65, 
 
 11 Discussed ante, U 76, 171-17G. 
 
 12 Edrington v. ^ewland, 57 Tex. 627. 
 
 13 Discussed ante, I 315. 
 
 14 Monroe v. Maples, 1 Root, 422. 
 
 15 Ante, ii 77-80. 
 
 16 Carter i-. Wann, 45 Ala. 343. Consult ante, \\ 357, 366, 383. 
 
 17 Ante, ? 81. 
 
 IS Manning, 79 N. C. 233 ; 23 Am. Rep. 324. 
 
 If) McMuIlen r. Van TIant, 73 III. WO. 193 : Forbes r. Tuckerman, V.h 
 Mass. 115, lis ; Hopkins i: Angell, 13 R. I. 670. 
 
 20 Indianapolis r. McLaughlin, 77 111.275; Hawes Parties, 5} 6S-70. 
 
 21 Ante, U 66, 423 ; Hawes Parties, | 70. 
 
 22 Tllton t'. Barrel!, 8 Sawy. 412 ; 14 Fed. Rep. 603 ; Smith, 58 X. H. 
 339. 
 
 § 430. Effect of marriage on pending suits. — The mar- 
 riage of a Avomaii does not, at common law, destroy her 
 liability on her antenuptial contracts, or for her ante- 
 nuptial torts, but simpl}- renders her husband jointly 
 liable with her ; ^ nor does she by niaiTiage entirely 
 lose her rights of action, for, though her husband may 
 reduce them to possession, if not so reduced during 
 coverture they survive to her ; * so that if a suit is 
 pending at the time of marriage, after marriage the 
 husband has interests to be aftected, and the opposing 
 party stands in a new position, and the suit abates.' 
 But at present the effect of marriage on pending suits 
 is almost entirely controlled by local statutes. In Ala- 
 brma, for instance, the suit does not abate, but the 
 marriage is suggested, and the husband is joined;* 
 while in Tennessee the suit abates, may be revived 
 against her husband, and in case of his death sur\-ives
 
 627 SUITS OF MARRIED WOMKXf. ? 431 
 
 against her.' It is said a defendant may plead in 
 abatement, or by sci7-e facias have the husband made 
 a partj';* and if ho omits to do tliis, cannot allege 
 coverture after judgment ; or, if the woman is a de- 
 fendant, and no i>lea is entered, the suit may proceed 
 to execution without noticing the marriage,^ and she 
 may be taken in execution as if sole.' Generally speak- 
 ing, if the husband is a necessary jiarty to a suit 
 brought during coverture, he should be joined upon 
 his marriage in all his wife's antenuptial suits.'* 
 
 1 Discussed an^e, ? J 08, f.7. 
 
 2 Uiscusseil ante, U 170-J7!>. 
 
 3 See cixses cited In/ra, 
 
 4 LamUIii i-. Dudley, Si Ala. ll«, ir,. 
 
 5 Parker )•. Steed, 1 I.ea, COS. 
 
 6 James v. Tait, 8 Tort, 4TG ; Townshend, 10 Gill * J. S73 ; Bates v. 
 Stevens, 4 Vu 545. 
 
 7 Bates v. Stevens, 4 Vt 545 ; post, I 444. 
 
 8 Evaus r. Lipscomb, "23 Ga. 71 ; Sacket v. Wilson, 2 Blackf. S.i. 
 
 9 Haines v. Corliss, 4 Mass. 650. 
 
 10 Glbso'.i. V, Wis. 2^, 24, 2S ; 28 Am. Rep. 527. 
 
 g 431. Suits of married women at common law. — At 
 common law, speaking generally, and for reasons 
 suited in sections 42l> and 430, a married woman could 
 neither sue nor be sued luiless her husband was joined 
 with her;i and this is still prima facie the rule, and 
 the causes which enable her to sue or render her liable 
 to be sued at all must be alleged and jn-oved.- At 
 common law the suit was treated as tlie suit of the 
 husband,'' and he could, as defendant, allow judgment 
 to be entered,* or as jilaintilV, release the cause of action.^ 
 Ho employed the counsel,^ and was liable for the costs." 
 
 1 Porter r. Bank, 10 Vt. 410, 417. See Kimbro r. First, 1 Mc.Vt. 6.i ; 
 Cowand r. XMilU'v, ;) t.a. Aw. 12, i:f ; Tucker r. Scot, .'t X. J. L. aVi ; How- 
 land V. Fort, S llow. Pr. TiOo ; ilclntire v. (.'liappeU, 2 Tex. 378, 37!t. . 
 
 2 Smith f. New EnRland. 4"i Conn. 4ir., 420. See Purden v. 
 McWillianis.Sl Ala.4;t< ; Lewis f. Moure. 2,i Ark. fv! ; Hyatt i'. Cochran, 
 S."i Ind. 2-1; Cowand c. Pulley, il I.a. .\n. 12. i:! ; Itidgelv f. Crandall, 
 4 Md. 435 ; Gregory r. I'ac.l, 15 Mass. 31 ; Tracy v. Keith, U Allen,
 
 g 43a SUITS OF MARRIED WOMEN. G28 
 
 2U, 215; Kennedy v. 'Winiams. 11 Minn. 318, 319; Pickering v. 
 iJe Rochemont, 45 N. H. 87 ; Button ?•. Rice, 53 X. H. 4:tfi, 4n9 ; 
 INIcIntire v. Chappell, 2 Tex. 378, 379 ; WUliams v. Brainard, 52 Vt. 392 ; 
 Botkiii c. Karl, « Wis. 393, 39{i. 
 
 3 Benjamin v. Bartlett, 3 Mo. 86, 87 ; post, ? 460. 
 
 4 Vick V. Pope, 81 N. C. 22, 26 ; post, ? 4G0. 
 
 5 Sonthworth v. Packard, 7 Mass. 95, 9G ; post, I 460. 
 
 6 I'razier r. Felton, 1 Hawks, 231, 237; pos<, ?§ 460, 462. 
 
 7 Discussed post, i 437. 
 
 I 432. Suits of married women in equity and under 
 statutes. — In equity, independently of .statute, suit.s of 
 married women, except those for enforcing her equity 
 to a settlement and those concerning her equitable 
 separate estate, are governed by the same rules which 
 control suits at law.i Still, in equity, neither the 
 husband's bill nor his answer is binding upon her.^ 
 When applying for her settlement out of her choses 
 in action, .she sues by her next friend, generally making 
 her husband one of the defendants.^ As to her equi- 
 table separate estate, she sues by her next friend and 
 jointly with her tru.stee, if she has one, making her 
 liusband a defendant if his interests in any way con- 
 flict ; * and when she is sued, her trustee (if slie has 
 any) should be joined,' and she may eome in and give 
 a separate answer by next friend.* In the different 
 States, statutes have so differently changed the pro- 
 cedure in suits of married women that no general 
 statement can be given ; the statutes of the State where 
 the particular suit is brought, or is about to be brought, 
 must in each case be consulted.' 
 
 1 Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 417 ; onte, U 210, 211, 431. 
 
 2 Beln ji. Heath, 6 How. 228, 239; Grant r. Van Schoonhoven, 
 9 Paige, 2.55, 2.57 ; 37 Am. Dec. 393 ; Bird v. Davis, 14 N. J. Eq. 467, 479 ; 
 post, a 460, 461. 
 
 3 Bradley v. Emerson, 7 Vt. 369, 371 ; ante, ? 192 ; jiost, i 43-3. 
 
 4 Johnson v. Vail, 14 X. J. Eq. 423 ; ante, \ 210 ; post, 'A 4;«, 440. 
 
 5 Palmer v. Rankins, 30 .\rk. 771 ; ante, ? 211 ; post, I 450. 
 f> Wolf V. Banning, 3 Minn. 202 ; post, i 461. 
 
 7 Powersf. Totten,42X. J. L. 442, 443 ;73o««, H35.
 
 629 SUITS OF MARRIED WOMEN. g 433 
 
 I 433. Suits between husband and wife. — Suits between 
 husband and wife liave already been somewhat fully 
 discussed.! At common law one spouse could not sue 
 the other,^ both because the wife could not sue or be 
 sued without her husband,^ and because husband and 
 wife were one jjerson.* But in equity, where tlie sepa- 
 rate existence and jiroperty of wives Avere recognized, 
 they could sue each other, ^ only the wife had to sue by 
 next friend.^ And after dissolution of the marriage by 
 divorce, eitlier could sue the other at law;^ and such 
 suits could be maintained between the representatives 
 of the deceased and the survivor, where the marriage 
 was dissolved by death.* When the husband files a 
 bill for a purpose which would affect the interests of 
 his wife, she must be made a party defendant ; ^ and 
 so she must make him a party defendant when she 
 tiles a bill for the protection of her property from him 
 or his creditors.'" If she can sue without her husband, 
 she can make him the garnishee or trustee of a third 
 party." When she can alone sue him, she can alone 
 sue others with him,''^ or sue a firm of which he is a 
 member. '3 In many States statutes expressly author- 
 ize married women to sue and be sued by their hus- 
 bands.'* Whether a statute, authorizing a married 
 woman to sue and be sued alone as if sole, authorizes 
 suits between husband and wife is disputed.'^ 
 
 1 Ante, II 52-56. 
 
 2 Hobbs, 70Me. 381, 383. S. P., Peters, 42 Iowa. 182; Withers r. 
 Shropshire, 15 Mo. 631 ; Ward, 2 Dev. Eq. 553 ; Kitter, 31 Pa. St. 396 ; 
 Marvin, 10 Pliila. 524 ; ante, i 52. 
 
 3 Mclntire v. Chappell, 2 Tex. 378, 379 ; post, U ■»!, -fol. 
 
 4 Porter v. Banlv, 19 Vt. 410, 417 ; ante, U 39, 52. 
 
 5 Markham,4 Midi. 305, 307; Beiper, !'J Mo. 352, 3.59 ; Walter, 48 
 Mo. 140, 145 ; ante, i .53. 
 
 6 Leftwiclv )'. Hamilton, 9 Heisli. 310, 313 ; Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 
 410, 417 ; 2)<Mt, i 442. 
 
 7 Webster. .58 Me. 1-38, 145 ; 4 Am. Rep. ?."3 ; Carleton, 72 Me. 11.5; 
 39 Am. Rep. 307 ; Blake, 64 Me. 177, IfO ; ante, i 55.
 
 g 434 SUITS OF MARRIED WOMEN. 630 
 
 8 Willis V Jones, 57 Md. \i(\2 ; Hill. 38 Md. 18^ ; Barto:;, S2 Md. 214 ; 
 ante, i 55. 
 
 9 Grant v. Van Schoonhoveii, Paige, 25S, 257 ; Alston v. Jones, 3 
 Barb. Ch. 397, 410 ; Hale v. Gause 3 lied. Eq. UU : ante, U 136, 280. 
 
 10 Eddins v. Buck, 23 Ark. 507; Kirkpatrick r. Buford. 21 Ark. 
 268 ; Lewis v. Elrod, .S8 Ala. 17 ; Boyd v. England, 56 (ia. 5!W ; John- 
 son V. Vail, H N. J. Eq. 423 ; C'antrell v. Davidson, 3 Tenn. Ch. 426 , 
 Marston v. Ward, 35 Te.v. 71)7 ; Bradley v. Emerson, 7 Vt. 36D, 371. 
 
 11 Tunks v. Grover, 57 Me. 586, 588. 
 
 12 Kashaw, 3 Cal. 321. 
 
 13 Benson?). Morgan, 50 Mich. 77; Devin, 17 How. Pr. ."14; Ben- 
 nett V. Winfield, 4 Heisk. 440. Compare Edwards r. Stevens, 3 
 Allen, 315. 
 
 14 Larison. 111. App. 27 ; Wilkins v. Miller, Jnd..l0n, 101 ; Jones. 
 19 Iowa, 330; Greer, 24 Kan. 101 ; Hardin v. Gerard, 11 Bush, 2.M) ; 
 Power )). Lester, 23 N. Y. 527 ; Manning, 79 !N. C. 233 ; 2s Am. Rep 
 324 ; ante ? 54. 
 
 15 See Smith r\ Gorman, 41 Me. 405 ; Crowther,55Me. 3.'iS ; Scliuitz, 
 89 N. Y. 644 ; Ryan, 61 Tex. 473, 474 ; ante, i 64. 
 
 § 434. Effect of dissolution of marriage on pending 
 suits. — At coniinon law, on the dissolution of marriage, 
 the joint suit of husband and wife in her right abated ; 
 at present, general!}', the suit wUl either abate and have 
 to be revived by her or her representatives, or may be 
 amended and continued by her or her representatives ; ' 
 if the joinder of the husband is merely foi-mal there is 
 usually no abatement.^ Thus, in case of her husband's 
 death she has her right of action on her choses in action 
 as .survivor;* and if she dies, he, at common law, 
 prosecutes the suit as survivor or as administrator.* 
 Divorce has much the same effect as the husband's 
 death." 
 
 1 Patter v. Harrington, 11 Pick. 221, 222. See Tallmadge v. 
 Grannis, 20 Conn. 296, 297 ; Tuttle v. Fowler, 22 Conn. 5S, C.; ; Buck v. 
 Goodrich. 33 Conn. 37, 41; Wass v. Pliniimcr. 68 Me. 2()7, 26S ; IS'or- 
 cross V. Stewart, .50 Me. 88 ; Pettingill r. Butterfield, 4.i N. H. 195 ; 
 Little V. Downing, ;17 N. H. 3.55, 3()4 ; Wood v. Griffin, 4fi X. H. 230, 237 ; 
 Armstrong r. Colby, 47 Vt. 3(!4, MS ; Meese v. Fond, 48 Wis. ;;23. 
 
 2 Calderwood v. Pyser, 31 Cal. 333. 
 
 3 Storv V. Baird, 14 N. J. L. 262, 268 ; King r. Little, 77 N. C. 138- 
 1.39 ; Little )■. Keves.24 Vt. 118, 121; ante, § 176 ; Stewart M. & i). i 4(i0 ; 
 Hawes Parties, j 6.3. 
 
 4 Patter r. Harrington, 11 Pick. 221, 222; ante, ? 17';; Stewart 
 M. &. D. ? 465. 
 
 5 Tuttle V. Fowler. 22 Conn. 58, 63 ; Stewart M. & D. I 430.
 
 631 SUITS OF MAERIBD WOMEN. g? 430-4S6 
 
 f 435. Eemedies depend on the lex fori. — By Avhatever 
 law rights are to be governed, the nature and form of 
 the remedy is to be determined by the law of the State 
 where the suit is brought.' Thus, tiiough where a 
 married Avoman'.s contract is made it is enforcible at 
 law, if the law of the forum requires married v.omen's 
 contract to bo enforced in equity, the remedy must be 
 in equity ; '■ and so, if the law of the forum requires the 
 husband to be joined, slie cannot sue or be sued alone.' 
 And though where the contract was made she woiild 
 have had to sue by next friend, she can sue alone if 
 the law of the forum allows it.'* If tlio right exists, 
 the forum must allow it to be enforced,^ though it is a 
 right which could not have arisen in that State.* Rights 
 in rem as well as remedies are governed by the law of 
 the forum.^ 
 
 1 Kin? V. jrartin, (17 Ala. 177, isn ; Powers r. Totten,42 N. J. U 
 442, 44:{ ; Hayrtfii v. Stone, i:i R. I. 100, 111 ; cases ante, i 35. 
 
 2 Halley v. Ba'.l, 66 III. 251, 252. 
 
 3 Hayden r. Stone, 13 R. I. 106, 111. 
 
 4 Stoneman ;•. Erie, 52 N. Y. 429, 4^. 
 
 5 See Tunlvs v. Grover, 57 Me. 586, 5SS. 
 
 6 Brighanx v. Gilmartin, 58 N. H. 346. 
 
 7 Hayden v. Stone, 13 R. I. 106, 110. 
 
 § 436. The law of time of suit brought governs remedies. 
 — The constitutional prohibitions against divesting 
 vested rights, etc.,' do not prevent a cliange of reme- 
 dies so long as a substantial remedy is given or left ;^ 
 so that an act enabling a married Avoman to sue and 
 be sued alone may ajjply to existing as well as to future 
 rights of action ; 3 or a remedy on an existing contract 
 may Ije clianged from equity to law,* and even the hus- 
 band's right to sue jointly Avith his wife, for personal 
 injuries to her, may be taken away.* If no Aaluable 
 rights are disturbed, for the sake of simijlicity, statutes 
 changing the form of remedies are applied to existing
 
 g 437 SUITS OF MAKKIED WOMEX. 632 
 
 as well as to future causes of action;* but a contrary 
 construction is given if valuable though not vested 
 rights would thereby be disturbed.' As to vested 
 rights, such as the husband's right as tenant during 
 coverture ./wj-e uxoris^ to sue for trespass to the prop- 
 erty j*" they cannot be disturbed, of course.'" 
 
 1 Discussed ante, U '9-23. 
 
 2 Deering v. Boyle, 8 Kan. 52.5-5.^3 ; 12 Am. Eep. 480. 
 
 3 Maysville v. Herrick, 13 Bush, 122, 125. 
 
 4 Buckingham v. Moss, 40 Conn. 461, 463 ; Herbert r. Gray, 38 Mil. 
 529. 532. 
 
 5 Ball V. BuUard, .'^2 Barb. 141, 143, 144. 
 
 n Buckingham v. Moss, 40 Conn. 461, 463; Mavsville i'. Herrick, 
 13 Bush 122, 125 ; ante, i 20. 
 
 7 Kiuibro v. First, 1 McAr. 61, 71 ; Greenleaf r. Hill, 31 Me. 562. 
 564 ; H,'rb<.'rt v. Gray, 38 Md. 529, 532 ; Dugan v. Morrow, 31 N. J. 1., 
 136, 13H : Powers r. Totten, 42 N. J. L. 442, 443 ; ante, § 20. 
 
 8 Discussed ante, ?? 146-150. 
 
 9 Bannister v. Bull, 16 .S. C. 220, 230 ; ante, U 21, 22. 
 10 Discussed ante, \\ 19-23. 
 
 \ 437. Costs in suits of married women. — 1. Married 
 women plaintiff's. At common law, a married woman 
 suing as plaintiff (except in cases in which she could sue 
 alone ' ) was an inactive party, the control of the suit 
 being in her husband,^ and was not liable for costs ;3 
 nor could costs incurred in a suit at law be charged on 
 her equitable separate estate in equity.* Owing to this 
 iininunity of a married woman from costs, she could 
 not sue alone in equity even, but had to proceed by 
 next friend, that some one might be responsible in 
 case of loss of the suit;^ and some modern enabling 
 acts have required the next friend to be joined, pre- 
 sumably for the .same reason.* But if the married 
 woman has separate property, and the right to sue 
 with respect thereto, it must bear the costs of an un- 
 successful suit relating to it.^ If she can sue alone, 
 her privilege is accompanied with the usual burdens, 
 and she is liable for costs.^
 
 633 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEN. ? 438 
 
 2. Marrieil tvomen defendants. If a judgment can be 
 obtained against a married Avoman ■which will be bind- 
 ing on her property, the judgment is equally binding, 
 though it includes costs.* But when lier husband is or 
 should be joined Avith her, a decree for costs against 
 her alone cannot be passed.^" 
 
 1 Leonard ;•. Townseiid, 26 Cal. 435 ; pott, ? 441. 
 
 2 Frazier v. Felton, 1 Hawks, 231, 237 ; post, I 460. 
 
 3 Klmbro r. First. 1 McAr. 61, 65, 66 ; Harppr v. Whitehead, X>, Ga. 
 13S, 144 ; Browner v. Bell, 30 fia. 3.34, 3H6 ; :Musjrrove, 'A 111. isii. 1S7, 1S8; 
 Hubbard v. Barous, .38 Md. 166, 174 ; Bellinger r. Tlioiuson, 2 HieU. Eq. 
 30 ; Baker, 1 Bail. Eq. 16.5 Consult j)OSt, i 463. 
 
 4 Klmbro v. First, 1 McAr. 61, 66. 
 
 .5 Harper v. Whitehead, 33 Ga. 138, 144 ; Baker, 1 Ball. Eq. 165 ; 
 post, 'i 440. 
 
 6 Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 1, 8 ; Md. R. C. 1878, art. 51, ? 22. 
 
 7 Musgrove, &1 111. 186, 188. 
 
 8 Leonard v. Townsend, 26 Cal. 435 ; Moncrief v. Ward, 16 Abb, Pr. 
 .%4 a ; post, a 462, 463. 
 
 9 ^Qe post, i 457. 
 
 10 Hubbard v. Barcus, 38 Md. 166, 174. 
 
 Article II. — Suits by Married ^yoMEN. 
 
 § 438. Modes In which married women may sue, 
 
 i 430. Suits jointly with husband. 
 
 g 440. Suits by trustee or next friend. 
 
 2 441. Suits by married women alone. 
 
 I 442. The causes of action. 
 
 g 443. The defen.ses. 
 
 i 444. Plea of coverture against married women. 
 
 J 44.5. Plea of limitations against married women. 
 
 ? 446. Special proceedings of married women. 
 
 i 447. The ownership of the proceeds of suit. 
 
 ^ 438, Uodes in which married women's suits may be 
 brought. — Under different laws and circumstances, mar- 
 ried women's suits have been properly brought in the 
 following modes: (1) By husband and wife jointly ;i 
 (2) by the wife and her trustee ; ^ (3) bj^ the wife through 
 her next friend ;3 and (4) by the wife alone.* The first 
 mode was the only one at common law, unless the wife
 
 § 439 SUITS EY MARRIED WOriEN. 634 
 
 had for some reason the capacity of a fevime sole; the 
 S3cond and third were the usual modes of procedure in 
 equity respecting equitable separate property' ; and the 
 fourth was the mode in which a wife, who on account 
 of her husband's civil death, etc., had the capacities of 
 a femme sole, brought suit at common law, and the 
 usual way in v.'hich she sues under modern statutes. 
 Although many statutes giving married women niodes 
 of suit unknown at common law have been construed 
 to supersede the common-law modes, and to make a 
 suit brought as at common law improper,^ a statute 
 whicli enables a married woman to sue by next friend 
 does not necessarily deprive her of the privilege of 
 proceeding jointly with him as at common law;® and 
 in other eases, the common-law mode has been held 
 not wholly superseded.'^ 
 
 1 Havves Parties, |? 63-00 ; post, ? 4^9. 
 
 2 See Smith v. C'happell, ."1 Conn. 530, SM ; pnst, \ -I-IO, 
 a Bcin r. Heath, How. 21^, 2W ; post, ? -KO. 
 
 4 Woothington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 237, COT ; post, ? 441. 
 
 5 SfO Kockwfll J'. Clark, 44 Conn. .534; Havner >•. Smith, 63 HI. 
 4"0, 432 ; .Stiimpoffskl v. Hoop<T, 75 111. 242. 245 ; T\ntle v. Chi 'ago, 
 42 Iowa, 51S : Hannon v. Ha<l(1en, 10 Hush, fi64, Of,7 : Forbids v. Tuoker- 
 niin, 115 JIuss. 115 ; Alexanflc'r /•. fTOOflwiii, .>! X. H.423, 424 ; Harris)'. 
 Wfbstt-r, .5S X. II. 4SI ; Cooper v. Alger, 51 N. H. 172 ; Whiflrter '•. 
 Coleman, 47 N. H. 21)7 : Tantum v. Coleman, 2Q N. J. Eq. 128 ; 
 Palmer !•. Davis, 2.S X. Y. 242. 
 
 6 Abraham v. Tappe, 60 Md. 317, 323 ; Herzberg r. Sachse> 60 Md. 
 426, 432. 
 
 7 See Kavs v. Ph"lan, in Cal. 12S, 120 ; East v. Cox, .57 Ga. 2.52; 
 Windsor r. rtell, 61 U\. 071, 070; Smith v. Silence, 4 Iowa, :C1, .324; 
 Phelps?'. Walthen, S. C. Mo. 18S4; Johnson v. Cummings, 15 N.J. Eq, 
 97, 106. 
 
 \ 439. Suits by husband and wife jointly. — At common 
 law, on all riglits of action in which the wife liad any 
 interest, the husband and wife sued jointly,' not only 
 because thej^ each had substantial interests at stake,^ 
 but also because the Avife's legal existence was merged 
 in that of hor husband ;^ .so that they so sued not only 
 for all d'-images to her person or property, and for all
 
 685 SXTITS BY MARRIED WOMEN. ? 439 
 
 her debts/ but even in suits by her as administratrix 
 or guardian .5 Tlie suit was really the suit of the 
 husband, as it was in his exclusive control,^ and as he 
 could eniplo3^ tlie counsel," and was alone responsible 
 for costs.* When husband and wife sue jointly, her 
 interest must afifimatively appear,^ and tlie marriage 
 must be alleged."^ If she sues alone, the declaration 
 may be amended and her liusband joined. '^ If she 
 sued alone and no objection was made by plea, none 
 could have been made afterwards ; '- still, tliough a suit 
 brought by her alone for partition liad reaclaed its end 
 without objection, the title passed would not have been 
 good,i3 for the husband's substantial riglits would not 
 have been destroyed.'' In suits respecting equitable 
 separate estate it Avas never necessary to join the 
 husband ; '^ and under statutes creating statutory 
 separate estate this is rarely required.'^ Whether in 
 such suits the husband maj^ be joined as a mere formal 
 party seems to be disputed, and to depend very largely 
 on the character of the suit ; '' sometimes hisjoinder is 
 required wiiere he has no rights, merely for con- 
 formity.18 Whenever he has actual interests he may 
 of course be joined.'* 
 
 1 Hawes Parties, U 63-6P. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, U 171-183. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, U 38, 39, 331. 
 
 4 Burger v. Belsley, 45 111. 72, 74. See Lignoski 7'. Bruce, 8 Fla. 
 2f.O ; Gee v. Lewis, 20 Ind. ]4!i ; Trible v. Fryer, 5 Marsh. J. J. 17H ; 
 Pettv V. Malier, 14 Mon. B. 246; Anderson, 11 Bush, 8'J7 : Bodgett )•. 
 Ebbing, 24 Miss. 243 ; Wyatt v. Simpson, 8 W. Va. 394 ; Hawes 
 Parties, J? 63-fi6. 
 
 .5 Bricli J'. Fisher,2 Colo. 709,710; Byrne?'. Van Hoesen, 5 Johns. 66 ; 
 Mitchell V. Wright, 4 Tex. 283. 
 
 G Vick V. Pope, 81 N. C. 22, 26 ; post, 1 460. 
 
 7 Frazler v. Felton, 1 Hawks, 231, 237,; iwst, U 460, 4fil. 
 
 8 Bellinger v. Thomson, 2 Rich. Eq. :^0 ; ante, i 437. 
 
 n Lewis ■!'. Moore, 2.5 Ark. 63 ; Ridgely ?i. Crandall, 4 Md. 435 ; 
 Pickering r. De Kochemont,45 X. H. 67 ; a7ite, I 431, n. 2. 
 
 10 Milton V. Haden, 32 Ala. 30 ; Tanner v. White, 15 Ala. 798.
 
 § 440 SUITS BY MAKKIED WOMEN. 636 
 
 11 Gliek V. Hartman, 10 Iowa, 410 ; Sherron v. Hall, 4 Lea, 40S. 
 
 12 Quarrier v. Baltimore, 20 W. Va. 424 ; post, \ 444. 
 
 13 Spring V. Sandford, 7 Paige, 5.50. 
 
 14 See ante, |? 14S, 14G, 151. 
 
 15 Bradley v. Emerson, 7 Vt. 369, 371 ; post, ? 440 ; ante, ? 210. 
 
 16 Emerson t>. Clayton, 32 III. 493, 497; Hollingsworth, 8 Ind. 257; 
 post, ? 441. 
 
 17 Pro. Keys v. Phelan, 10 Cal. 128, 129 ; HerzbPrer ''. Sachso, fiO Md. 
 426,432; Burns r. I.ynde, 6 Allen, 305. Contra, Havner v. Smith, 63 
 111. 430, 432 ; Harris i>. Webster, 58 N. H. 481. See cases ante, 1 438. 
 
 18 See citations supra, n. 17. 
 
 11 Wine; v. riondmon. 75 Til. 150 ; Henry v. Gregory, 29 Mich. 63 ; 
 Armstrong v. Colby, 47 Vt. 360. 
 
 § 440. Suits of married women by trustee or next friend. 
 — When a married woman has .separate property, and 
 a trustee is named, he should join with her;i though 
 if the proceeding be adverse to him, she sues by her 
 next friend, making liim a defendant.^ Inasmuch as 
 there is quite commonly no trustee named in scttlo- 
 menls creating separate estate, and when one is named 
 ho is often the husband,^ and inasmuch as when none 
 is named the husband is presumed to be and is treated 
 as such,* these suits are frequently brought by the 
 husband and wife jointly. But when so joined the 
 husband has no such power over the suit as he has 
 over the joint suits of himself and wife at law.' The 
 usual mode, however, in which a married woman pro- 
 ceeds in equity concerning lier separate rights is by 
 next friend.^ The next friend is joined in order that 
 the court may have a person S2ii Juris subject to its 
 orders," and in order tliat there may be some one re- 
 sponsible for costs.* The "s\ife need not have any 
 special permission to sue by next friend;^ and if she 
 has sued alone she may amend and join her next 
 friend.i" Her husband is generally her next friend," 
 and in one case this is said to be his right if he has no 
 conflicting interests ; 12 but it is believed that anj' one 
 may be next friend, '^ and that the husband is under 
 
 !
 
 637 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEN. g 440 
 
 disability to be so when he has conflicting interests.'* 
 The wife suing her husband must proceed by next 
 friend.'^ Slie may by her next friend sue the trustees 
 of her separate estate,'^ or file a bill for discovery to 
 aid a suit which she is prosecuting alone at law.'' 
 Though a married woman is not bound by a bill filed 
 by her husband for her and himself jointly-,'* :-;he is 
 bound by one filed by him as her next friend. '^ The 
 next friend may make the affidavit to the bill."" But 
 she is the substantial party, and if she gives him secu- 
 rity for costs, may dismiss the bill against his wishes.^ 
 She cannot, however, sue at law by next friend," un- 
 less she is so empowered by statute;^-"" and a statute 
 enabling her to sue at law by next friend does not 
 necessarily destroy her right to sue jointly, if she so 
 chooses. 2* 
 
 1 See Friend r. Oliver, 27 Ala. 532, r,34 ; Smith v. Chi;ppell,r:[ Conn. 
 589,593; .Sflienk v. Ellingwood, 3 Edw. 175. See Alston c. Joaes, 2 
 Barb. Ch. 397, 401. 
 
 2 Robert v. West, 15 Ga. 122, 148 ; Kenley, 3 Miss. 751, 753. 
 
 3 See ante, I 202. 
 
 4 Kiley, 25 Conn. 154, Ifil ; ante, ? 202. 
 
 5 See post, ? 460. 
 
 6 Bein ?•. Heath, 6 How. 228, 240; Harper v. Whitehead, ."S Ga. 
 138, 144 ; Kenlev, 3 Miss. 751, 753 ; Grant v. Van Schoonboven, 9 Paige, 
 255,257: 37 Am. Dec. 393; Garlick )•. Strong, 3 Paige, 440; Jordan v. 
 Gray, 19 Ohio, 618 ; Bellinger v. Thomson, 2 Rich. Eq. 30; liaker, 1 
 Bail. Eq. Ifi5 ; Leftwick v. Hamilton, 9 Heisb. 310, 313 ; Bradley v. 
 Emerson, 7 Vt. 369, 371. 
 
 7 lieftwiok v. Hamilton, 9 Heisk. 310, 313. 
 
 8 Harper v. Whitehead, :;3 Ga. 138, 144 ; ante, i 4.37. 
 
 9 Towner, 7 How. Pr. 387. 
 
 10 Garlick r. Strong, 3 Paige, 440 ; Willis r. Underbill, 6 How. Pr. 
 96. Consult ante, I 439 ; post, ? 444. 
 
 11 Bein v. Heath, B How. 22S, 240. 
 
 12 Bradley v. Emerson, 7 Vt. 369, 371. 
 
 13 Leftwick v. Hamilton, 9 Heisk. 310, 313 ; Garlick v. Strong, 3 
 Paige, 440. 
 
 14 Bradley r. Emerson, 7 Vt. 369, 371. 
 
 15 Hunt V. Booth, 1 Freem. Ch. 215 ; Kenley, 3 Miss. 751, 753 ; ante, 
 !43S. 
 
 16 Robert v. West, 15 Ga. 122, 148. 
 
 H. & W. — 54.
 
 g 441 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEX. 638 
 
 17 Bellinger v. Thomson, 2 Rich. Eq. 30. 
 
 18 Blackwell v. Bragg, 78 Va. 529 ; post, ?? 400, 461. 
 
 19 Bcin V. Heath, 6 How. 228, 239, 240 ; post, i 461. 
 
 20 Leftwick r. Hamilton, 9 Heisk. 310, 313. See Hopkins v. Neal, 
 2 Strange. 102R ; Head. 3 Atk. oil ; Witts v. Campbell, 12 Ves. 493; 
 Pryor v. Ryburn, 16 Ark. 671 ; Kilpatrick r. Stozier, 67 Ga, 247 ; 
 Humes r. Shillington, 22 Md. 346 ; Helms r. Francisciis, 2 Bland. .'''44; 
 20 Am. T>v<: 402 ; Qninn r. Moss, 12 Smedes & M. aio ; Colden v. 
 Moore. 3 Edw. Ch. 311 ; 20 Cent. L. J. 230. 
 
 21 Browner ;■. Bell, 30 Ga. 334, 336. 
 
 22 Jordan r. Gray, 19 Ohio, 618. 
 
 23 Smith, 18 Fla. 789 ; Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 1, 8 ; Fox v. Tooke, 
 34 ilo. .50.1. 
 
 24 Herzberg v. Sachse, 60 Md. 426, 432 ; ante, § 4-J8. 
 
 g 441. Suits ofmarried women alone. — 1. Independently 
 of stafufe. At ooiiinion law, a married woman could 
 sue in her own name alone, in all cases where she had 
 the capacities of a femrne sole; i that is to say, (1) when 
 lier husband was presumedlj^ dead ; ^ (2) when he was 
 civilly dead ; ^ (3) when he was an alien residing abroad ; * 
 (4) when he had permanentlj^ abandoned her and the 
 State ; ^ and (5) when he had been divorced from her a 
 vinculo matrimonii,^ or a mensa et tkoroJ But her 
 husband joined though she sued in a representative 
 capacity,^ and his mere consent could not enabl3 her to 
 sue alone, for husband and wife cannot by agreement 
 destroy their personal status.^ Nor could she sue alone 
 in other cases in courts of equity, on account of the 
 question of costs.'" 
 
 2. Under statutes. In many States statutes expressly 
 provide that married women may sue alone generally 
 or in special cases ; and usually the construction of such 
 statutes involves no particular difficulties.'^ The au- 
 thority to sue alone in one class of cases does not, 
 however, aftect the procedure in other ca.ses ; '- the 
 stattite in this respect must be strictly construed.''' A 
 statute authorizing a itiarried woman to sue alone as to 
 her "separate estate" has been held to apply only to 
 
 I
 
 639 SUITS EY JIARRIED WOMEN. § 441 
 
 statutory sepai"ate property." As to the implied powers 
 of married women to sue alone there is more ditficulty; 
 A statute enabling a wife to make contracts as if sole 
 impliedly authorizes her to sue alone thereupon.'* A 
 statute making lier a, fevime sole as to her separate prop- 
 erty, with tlie sole control thereof, enables her to sue 
 alone respecting it,'^ in replevin, for example.'^ When 
 a married woman is absolutely entitled to the proceeds 
 of a right of action,'* it is said that she may sue alone.'" 
 When she is empowered to sue alone, most cases hold 
 that it is error to join lier husband,-" though there are 
 also eases to the contrary;^ if tlie husband has any 
 actual interest he may of course join.*^ 
 
 1 Aiile, II 3;n-3;iS; .Stewart M. & D. ?J 174, 175, 177. 102, 322, 4S0, 449 
 452, 4G.I, 474, 475, See ClarU v. Valentine, 41 Ga. 143, 145 ; Love v. 
 Moyneban, 10 lU. 27'J, 2S2 ; Burger v. Belsley, 45 tit. 72, 74 : Smith v. 
 Silence, 4 Iowa, 321, :i24 ; Laughlin v. Eaton, 54 Me. 1.57, 15!) ; Worth- 
 mgton V. Cooke, 52 Md. 2!)7, SOS ; Gregory r. Pierce, 4 Met. 47s, 479 ; 
 Gregory v. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, 32 ; itose c. Bates, 12 JIo. 30 ; Osborn v. 
 Nelson, 50 Barb. 375; Benachim i\ Pn.tt, 1 Ohio St. 400, 405; Fall- 
 wickU- ''. Keith, 1 Heisk. 3(iO, 361 ; Cole v. Seeley, 20 Vt. 220 ; 60 Am. 
 Dec. 25S ; Hawes Parties, ? 63. 
 
 2 Smith V. Silence, 4 Iowa, 321, 324 ; Stewart M. & D. J 474. 
 
 i Bradley v. Emerson, 7 Vt. 309, 370 ; Stewart :*!. & D. | 475. 
 
 4 Gregory v. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, 32 ; siipifi, n. 1. 
 
 5 Love V . Moynehan, IC III. 279, 2S2 ; Stewart JL & D. §J 174, 175 ; 
 SKprrt, n. 1 ; ante, \ 332. 
 
 6 Webster, 58 Me. 140, 145; 4 Am. Rep, 2.v{ ; Motlev r. Sawver, 34 
 Me. 540, 542; Berry I'.Teel, 12R, 1.267, 2ftS; Stewart M"cfe I), jf 4-!0,449. 
 
 7 Benadum r. Pratt, 1 Ohio St. 400, 4a5 ; Stewart M. & D. JJ 430,449. 
 
 8 Buck !•. Fischer, 2 Colo. T. 709 ; ante, J 439. 
 
 9 Beach, 2 Hill, 260, 261 ; 38 .\m. Dec. 584 ; Stewart M. &.Ji.i 181. 
 
 10 Harper v. Whitehead. 33 Ga, i:i8, 144 ; ante, U 4-57. 440. 
 
 11 See McConeghy r. McC'aw, 31 Ala. 447 ; Guttnian v. Scamraell, 
 7 Cal. 455 ; Allen !■. Eldridge, 1 Colo. 2sS ; Wilkiiis v. Miller, 9 Ind. 
 100, 101 ; Kramer r. Conger, Ki Iowa, 4;54 ; Pancoast v. Burnell, 32 
 Iowa, 394 ; Dickson v. Kuiidul, 19 Kan. 212 ; Furrow )•. Chapin, 13 Kan. 
 107; Hadley v. Brown, 2 Kun. 41t> ; Davis r. Herrick, 37 Me. 397; 
 Tunks c. Grover, 57 Me, .5sii, 5-!H; Fowle r. Tidd, 15 Grav.94, :»5 ; Burke 
 r. Cole, 97 Mass. 114, 115; Spencer v. St. Paul, 22 Minn. 29 ; Boal v. 
 Morgner, 4R Mo. 4s, .=i'i ; Cocippr r. Alger, 51 N. H. 172, 175 , Sigel V, 
 Johns, 58 Barb. 62u, 62- ; Duiby r. Callaghau, 16 N. Y. 73. 
 
 12 Gerald v. McKenzle, 27 Ala. 166, 170. 
 
 13 See ante, § 16. 
 
 14 Gurald v, McKeuzie, 27 Ala. 166, 170.
 
 l\ 442-443 SUITS by married women. 640 
 
 15 Beynand v. Memphis, 7 Baxt. 279. 
 
 16 Emerson ?j. Clayton. 32 III. 40S,407; Gibson, io Wis. 2:>, 2G ; 2S 
 Am. Rep. 527. See Beavers r. Bancum, H3 Ark. 7-2; Meriwether i\ 
 Smith, 44 Ga. .t41, 543; Forbes v. Tuckerman, 115 Mass. IIT). lis ; 
 Nininger v. Commissioners, 10 Minn. 133 ; Boal v. Morguer, 46 Mo. 4S ; 
 Hawes Parties, 'i C6. 
 
 17 Waterson v. Matteson, 4 H. I. 539. 
 
 18 See 2)ost, I 447. 
 
 19 Anderson v. Friend, 71 111. 475, 477. 
 
 20 Havner r. Smith , 03 III. 430, 432. See Rockwell r. Clark , 44 Conn. 
 534 ; StatiipotTski i\ Uooper, 75 111. 242,245; Tuttle r. Chieago. 42 Iowa, 
 56S; Al-xanih'r?'. Goodwin,. 54 IS'. H. 423,424 ; Whiddi-ii v. ColiTiian, 
 47 X. H. 2 17; Cooper v. Alerer, 51 X. H. 172; Ifanis r. Wcbstpr, .5S 
 N. H. 4S1 ; Tantuin v. Coleman, 26 N. J. Eq. 12-) ; I'almer i'. Uavis, 
 28 N. Y. 242; ante, §438. 
 
 21 Windsor v. Bell, 61 Ga. 071, 670 ; ante, ? 433. 
 
 22 Hayner v. Smith, 03 111. 430, 432 ; Henry v. Gregory, 29 Mieh. OS, 69. 
 
 g 442. Tlio causes of action onwhiolimarriadwonion may 
 sue. — The cau.se of action on which a suit of a married 
 woman is brought may be an antenuptial or postnup- 
 tial injury to or contract with her, or a chose in action 
 a.ssigned to her before or after her marriage, and it may 
 concern herself or her property ; or the suit may be for 
 relief respecting her property, general or separate. The 
 mode of procedure in each case is elsewhere seiiarately 
 discussed;' it depends very largely on the substantial 
 rights of hu.sband and wife,^ and therefore differs with 
 circumstances and with resjiect to different kinds of 
 property. 
 
 1 See titles in index. 
 
 2 See aiUe, ? 429. 
 
 I 443. The defenses in suits brought by married women. 
 — The defense of the woman's coverture i.->, of course, a 
 defense peculiar to married women's suits ; ' her disa- 
 bilities to some extent atfect the defense of limitations ; '■^ 
 and the fact of her husband's joinder to some degree 
 complicates the principles relating to the defense of set- 
 off.3 As to other defenses there seem to be no points 
 peculiar to suits of married women.
 
 641 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEN. § 444 
 
 1 Discussed ix>st, I 4-14. 
 
 2 Discussed post, ? 445. 
 
 S See McMalion v. Burchell, 5 Hare, 322 ; 3 Hare, n7 ; Elihank v. 
 Srontohen, ."i Ves. 737 ; I'iirr v. Taylor, 10 Ves. 574 ; Gordon, 1 (Jb-ii & 
 .1. 347 : Ranking !'. Barnard, 5 Madd. 32 ; Johnson v. King, 20 Ala. 270 ; 
 Wingate v. Parsons, 4 Del. Ch. 117, 122 ; Carver, S^i Ind. 241, 244 ; Han- 
 ralian ;•. Leclerg, 15 La. An. 204, 205 ; Lane v. Fallen, 16 Md. 3.i2, 3.57 ; 
 Carpenter v. Leonard, 5 Minn. 1.55; Pierce v. Dnstin, 24 N. H. 117; 
 Mollan r. Griffith, 3 Paige, 402; Fergus<in v. Lothrop, 15 Wend. 625; 
 Jamison )'. Brad.v, 6 fSerg. & R. 46(< ; o Am. Dec. 4MJ ; Murray ?i. Wil- 
 liamson, 3 Binn. 135; Fick v. Hake, 6 Watts, 131 : Rohirts v. Adams. 
 2 S. C. 3H7, 343 ; Kennedy v. Badgett, 19 S. C Sill, 504 ; Hubby v Camp- 
 lin,22Te.\;. 582,583. 
 
 § 444. The plea of coverture against married women. — If 
 the married woman has a right of action, but pursues 
 the wrong remedy, as if she sues alone when her 
 husband, 1 or her trustee or next friend, ^ should be 
 joined, her coverture must be set up by a plea in abate- 
 ment,* or if her coverture appears on the face of the 
 pleadings by demurrer ; * and in the absence of .such 
 plea or demurrer the objection is waived and cannot be 
 made at all.^ If she sues jointly with a man who 
 apparently has no interest, and does not allege their 
 marriage, the declai-ation is demurrable ;* .so if, though 
 the marriage be alleged, the interest of the wife and 
 her iglit to sue do not affirmatively appear, the 
 declaration is demurrable ; ' and in sucli cases the defect 
 is not cured by verdict.^ But if the wife has no right 
 of action at all, the defendant may have a nonsuit ;* 
 and if this is apparent on the pleadings, it is fatal on 
 demurrer,'* or in arrest of judgment, or on error.'' Of 
 course, if the wife has the right to sue alone and so 
 sues, a plea of coverture is bad.'^ 
 
 1 Ross V. Linder, 12 .S. C. 502. 
 
 2 Kcnley, 3 Miss. 751, 753 ; infra, n. 3. 
 
 3 Dntton v. Rice, 53 N. H. 416, 49!). S. P., Packet v. Clongh, 20 
 Wall. .52s, 539; Chirac r. Reinicker, II Wheat. 2S0. .303; James v. 
 Stewart, Ala. 855 ; Kimbro v. First, 1 McAr. 61, 66 ; Young v. Ward, 
 21 111. 2J3. 225; Dickin,son ?>. Trout, s I'.usli, 441. 443; Walker v. Gilli- 
 man, 45 Me. 28, :ffl ; Winslow r. Gilbnth. 40 Me. 578; Hayden v. 
 Attlehoro, 7 Grav, 33S, 343; Kenlcv, :; Miss. 751, 7.53; Simmons v. 
 Thomas, 43 Miss. 31 ; 5 Am. Rep. 470 ; Bi'Il r. Con.solidated, 32N, J. L. 
 102 ; Dillaye v. Parks, 31 Barb. 132 ; Xewtou v. Robinson, 1 Tayl.
 
 ^ 445 SUITS BY MAKRIED WOMEX. 642 
 
 72, 75: Sheidle v. Weishlee, 16 Pa. St. 134, 138 ; Surt?n r. Brails- 
 ford. ? Bay. 3;«. 338 ; Quarrier v. Baltimore, 20 W. Va. 424. 
 
 1 Mott I'. Smith, 16 Cal. r,m ; Tissot v. Throckmortosi, 6 Cal. 471, 
 473 ; Tapley 10 Minn. 44S ; Kenle.v, 3 iliss. 751, 753. 
 
 5 Chirac 7.. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. 2S0, 303 ; Kenley, 3 >Iis.s. 751, 753 ; 
 Surtell V. BraUsford, 2 Bay, 333, 338 ; Ross v. Linder, 12 S. C. 592 ; 
 supra, n. 3. 
 
 6 Tanner v. White, 15 Ala. 798. 
 
 7 Hj'att i\ Cochran, 85 Ind. 231 ; Williams v. Braiaard, 52 Vt. 392 ; 
 ante, H31> n. 2. 
 
 8 Smith i: New England, 45 Conn. 416. 
 
 9 Dntton »'. Rice, 53 X. H. 496, 499. S. P., James v. Stewart, 9 Ala. 855; 
 Kimbro v. First, 1 McAr. 61, 06 ; Newton v. Robinson, Tayl. 72, 76. 
 
 10 See Kenley, 3 Miss. 751, 753 ; supra, n. 4 ; infra, n. 11. 
 
 11 Kimbro v. First, 1 McAr. 61, G6. 
 
 12 Farman v. ChamberlaiTi, 74 Ind. 82,83. 
 
 g 445. Plea of limitations against married women. — 
 Althougli long dela^'inay raise a, prima facie presump- 
 tion of ijayment independently of statute,^ the plea of 
 limitations as an absolute bar depends entirely on stat- 
 ute ; ■■' and Statutes of Limitation are of equal force in 
 equity and at law.^ By the Briti-sh statute of James,* 
 and mo.st of the American statutes based upon it,^ a 
 si^ecial saving is made in favor of married women, .so 
 that as a general rule a married woman is not barred 
 from prosecuting a right which accrues during covert- 
 ure, by any lapse of time occurring before the disso- 
 lution of her marriage.'' Thus, when a party acquires 
 property from a husband during coverture, tlie wife of 
 such husband is not barred from claiming the prop- 
 erty as hers by any lapse of time before his death ; ' 
 and against a wife wlio lends money to her husband, 
 limitations begin to run only from the date of his death 
 or divorce.^ In the statutes of Iowa, Missouri, New 
 York, and Wisconsin, there seem to be no .saving 
 clauses in favor of married women ;9 in Massachusetts 
 the saving clause operates only if the wife is " under 
 disability "; 1* in California, i^ Indiana,''^ and Ken- 
 tucky,'^ only if she cannot sue alone, and in West Vir-
 
 643 SUITS BY MAKRIED WOMEN. § 445 
 
 ginja, cases in which she can sue alone are excepted 
 from the saving operation of the chiuse.'' But Avhether 
 statutes enabling married women to sue alone by 
 imi^liPAtion repeal the saving clause in the Statute of 
 Limitation, is disputed : on the one hand it is held that 
 when a wife can sue as if unmarried, the reason for the 
 exception is gone, and therefore the exception can no 
 longer exist ;i^ wliile it is on the other hand main- 
 tained that the privileges of married women can be 
 removed only by express legislation, and that their 
 safety from limitations secured by the general statute 
 must continue to exist until exx>ressly taken away.'^ 
 In coming to a determination on this point, the lan- 
 guage of the particular statutes is of course of great 
 importance.!^ A statute which excepts persons " under 
 legal disabilities," excepts married women so far as 
 they are under disabilities onlj^^^ Coverture is not, 
 however, the only ground for exception under the stat- 
 utes ; infancy is another common one ; and a married 
 woman cannot tack one of these disabilities to an- 
 other.'^ Thus, if an infant with a right of action iTiar- 
 rics, the statute begins to run in spite of her coverture, 
 when she comes of full age,'^" and so when limitations 
 have not run against a married woman on account of 
 her coverture, and she dies, her lieirs cannot set up 
 their infancy as a furtlier reason why the statute 
 should not run.-' But if, when tlie right accrues, the 
 woman is both married and an infant, the statute be- 
 gins to run only when both of the disabilities are 
 removed.-'-' If the statute once begins to run, no subse- 
 quently incurred disability can stop it;^ therefore a 
 wife is not saved from the operation of the statute if 
 she had the right of action at the time of her marriage ; ^^ 
 and so, if her right accrues during coverture, and her 
 husband dies, the statute begins to run on the day of
 
 I 445 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEN. 644 
 
 his death, and does not stop when she marries again. ^ 
 The plea of limitations can be set ni) only by tl.a par- 
 ties or those claiming under them.^^ The saving in 
 favor of a married woman does not prevent limitations 
 from running against her husband ^ or her assign- 
 ees ; ^ tlie liusband's delay may bar his right to the 
 estate during coverture, and to curtesy;^ and in case 
 of her death, if he has curtesy, the statute does not run 
 against her heirs until the estate of curtesy has ter- 
 minated.^" Limitations do not run in favor of a hus- 
 band's heirs against his Avidow's claim for dower.^' 
 
 1 See Piatt v. Smith, 12 Oliio St. 5(U, 671 ; Meaner v. Hamilton, 27 
 Pa. St. 137, 143. 
 
 2 See Hodges r. Uardcn, 51 Miss. 19!), 201. 
 
 3 Powers V. Kutz, 40 Pa. St. 90, 94. 
 
 4 Alex. Brit. Stats, p. 446. 
 
 5 Tliese statutes should bo consulted : See R. I. R. S. 1882, pp. 446, 
 4o6 ; Tex. R. S. 1879, U '■^-^l< ^-" ! Bush v. Lindsey, 14 Ga. 687, 689. 
 
 6 Meegan r. Bovle, 19 How. 130, 1.50 ; Sledge r. Clopton, 6 Ala. 
 6S:), 606 ; Median )'. Wvatt, 21 Ala. 813, 835 ; Drenner v. AValker, 21 
 Ark. 53!l, .'Ho; Flvnt v. Hatchett, 9 Ga. 328, 333; Taylor v. Shemwell, 
 4 Mon. B. 575, 57S ; Fatheree v. Fletcher, 31 Miss. 265, 271 ; Bnrke ?•. 
 Beveridge, U Minn. 205, 211; McLane -ji. Moore, 6 Jones, 520, 523; 
 McLean v. Jackson, 12 Ired. 149, 150 ; Towers v. Hagner, 3 Whart. 48, 
 60 ; Jones r. Reeves, fi Rich. 132, 137 ; Murdock v. Johnson, 7 Cold. 
 605, 619; and other cases i:i this section. 
 
 7 Jones v. Reeves, 6 Rich. 132, 137. 
 
 8 Towers \k ITagner, 3 Whart. 4S, 60. Consult Bradley v. Sadler, 
 54 Ga. 681, 686 ; Oswald v. Hoover, 43 Md. 300, 388 ; Fletcher v. Updike, 
 3 IIuu, 350. 
 
 9 Valle V. Ovenhause, 62 Mo. 82,89; Acker, 81 N. Y. 143, 148; 
 Wood Limit. ? 240, p. 482. 
 
 10 Wood Limit. ? 240, p. 482. . 
 
 11 Cameron v. Smith, 50 CaL 303, .304 ; Wilson, 36 Cal. 447, 450. 
 
 12 Eanman r. Grul)bs, 20 Ind. 419, 421. 
 
 13 Masterson v. Marshall , 5 Dana, 412, 414, 415. 
 
 14 Wood Limit. I 240, p. 482. 
 
 15 Geisen v. Heiderich, 104 111. .537, .>10 ; Enos r. Buckler, 04 111. 
 458 ; Havwood v. Gunn, 82 III. 3S5, .391 ; Castner v. Walrod, S3 111. 171, 
 176 • 25 Am. Rep. 369 ; Brown v. Cousens, 51 Me. 301, 308 ; Dunham v. 
 Sage, 52 N. Y. 230. 
 
 16 Morrison v. Norman, 47 111. 477, 481 ; Ball v. Bullard, 52 Barb. 
 145, 146; Weisner v. Zaun, 39 Wis. 188, 208-210; Westcott v. Miller, 42 
 Wis. 4.54, 464, 
 
 17 See Bush v. Lindsey, 14 Ga, 687, 689. 
 
 18 Banman v. Grubbs, 26 Ind. 41D, 421,
 
 645 SUITS BY MARRIED WOMEIf. g 446 
 
 in Blackwell v. Brags, 'S Va. 539, 536. See Carter v. C'antrell, Ifi 
 Alii. 154, 104 ; Henny r. Carson, 59 Pa. St. 297, 308. 
 
 20 Carter v. Cantrell, 16 Ark. 154, 1G4 ; supra, n. 13. 
 
 21 Henny v. Carson, 59 Pa. St. 297, 30S. 
 
 23 Blackwell v. Bragg, 78 Va. 529, 536. 
 
 2:s Carter v. CantreU, 16 Ark. 154, 164 ; Welborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 
 2t!7, 270 ; Masterson v. Marshall, 5 Dana, 413, 415 ; Thorpe v. Corwin, 
 2J N. J. L. 311, 314 ; Becton v. Alexander, 27 Tex. 659, 669. 
 
 24 Welborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267, 270. 
 
 25 McDonald v. McGuire, S Tex. 361, 365. 
 
 26 State V. Layton, 4 Har. (Del.) 8, 19 ; Watson v. Kelly, 16 X. J. L. 
 5:7, 524. 
 
 27 Neal v. Robinson, 2 Dana, 8G, 88 ; McDowell v. Potter, 8 Pa. St. 
 189, 194 ; 49 Am. Dec. 503. 
 
 23 Thompson v. Peebles, 6 Dana, 387, 390. 
 
 29 Murdoch v. Johnson, 7 Cold. 605, 609. 
 
 30 Marple v. Myers, 12 Pa, St. 122, 127. 
 
 31 Webb V. Smith, 40 Ark. 17, 24 ; Mc Whirter v. Roberts, 40 Ark. 283. 
 
 § 446. Special proceedings by married women. — Al- 
 though courts of equity are said to have a special 
 jurisdiction over married women, this does not mean 
 that married women may proceed in equity as married 
 women, where an unmarried person would have to 
 proceed at law. Suits in which married women are 
 concerned are so often brought in equity because they 
 relate to equitable separate property — to an equitable 
 title.^ But when a married woman has the full legal 
 title and the right to sue at law, she cannot seek equity's 
 protection for her property in cases where equity would 
 not relieve an unmarried woman. ^ On the other hand, 
 though authorized to sue at law respecting her statutory 
 seimrate estate, she could not sue at law if her title 
 thereto were merely equitable.* She must proceed 
 against her husband in equity ;* but usually, if she can 
 sue, she must choose her remedy as if sole.' 
 
 1 See ante, ?? 210, 211. 
 
 2 Frazior v. White, 49 Md. 1,8. See Kneeland v. Fuller, 51 Me. 518. 
 
 3 Boiling V. Mock, 35 Ala. 727, 730. 
 
 4 Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 417 ; ante, ?? 53, 433. 
 
 5 See Dent v. Slough, 40 Ala. 518, 524.
 
 I 447 SUITS AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN. 646 
 
 2 447. The ownersMp of the proceeds of married women's 
 suits. — That all choses in action are property seems 
 quite well settled, though some question has been 
 raised as to choses in action in tort.^ And therefore, 
 such choses fall Avithin the provisions of separate j^rop- 
 ertij acts ; they are property ; ^ they are proiierty 
 acquired in any manner ;3 but, of course, a wife's right 
 of action for a wrong to her is not x^i'opertj^ acquired 
 by gift, grant, devise, bequest, etc. * At common law, 
 where the husband had a substantial right in his wife's 
 choses in action, a judgment obtained in their joint 
 names, if i-educed, went to tlio husband alone as jier- 
 sonalty in possession, but if not reduced to possession 
 before the liusband's deatli, survived to the -wire.^ 
 Under statutes securing a wife's choses in action to her 
 separate use, thougli judgment be obtained in the joint 
 names of husband and wife, lie lias no substantial ini-cr- 
 est in it — no attacliaV>le interest, for example.^ Still, to 
 prevent tliis question from arising, a married woman 
 should never sue jointly with her husband, wlion she 
 has the authority to sue by next friend or alone. 
 
 1 Discussed ante, U 219, 229, 2:50. 
 
 1' Boston, 32 31(1. 212, 224 ; ante, >< 219. 
 
 3 Chicago v. Dunn, 52 111. 200, 2R:! ; ante, { 2."0. 
 ■i Hemp V. Clark-, Md. Law Rec. Feb. 2S, 1385. 
 
 5 Antr, ?? 17G, 183, 311. 
 
 6 Hemp V. Clark, Md. Law Rec. Felt. 2i, 188."). 
 
 Article III. — Suits Against Married Women. 
 
 \ 448. Modes in which married women may be sued. 
 
 § 449. Suits jointly with husband. 
 
 5 430. Suits with trustee or next friend. 
 
 ? 451. Suits against married women alone. 
 
 { 452. The service of process. 
 
 I 453. The causes of action. 
 
 I 454. The defenses. 
 
 ? 435. The plea of coverture by married women. 
 
 I 456. The plea of limitations by married women.
 
 647 SUITS AGAIX.ST MARRIKD WOMEN. §? 448-449 
 
 J -loT. Effect of jiidgnieiU against married women. 
 
 ? 438. The execution, etc., of the judjfment. 
 
 { 459, Special proceedings agsvlnst married women. 
 
 ^ 448. The modes in which married women may be sued. 
 — Under different laws and cinnimstances suits have 
 been brought properij' against married women in the 
 foiiowing modes: (1) Jointlj'' with husband; (2) jointly 
 with trustee ; and (3) alone. The first was the invariable 
 mode at common law, not only because the husband 
 was jointly liable with the wife on all her contracts and 
 torts,' but because ho had present substantial interests 
 in all her property Avhicli might be affected by the 
 suit.'- The second was the mode when the wife had a 
 trustee of equitable separate property.^ The third was 
 the mode in Avhich a wife with the capacities of ii fetnme 
 sole was sued, and is the usual mode under the statutes.* 
 
 1 "Whitman v. Delano, G X. H. .54-'!, .M5 ; Prescott v. Fisher. 22 111. 
 300, 3!);; ; ante, H 6G, 67 ; post, 2 441}. Consult Hawes Parties, H 6S-70. 
 
 2 See ante, U 137, 141, 163. 
 
 3 See ante, U 202, 210,211 ; po«<, J 450. 
 
 4 Post, I 451. Compare ante, I 438. 
 
 I 449. Suits against wife jointly with husband. — As a 
 rule, independently of statute, wliethor at law or in 
 equity (except as to equitable separate estate, of which 
 there is a third party trustee, and in whicli tlie husband 
 has no rights' ), the liusband lias to be joined in all suits 
 against his wife.- He was joined at common law even 
 in suits against her as executrix.^ Tlie grounds of her 
 liability mu.st be distinctly alleged.' Inequity she could, 
 by leave of court, answer separately ; ^ but he had full 
 control of the suit at law.^ A joint demurrer might be 
 sustained as to her alone." Under tlie statutes he is usu- 
 ally joined when he is liable,* and not when he is not lia- 
 ble;^ but in some States he must be made a formal party.'" 
 He should bo joined in possessory actions against the 
 wife," because her possession is his possession.''^ 
 
 1
 
 §? 450-451 SUITS AGAINST ilARRIED WOMEN. 648 
 
 1 See ante, U 203, 210, 211 ; post, I -450. 
 
 2 ilarshall v. Oakes, 51 Me. 30S ; Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 417; 
 ante,'(ii'il; Hawes Parties, J 68. Because he was jointly liable . Ante, 
 U 66, 67. 
 
 3 Ludlow V. Marsh, 3 N. J. L. 083 ; ante, I C>6. 
 
 4 Gaylord v. Pajnie, 4 Conn. 190. 
 
 5 Perine i'. Swalne, 1 Johns. Ch. 24 ; jtoat, 5 461. See Schmidt v. 
 Postel, 63 111. 58. 
 
 6 Vick V. Pope, 81 X. C. 22, 26 ; post, i 460. 
 
 7 Wooden r. Morris, 3 N. J. Eq. 65. 
 
 8 Robinson v. Trofitter, 109 Mass. 478 ; ante, U 66, 67. 
 
 9 Hagebrush v. Ragland, 78 111. 400 ; Carothers v. McNese, 43 Tex. 
 221. 
 
 10 Md. Act 1880, ch. 253, ?? ."?!, 32 ; Cook v. Ligon, 54 Miss. 372 ; Ham- 
 lin V. Bridge, 24 Me. 145. 
 
 11 Howard v. Valentine, 20 Cal. 282. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, §? 119-121. 
 
 § 450. Suits against the wife jointly with, trustee. — 
 Whenever there is a trustee, he should be joined hi 
 suits affecting the projiertj^ ; ^ if no trustee is named, 
 the husband is joined as such.^ When the wife answers 
 separately, she generally acts by her next friend.* If 
 she is an infant, with separate j^roperty and a distinct 
 defense, a guardian ad litem should be aiJi^ointed.* 
 
 1 Palmer v. Rankins, 30 Ark. 771 ; ante, U 202, 211. 
 
 2 Sec Fears v. Brooks, 12 Go.. i:i5, 197 ; ante, U 202, 211. 
 
 3 Wolf V. Banning, 3 Minn. 202 ; PhUlips v. Burr, 4 Duer, 113 ; 
 l)OSt, I 462. 
 
 4 Nicholson v. Wilhorii, 13 Ga. 467. 
 
 I 451. Suits against married women alone. — Inde- 
 pendently of statute, a married woman can be sued 
 alone only in cases in which hy the common law she 
 enjoyed the status of a, femme sole;^ only when her 
 husband (1) Avas i^resumedly dead ; ^ or (2) civillj' dead ; ^ 
 or (3) an alien residing abroad ; ' or (4) had permanently 
 abandoned her and the State ; '•> or (5) was divorced from 
 her.^ Even in suits in equity her husband had to be 
 joined, unless she had a trustee.' In many States, 
 statutes expressly authorizing suits against married 
 women alone have been passed ; ^ and statutes which
 
 649 SUITS AGAINST MARRIED -WOMEX. \ 452- 
 
 destroy her husband's common-law liability on her 
 torts and contracts, or enable her to incur liabilities 
 unknown at common law, impliedly authorize suits 
 against her alone,^ unless they provide that the husband; 
 shall be joined as a formal party. "• 
 
 1 Worthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 297, 308 ; Gregory v. Piiul;JS-1Mass. . 
 31, 32, ;J4 ; ante, \l 332-337. 
 
 2 Smith V. Silence, 4 Iowa, 321, 324 ; Stewart M. ife D. ? 474^. 
 
 3 Worthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 297, 308 ; Stewart M. &:D.-.§>»5. 
 
 4 Gregory r. Paul, 15 Mass. 31, 33, 34. 
 
 5 Love !'. Moynehan, 16 111. 279, 282 ; Stewart M. & I1..^J J74y,175. 
 C Stewart M. <fe D. \l 430, 449. 
 
 7 Porter r. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 417 ; ante, \\ 449, 450. 
 
 8 Compare ante, \ 441. 
 
 9 Morrell v. Cawley, 17 Abb. Pr. 353 ; ante, \ 425. 
 10 Md. Acts 1880, ch. 253, l\ 31, 32 ; ante, \ 449 
 
 g 453. The service of process on married women.- — At 
 oommon law, a married woman sued jointly with her 
 husband did not have to be summoned iJersonally — 
 service on her husband was sufficient' — unless the 
 proceeding was one afltecting her separate property.-' 
 If the husband has complete control of the suit he can. 
 admit .summons for her, otherwise not.^ It has been 
 held that one copy of the summons left at the family 
 residence is sufficient summons for both husband andi 
 wife,* and that they are presumed to have the same 
 residence.^ As personal service is necessary only to 
 give ijersonal jurisdiction,* it has been held that service ■ 
 on a married woman is not necessary when the pro- 
 ceeding is one in rem against her seijarate property — a 
 case of attachment.' Service on a wife is not, however, 
 service on her hu.sband.^ 
 
 1 Hollinger v. Bk. 8 Ala. 605 ; Lord v. Strong, 1 Root, 475 ; King v, 
 McCampbell, 6 Blackf. 435, 430; Jordan r. Anderson, 29 La. An. 
 749, 750; Ferguson v. Smith, 2 Johns. Ch. 139, 140 ; :Nichol8on .v. Cox, 
 83 N. C. 44, 47 ; 35 Am. Rep. 556 ; j/t/ra, n. 2. 
 
 2 Piggott V. Snell, 59 111. 106, 108 ; Smith v. Taylor, 11 Ga. 20, 22 ; 
 Moore r. Wade, 8 Kan. ;*!0. 385; Kepp v. Hanna, 2 Bland, 26; 
 Kerchner v. Kempton, 47 Md. 568, 590 ; Powers '•. Totten, 42 N. J. L. 
 442, 445 ; Foote v. Lathrop, 53 Barb. 183, 185 ; Eckerson c. VoUluer, 11. 
 
 H. «fc W.-65.
 
 I 453 SOITS AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN. 650 
 
 How. Pr. 42, 43 ; Leavitt v. Cruger, 1 Paige, 421, 422 ; Vick v. Pope, 
 81 N C. 22, 25 ; Shelby v. Perrin, 18 Tex. 515, 517 ; suura, n. 1. 
 
 n Moore v. Wade, 8 Kan. 380, 385 ; XieUolson v. Cox, 83 N. C. 44, 
 47 ; 35 Am. Rep. 55G. 
 
 4 Lord V. Strong, 1 Root, 475. 
 
 5 Pruto 1'. Duncan, 22 111. 2G ; ante, J? 23, 60 
 
 6 Moore v. Wade, 8 Kan. 3S0, .'ftj. 
 
 7 Brent v. Taylor, fi Md. .5.S, fi3. 
 
 8 Hess r. Cole, 23 X. J. L. 116, 12.3. 
 
 I 453. The causes of action on which marriod women 
 may be sued. — At common law. a married Avoinan was 
 liable to be sued only on her antenuptial contracts or 
 torts, and on her postnuptial torts which she voluntarily 
 committed ; • on such causes of action, judgment could 
 be obtained again.st her jointlj^ with her husband, and 
 any pi'operty of hers could be seized in execution, " In 
 equity her equitable separate estate could bo made 
 liable by a proeeedhig in rem against it for all sum? of 
 money which she had i^ropeiiy, in accordance with the 
 rule prevailing in llie particular State, charged uponit.^ 
 Under .statutes, slie may render herself and her property 
 liable on Iier contracts,'' and the only difficulty as to the 
 procedure in such ca.ses is whether the suit shall be 
 brouglit at law or in equity, and whether the proceeding 
 shall bo in personam or m remj> When tlie contract is 
 binding on statutory seiDarate estate only because such 
 property is treated as if it were secured to the woman 
 by deed instead of by statute, the proceeding must be in 
 equity and in rem, just as if it Avere equitable .sepai'ate 
 property.^ But when tlie contract is made under the ex- 
 press or implied powers given 1)y the terms of the stat- 
 ute, the proceeding should be at law as if she were sole ; ^ 
 except tliat Avhen the contract is valid only by virtue of 
 a i^ower attached to an ownership of property, tlie opera- 
 tion of the judgment must be limited to such property.* 
 
 1 See ante, U 66, 67, 421-425. 
 
 2 Zachary i'. Cadenhoad, 40 Ala. 2:J0 ; post, § 458.
 
 651 SUITS AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN. ''A 454- 455 
 
 3 See ante, \\ 206, 207, 211. 
 
 4 Discusssed ante, \ \ o6 J-S78. 
 
 5 See antCy \l 2w-239, 370-273. 
 
 6 See Giissoll. Law It. 12 Ch. D. 484 ; Stillwell v. Adams, 2!) Ark. 
 346. 3.51 ; Carpenter v. Mitchi-U, .iO 111. 470, 474 ; Jont-s r. Ciosthwaits, 
 17 Iowa, 393, 403, 404 ; Worthiiigtoi v. Cooke, 52 Md. 2 i7, 308 ; IJevries v. 
 Conklin,22 Mich. 25.">, 2.3 ), 2«j ; S'hafortU v. Ambs. 46 Mo. 114, 120, 121 ; 
 Puwlev t'. Vogel, 42 Mo. 2.11. "Ml\ remberton t'. Johnson, .ib Mo. 342, 
 :544; Walker v. Dciver, 7:i Mo. 664, 674; Vankirlc ?■ Skillniaii, 34 
 N. J. L. 10.) ; .lohi.spn V. CummiiiKs, 16 N.J. Eq. 117, 10.5, KM!; Williams 
 V. farroll, 2 Hilt. 4:8. 440; Dougherty v. .Sprinkle, SS N. O. 300, 302; 
 Phillips V. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 382 ; 5 Am. Rep. 675 ; Kavanaugh v. 
 O'Neill, 53 Wis. 101, lOG. 
 
 7 Cookson v. Toole, 51 111. 519, 521 ; Leonard r. Rogan, 20 Wis. 54C. 
 542. See Richmond v. Tibbies, 26 Iowa, 476; Van Metre v. Wolf,-.' 
 Iowa, :<4» ; r.Iiner v. Pearson, 16 Kan. 2S ; (iuishaber v. Hairinan, 2 
 Bush, 320 ; C'ar.v r>. Dixon, 51 Miss. 601 ; Griffin r. Reagran, 52 Miss. 81 ; 
 Smith V. Doming, Gl N. Y. 251 ; Conway v. Smith, 13 Wis. 137 ; ante,, 
 ii 237, 239, ::73. 
 
 8 See Baldwin v. Kimmel, 16 Abb. Pr. 3.53. "Oi. 
 
 g 454. The defenses of marriod women. — The peculiar 
 defeu.se of married women is, of course, the defense of 
 coverture.! The fact of coverture in .some casei atiects 
 the defense of limitations;^ and the fact that the hus- 
 b.tnd is joined sometimes raises the question as to how 
 far a defense of one will bo available to the otlier.^ The 
 wife's bankruptcy, for criami^le, discharges both her 
 husband and herself from liability for her debts,* 
 while his bankruptcj^ discharges him alone.'' As to 
 other defenses, there are no special i^oints relating to 
 married women, except as far as the management of 
 the suit is concerned.'' 
 
 1 Discussed pott, I 4.55. 
 
 2 Discu.ssedpf/s<, J 450. 
 
 3 See Floor v. Stoigelmaver, 76 Ind. 479, 4S1 ; State v. Layton. 4 
 liar. (Del.) 8, 19; McDowell v. Potter, 8 Pa. St. ISJ, 194 ; 49 Am. Dec. 
 503. 
 
 4 Chadwick v. Starrctt, 27 Me. 141. 
 
 5 Jones r. Glass, 43 Iowa, 345, 346; AUers v. Forbes, 59 Md. C74, :^6. 
 
 6 Discussed ;jOA-<, 1} 4C0-;63. 
 
 § 455. Tha plea of coverture Ly married women. — If a 
 married woman is sued on an obligation on wliich .slie 
 is not liable at all, she may, if the defect is apparent on
 
 ? 455 SUITS AGAINST MAKItlED WOMEN. 652 
 
 the pleadings, demur ;i or she may i^lead her covert- 
 ure in bar,^ or prove it under the general issue,^ or 
 set it up af:er judgment on a writ of error, or a motion 
 to set the jud-^ment aside ; * and it has been oven held 
 that a judgment obtained in such a case against a mar- 
 ried woman is a, mere nullitj^, and may be so treated in 
 collateral proceedings.^ The plaintift" cannot cure tlie 
 defect in hi.s proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi 
 against the wife, except in the case of torts, bei-ause in 
 a suit in contract recovery must be had against all or 
 iionc.8 If she is liable on the obligation, but is im- 
 properly sued, her husband, next friend, or trustee 
 not being joined, she must set up her coverture by a 
 plea in abatement' (which, of course, must be put in 
 before any plea in bar 8), or if the defect is apparent on 
 the pleadings by demurrer ; • and in the absence of 
 such plea or demurrer the defense is waived and can- 
 not be made at all.'" It is, perhaps, from a failure to 
 recognize the distinction between the cases wliere tlie 
 married woman is liable and is improperly sued, and 
 the cases where she is not liable at all, that the great 
 diflference of opinion as to the effect of a judgment 
 against her has arisen." When husband and wife are 
 jointly sued for her tort, a plea of coverture is not sulii- 
 cient, she must plead coverture, and the duress of her 
 nusband.i^ In cases where the plea is good at all, it 
 may be made generally, for the complaint inust set 
 out the grounds of her liability,'^ and she need not 
 negative tliem." In some States she must sign her 
 plea of coverture herself.'^ For at common law she 
 could not a^jpear by attorney,'^ but only in i^erson." 
 
 1 Leslie v. Harlow, IS X. H. 51S. 
 
 2 Kennardr. Sax, 3 Oreg. 26S, 2fio. 
 
 3 Thomas v. Lowrv, GO 111. 512, 515 ; Painter v. Weatherford, 1 
 (jreene, 97, 103. 
 
 i Kennard v. Sax, 3 Oreg. 263, 23fi.
 
 653 SUITS AGAINST MARRIED WOJIEX. § 456 
 
 5 Griffith v. Clarke, IS Md. 457, 4G3 ; ante, HH ; pr>st, i 457. 
 
 6 McLean v. Grisvvoia, 22 111. 218, 220 ; Thomas v. Lowrv, 60 111. 
 512, 514. 
 
 7 McLean v. GriswoUl, 22 111. 218, 219 ; Painter ?>. Weatherford, 1 
 Greene, 97, 10! ; Tracy v. Keith. IJ Allen, 214, 215 ; Powers v. Totten, 
 42 X. J. L. 442, 445 ; Kenuard v. Sax, :> Oreg. 2L'3, 265. 
 
 8 Thomas v. Lowry, CO 111. 5;2, 514. 
 
 9 Long V. Dixon, 55 Ind. :^.52, 354 ; Gardner v. Moore, 2 Edw. 313 ; 
 Hastings v. McKinley, 1 Smith, K. 1). 273. 
 
 10 Work V. Cowhlck, 81 111. 317, 319 ; Emmett v. Yandes, fiO Ind. 
 548, 549 ; Long v. Dixon, 53 In<l. 352, :5.M ; Van Shrader c. Tavlor, 7 Mo. 
 App. 361, 365 ; Caldwell v. Brown, 43 Tex. 216, 217. 
 
 11 Sen post, ? 457 ; ante, I 4U. 
 
 12 Stockwell V. Thomas, 76 Ind. .506, 508 ; Burnett t. Nicholson, 86 
 N. C. yrf, lOo; Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 290, 311 ; ;;o Am. Kep. 593; 
 ante, i 66. 
 
 13 Ante, \ 4.01, n. 2. 
 
 14 Tracy r. Keith, 11 Allen, 214, 21.5. Compare Huff v. "Wright, 39 
 Ga. 41, 43, 44. 
 
 15 Keddeslin v. Meyer, 2 Miles, 23.'>. 
 IR Post, I 462. 
 
 17 Patton !'. Stewart, 19 Ind. 2:;3, 237 ; iwst, I 462. 
 
 \ 456. Plea of limitations by married women. — When 
 a married woman is sued, wliellier alone or not, limita- 
 tions can in general be pleaded just as if the suit were 
 a^iainst a person not under disability ;/ for statutes of 
 limitation do not usually make any exception as to 
 claims against married Avomen.^ And when a married 
 woman is sued after coverture on an antenuptial debt, 
 she can plead limitations, and neither her promise nor 
 that of her husband made during coverture can be set 
 u]) against her.^ But as to family supplies, where she 
 and her husband are jointly liable bj^ statute,* he is 
 her agent in law, and his promise may take the debt 
 out of the statute.^ 
 
 1 Hodges V. Darden, 51 JIlss. 199, 201. But s?e Hodgson v. Wil- 
 liamson, Law K. i5 Ch. Div. 87, 92. 
 
 2 Wood Limitations, cli. ID, last clause. 
 
 3 Farrar i'. Bossey, 24 Vt. S:), 92. 
 
 4 Ante, § 387. 
 
 5 Lawrence v. Sinnamon, 24 Iowa, 80, 84; PoUv v. AValker, 60 
 Iowa, G6, 63 ; Cloptcn v. Matheny, 4S Miss. 2So, 2.18.
 
 g 457 SUITS AGAIXST MARRIED WOMEN. 654 
 
 J 457. Effect of judgment against a married woman. — If 
 the record in the case of a judgment agaiast a luarried 
 woman disclose the fact of her coverture, a cause of 
 action on which a married woman might be liable,' 
 the joinder of all proper parties,"^ and that the married 
 woman lias been duly summoned,* and if the subject- 
 matter of the suit be one v.ithin the jiirisdicMon of the 
 court,* the married woman is bound thereby a.3 if 
 unmarried.5 If the record disclose the fact of covert- 
 ure, but not grounds on whicii a married woman 
 might be liable, the judgment is void, for the court has 
 no jurisdiction to enter it;*! if, though, it appears tha„ 
 the ground.s of action were such as might render a 
 married woman liable, but that the suit was not i^rop- 
 erly brought, the defect is cured, and the judgment is 
 valid." If the record do no- disclose the fact of covert- 
 ure, the married woman may in anj^ proceeding show 
 that owing to her coverture she was not liable at au,** 
 but she cannot show that she was liable but was iui- 
 properiy sued.^ Some cases hold more broadly, that 
 in any case where the court, had jurLsdiciion of ihe par- 
 ties (by suminons or appearance i* ) and of the subject- 
 matter, the judgment is valid, and tlie wife es.oppcd ; " 
 bat tlie better rule is that a married woman is estopped 
 only when the judgment is valid,'- and that a judg- 
 ment on a contract is itself but a contract, and not 
 binding on a party not bound by the contract'* A 
 void judgment may be enjoined in equitj'.'' For 
 example, a personal judgment against a married 
 woman alone is valid, if the cause of action Avere a con- 
 tract made by her as a /emme .so'e tradsr ; '^ but a per- 
 sonal judgment against a wife for the balance of a 
 mortgage debt is not valid where she was no. person- 
 ally bound on the mortgage notes ; *^ so a judgment on 
 a void note was held absolutely void'^ by the same
 
 655 SUITS AGAINST MABEIED WOMEN. I 457 
 
 court which recognized the binding force of a judg- 
 ment against a married woman by default on a tort 
 committed by lier.^^ The cases cited in this section, 
 and those cited in tlie sections on estoi^pel by record 
 of married women, '* process against married women,^" 
 and tlie plea of coverture hj married vv'omen,^! all of 
 which bear on this subject, will be found to be irrecon- 
 cilable. This section attempts to give credit to the dif- 
 ferent authorities for the truth whicli they respectively 
 contain. 
 
 1 Tracy v. Keith, U Allen, 214, 215. See ante, ? 433. 
 
 2 See ante, U 44SM51. 
 
 3 ChUtlress v. Taylor, 33 Ala. 185, 137 ; Vic-k r. Tope, 81 N. C. 22, 
 25. See ante, i 45J. 
 
 4 See Carey v. Dixon, 51 Miss. 533, GOO. 
 
 5 Lewis V. Gu'.in, 63 Ga. 542, 54G ; Washburn v. Gougo, 61 Ga. 512 ; 
 Emmett r. VancKs, 60 Ind. 548, 550 ; Carey v. Dixoa, 51 Miss. 593, 59tf ; 
 Kobinson v. Stadecker, oJ Miss. 3 ; Vosbough v. Brown, U(i Barb. 421, 
 422 ; Baxter v. Dear, 24 Tex. 17, 21. 
 
 6 Emmett r. Yandes, 60 Ind. 548, 549, 550 ; Carey ?>. Dixon, 51 :Miss. 
 5 )3, 5;)9, 600 ; Higgins v. Pelzer, 49 Mo. 152, 157 ; Hccker v. Hoak, 88 Pa. 
 St. 238, 242. 
 
 7 Kennard v. Sax, 3 Oreg. 263, 265 ; ante, \ 455. 
 
 8 Griffith v. Clarke, 13 Md. 457, 463 ; Morsa v. Toppan, 3 CJrav, 411, 
 412. Contra, Bur^i v. Hill, 55 Ind. 412, 423 ; injra, w. li. 
 
 9 Long V. Dixon, 55 Ind. 352, 3*1 ; ante, { i-'). 
 
 10 Childress r. Tavlor, ."3 Ala. 185, 1S7 ; Emmett v. Yandes, 60 Ind. 
 548, 54.) ; Vick ?•. Pope, 81 N. C. 22, 25 ; Keeker v. Hoak; 88 Pa. St. 238, 
 2^2 ; ante, \ 452. 
 
 11 See Gambetto v. Brook, 41 Cal. 78, 82, 83 ; AVagner r. Ewing 44 
 I;id. 441, 443; Bnrk v. Hill, 55 Ind. 4l!», 421 ; Van Meter v. Wolf, 27 
 Iowa, 341, 344 ; 2 ! Iowa, 3.17, 404 ; 19 Iowa, 130 ; Goothrie v. Howard, 
 32 Iowa, 54, 51! ; Howell v. Hale, 5 Lea, 405, 410. 
 
 12 Discussed ante, J 411. 
 
 13 Griffith v. Chirk, 18 Md. 457, 463 ; Morse r. Toppan, 3 CJray, 411, 
 ill; Gnllin v. Rogan, 52 Miss. 78, 81 ; iligguis v. Pelzer, 4J Mo. 152, 
 157 ; Freeman Judgments, i 149. 
 
 14 Griffin v. Rogan, 52 Miss. 78, 81 ; Bowman ?•. Kaufman, .% La An. 
 1021. An I land sold under ic may be recovered in ejectment: Cald- 
 weli !'. Walters, IS Pa. St. 79, 83 ; 55 Am. Dec. 592. 
 
 15 Vosbrough v. Brown, 66 Barb. 421, 422. 
 
 16 Anderson v. Reed, 11 Iowa, 177, 180 ; Kirby v. Childs, 10 Kan. 
 63 ), 644. Aliter if her property is liable : MciTiaughiin )'. O'Rouke, 12 
 low J,, 45J, ,(;i ; Rogers v. \Veii, 12 Wis. 664, 065. 
 
 17 Griffith v. Clark, 13 Md. 457, 463.
 
 §§ 458-459 SUITS agaixst married women. 656 
 
 18 Brown v. Kemper, 27 ild. 666, 672. 
 
 19 Ante, ? 411. 
 
 20 Ante, 2 452. 
 
 21 Ante, § 453. 
 
 j! 458. Property liable on judgment against a married 
 woman. — On any valid general judgment against hus- 
 band and wife jointly, execution could formerly be 
 issued against the bodies of them Ijotli,' and now can 
 be issued against the property of them both,^ except in 
 such cases as those where the property of the wife is 
 exempt by the terms of some statute or deed,^ or where 
 a statute expressly provides that the husband shall be 
 only a formal party.* If the judgment is against the 
 wife alone, her property alone is liable ; '" if the wife is 
 not a party to the suit, her property is not liable at all.^ 
 The judgment may be by its terms a lien only on her 
 statutory separate estate.^ 
 
 1 Hall r. White, 27 Conn. 435 ; Smith v. Ta.vlor, 11 Ga. 20, 23. 
 
 2 Grav v. Thackcr, 4 Ala. i:i6 ; Zachary v. Ciideiilicad, 40 Ala. 23fi ; 
 Ellis v. ('lark, l;( Ark. 420 ; liostic v. Love, 16 Cal. n.i ; Hennecker r. 
 .Scott, 4 (irt-enc, 1H5 ; Travis «'. Willis, 55 Miss. 5.57; Howard ?•. Nortli, 
 5 Tex. 2'iii 2!i<i ; 51 Xra. Dec. 769 ; Cole v. Hurt, 75 Va. 880 ; Plainer v. 
 Patchiti, 1!) Wis. :«8. 
 
 .3 Clark v. Valentine, 41 Ga. 143, 147. 
 
 4 See Md. Act 1880, ch. 253, U 31, 32. 
 
 5 Tills is self-evident. 
 
 e Phelps V. Morrison, 24 N.J. Eq. 19.5, 199; Bead v. .\llen, 58 Tex. 
 182, VH. 
 
 7 See Baldwin v. Kimmel, 16 Abb. Pr. 353, 361. 
 
 § 459. Special proceedings against married women. — In 
 some States, special proceedings against niurried women 
 are provided for by statute, as formerly in Maryland, 
 where a special attachment law with reference to mar- 
 ried women traders existed.' These special proceedings 
 cannot be considered in this volume. 
 
 1 See Md. Act 1SB2, oh. 29.'?,,? 8; R. C. art. 51, ? 23; Odendh.il v. 
 Devlin, 48 Md. 444; Mr\T.l ?'.TavIor. « Md. .5'); Crane c. Sej'niour, 3 
 Md. Ch. .SSS ; Stewart ^z V.irey 11. iz W. art. 65.
 
 657 MANAGKMENT OF SUITS. I 460 
 
 Article IV. — Maxagement of Suits of Married 
 Women. 
 
 { 460. The powers of the husband over the suit. 
 
 I 461. The wife's separate suit, defense, etc. 
 
 { 462. Married women's appointment of attorneys at law. 
 
 { 463. Compensation of taarried women's attornej's. 
 
 g 460. The powers of a husband over his •wife's suit. — At 
 common la\v, it must be i-emembured, a husband Iiad 
 the absolute right to reduce his wife's choses in action 
 to possession,^ and was liable with her on all her con- 
 tracts '^ and for all her torts ; ^ and as her legal existence 
 ■was merged in his,* he was the aciive party in all suits 
 in which they Avere both joined ; she could not appoint 
 an attorney,^ or release errors, <= or confess judgment,' 
 she could only appear in person * and ijlead her covert- 
 ure,9 if that would, do her any good. So that in all cases 
 in which the common-law procedure has not been 
 superseded, the husband emploj-s counsel and pleads 
 and manages the case for himself and his wife;'*^ if 
 they are plaintifis, he can settle or dismiss the suit,'' 
 and is alone liable for the costs ; '^ if they are de- 
 fendants, he maj' allow the suit to go by default,'^ or 
 suffer judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff," 
 and so long as there is no collusion between him and 
 the plaintitf, tlie wife will be bound by his acts.'^ But 
 his i-ight to act for his wife in this waj' has been ques- 
 tioned in cases where she was insane.'^ At common 
 law, if a husband neglected to prosecute his wife's rights 
 of action, or released them, his loss was even greater 
 than hers, for he had the immediate right to the enjoy- 
 ment of them ; " and if he allowed judgment to be 
 obtained on her antenuptial contraci.,'** or tort,'* or on 
 her postnuptial tort '<' (the only causes of action on 
 which a j'.:dgment binding on her property could be
 
 § 460 MANAGEMENT OF STTTS. 658 
 
 obtained -' ), llic judgment was against liiniself as well ; -'■' 
 so that the control of the suit could be safely trusted to 
 his charge. But as his said control of his wife's suits 
 grows out of his substantial ownersliip of her rights of 
 action, and his equal liability on her obligations,^ it 
 does not exist where his said rights and obligations do 
 not exist, and disappears as they are removed. He 
 could never, for example, through any suit of his, 
 estop her from claiming property in whicli he liad no 
 rights by making her a co-complainant ; -' nor could 
 bo, by allowing a judgment to be entered a2;a;nst them 
 on a cause of action on whicli she was not liable, deprive 
 her of her inheritance.^^ He cannot control her suits 
 respecting her equitable or statutory separate estate, ^^ 
 unless by her consent and as her agent in fac; •,'^'' nor in 
 such cases can lie admit service for her.'^^ When he is 
 a mere nominal party, he is entitled to all her defenses.^ 
 
 1 Rico V. McReyiioias, 8 Lea, 3R, 40 ; ante, i 176. 
 
 2 Proscott V. Fisher, 22 111. SM, n:).! ; ante, i G7. 
 
 3 Jlarsliall v. Oalces, 51 Me. yos, 303 ; ante, § 66, 
 
 4 Barron, 24 Vt. ::7.j, 398 ; a7ite, U 39, 331. 
 
 5 Hubbard v. Burcus, 33 Md. Ififi, 174 ; post, ? 462. 
 
 6 Broelcenridge v. Coleman, 7 Mon. B. 331, 334. 
 
 7 Parton r. Stewart, 10 Ind. 233, 237 ; First ?'. Garlin^hoiise, 53 
 r.arb. 6.5 ; Shalit-ross v. Smith, 81 Pa. St. 132, \6.i ; mile, 'fi 411, 451. 
 
 8 P.itton V. Stewart, 1!) Ind. 233, 237 ; Fo,\ v. Tookc, 34 INIo. 50 1, 510 ; 
 Phillips V. Burr, 4 Duer, 113, 115 ; Keddesliu v. Meyer, 2 Miles, 2i)o. 
 
 Discussed ante, i 455. 
 
 10 Foxwist V. Tremaine, 2 Saund. 212, 213 ; Hayner v. Smith, 03 111. 
 430, 432; 14 Am. lii-p. 124; Engli.sh v. Roche, 6 tnd. 62; Ballard r. 
 Russell, 33 Me. 19fi, l.i7 ; 54 Am. Dec. 620; Southworth v. PucKanl, 7 
 Mass. 95, 96 ; Wolf v. Banning, 3 Minn. 202, 204 ; Benjamin r. Bart- 
 lett, 3 Mo. 86, 87; Beach, 2 Hill, 260; Frazier v. Felton, 1 Hawks, 
 Z'A, 237 ; Vick V. PopL', 81 X. C. 22, 26. 
 
 11 Ballard v. Russell, 33 Me. lOfi, 197 ; 54 Am. Dec. 620 ; Southworth 
 V. Packard, 7 Mass. 95, 96 ; ante, H 76, 182. 
 
 12 Bellinger v. Thomson, 2 Rich. Eq. 30 ; ante, J 437. 
 
 13 Green v. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, .504. 
 
 14 Vick r. Pope, 81 X. 0.22,26. 
 
 15 Beach, 2 Hill, 260; Green t'. Branton, 1 Dev. Eq. 500, 504 ; Vick 
 V. Pope, Si X. C. 2.:, 20 ; ante, U -Uli 457. 
 
 16 Stephens v. Porter, 11 Ileisk. 341, 347.
 
 659 MANAGEMENT OF SUITS. g 461 
 
 17 Discussed ante, I 176. 
 
 13 Prescott v. Fisher, 22 111. .W, 303 ; ante, ? G7. 
 
 19 Allen I'. McCullough, 2 Heisli. 174, i;;2 ; 5 Am. Rej). 27 ; «n/e, J66. 
 
 20 M;irshall v. Oakes, 51 Mg. 308, 303 ; ante, I 6G. 
 
 21 Ante, I -153. 
 
 22 Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. Gfir., 07.: ; ante. U eii, 67. 
 
 23 See ante, § 'i:x 
 
 24 Banner v. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 3.J1, 3(i0; Worlv v. Doyle, 3 
 Ind. 436. 
 
 25 See Worli r. Doyle, 3 Ind. 436. 
 
 26 Kercliner v. Kf'nipton,47 3Id. SPS, 5.SS ; Travis v. Willis, 5.5 Miss. 
 557, 566 ; Frank, u. Lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 377,378. 
 
 27 Keith, 26 Kan. 20. 36. 
 
 28 Rhoodes v. Dolaney, 50 Ind. 468, 471. 
 
 29 Floore v. Steigelmayer, 76 Ind. 479, 4S1. 
 
 g 461. Wife's separate suit, defense, etc. — Courts of 
 equity have always recognized the separate existence 
 of wives, 1 and in all suit.s in which husband and wife 
 arc co-complainants or co-defendants, if tliey have sepa- 
 rate and distinct interests, the bill or answer filed by 
 tlie husband for both is regarded as prima fade i\\e bill 
 or answer of the husband alone, and the wife, if she re- 
 quests it, is allowed to proceed separately.^ As equita- 
 ble separate estate is out of the control of the husband,' 
 so are -suits relating thereto ; and the wife sues by her 
 next friend, if she does not desire to join her husband, 
 simply because the question of her liability for costs 
 might arise if she sued alone.* If she does sue by her 
 husband and allows him to act for her, she is bound,* 
 but she is otherwise not bound by his declarations,^ 
 nor are his statements evidence against her,' If she 
 files her separate answer by permission of court, she is 
 bound by it ; * her answer filed without permission may 
 be taken from the files,® unless the court allows it nunc 
 pro tunc.^" As a general rule, under the statvites she 
 has the right to sue and be sued, independently of her 
 husband ; ^^ and just so far as her choses in action are 
 made her statutory separate property can she control
 
 I 462 MANAGEMENT OF SUITS. 660 
 
 the reduction of them to possession ; '^ and just so far 
 as his liability for her torts and contracts has been 
 removed can she control suits against her.^^ 
 
 1 Rosenthal v. Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 155, 163 ; ayUe, ?? 38, 337. 
 
 2 See Kerchner v. Kcmpton, 47 Md. 56S, ."»SS ; Warner v. Uove, 33 
 Mel. 57.-1, 584; Krone v. Linville, 31 Md. i;«, 147; Wolf v. Banning. 3 
 Minn. 202, 204 ; Travis v. Willis. 55 Miss. 557. 56(j ; Fo.\ c. Tooke, M Mn. 
 o(W, 510 ; Collard v. Smith, 13 N. J. Kq. 43, 45 ; Blackwell v. IJragtt. 7s 
 Va. .52a ; Frank v. Lilienfeld, 33 Gratt. 377, 376 ; Uaadridge v. Miuge, 4 
 Baud. 3J7. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, U 137-216. 
 
 4 Harper v. Whitehead,r,3 Ga. 13S, 144 ; ante, I 437. 
 
 5 Keith, 26 Kan. 26, .36. 
 
 G Danuer r. Berthold, 11 Mo. App. 351, 360 ; Infra, n. 7. 
 
 7 Worlc V. Doyle, 3 I:id. 436; Kerchner v. Kempton, 47 Md. .Vis. 
 5Sj: Warner v. Dove, .3;j Md. 579, .i^ ; Krone r. l^inville, 31 Md. lis. 
 147 : Bird v. Davis, 14 N. J. JEq. 467, 479 ; Frank v. liUeufeld, 33 Gratt. 
 377, 378. 
 
 8 Krone v. I^invillo, 31 Md. 1.3S, 147 ; Kerchner v. Kempton, 17 
 Md. 56S, 58J ; Wolf )'. Banning, 3 Minn. 202, 204. 
 
 9 Wolf V. Banning, 3 Minn. 202, 204 ; Collard i-. Smith, 13 X. J. Eq. 
 43, 4.5. 
 
 10 See Krone v. Linville, 31 Md. i:«, 147. 
 
 11 See ante, U 440, 441, 450,^451. 
 
 12 Becton v. Selleck, 4« Ala. 226, 229 ; Alderson r. Bell, 9 Cal. 315 ; 
 Thomas r. Desmond, (vi (.'al. 42fi, 427; Travis i: Willis, .55 Mis,s. 557, 
 .560.: Dolloir 1". C'urran, 59 Wis. 3.;2, 335 ; post, i 462 ; ante, H 440, 441, 460. 
 
 13 Lowe V. Bedgate, S. C. Ohio, ^Tov. 18, 1884 ; 20 Cent. L. J. 76 ; 
 
 IXjst, i 462 ; ante, H 4.50, 451, 4I!0. 
 
 ^ 462. Appointment of attornsj at law bj married 
 women. — At common law, a married woman could no^ 
 appoint an at;;orncy a" Lav,-;' her antenuptial appoint- 
 ment was revoked by marriage ; ^ she could not api^ear 
 in a suit by attorney ; ^ her plea or answer filed by an 
 attorney was worthless;* a judgment entered against 
 her on her warrant of attorney was a nullity ; ^ her 
 agreement for alimony made by her attorney was void.^ 
 In equitj' and under statutes, speaking generally, she 
 ma\- appoint an attorney at law whenever she has 
 interests separate from her husband," with respect to 
 which she needs legal assistance and advice, or with 
 resjicct to which she can act by agent generally.^ She
 
 661 JIANAGEMENT OF SUITS. § 482 
 
 can appoint an attorney to take care of litigation 
 respecting her equitable saparate properly.^ Under 
 statutes expressly authorizing her to make an attorney 
 or to contract ganerally, she can of course appoint an 
 attorney.^* And statutes authorizing her to sue inde- 
 pendently of her husband,!' or to contract witli respect 
 tv> her property,''^ or securing to her the separate enjoy- 
 ment of her property,!^ by implication, give her the 
 power to appoint an attorney to take charge of such 
 suit or such lirojierty ; it is necessary to the enjoyment 
 of rights that one should be able to prosecute and de- 
 fend them.i' In all cases where she can appoint an' 
 attorney, she is bound by his acts as an unmarried 
 woman would bo ; i^ by his laches,'^ his withdrawal of 
 pleas, i'^ his settlement or dismissal of suit ; '* and she is 
 also bound to compensate him.'^ A statute, however, 
 which gives a married woman the i)ower to ap^joint an 
 attorney does not, of itself, destroy the husband's sub- 
 stantial rights in her choses in actionj^^ 
 
 1 Griffith V. Clark, 18 Md. 464, 467 ; Hubbarf^l v. Barcus, 38 Md. 156, 
 174 ; Kerchiier r. Kempton, 47 Md. 5liS, 5sj; Wliitmore v. Dulano, 6 
 X. II. 54S, 54ii ; First x\ Girlinghouse, hi Barb. GI5 ; Piiillips v. IJurr, 
 4 Duer, 113, 114 ; post, ? 463, n. 30; mite, ? 406. 
 
 2 "Wright, 2 liar. (Del.) 49 ; Templeton v. Cram, 5 Me. 417, 418. 
 
 3 Fox V. Tooke, 34 Mo. 509, 510. 
 
 4 Phillips V. Burr, 4 Duer, 113, 114; Kiddeslin v. Meyer, 2 Miles, 
 -..5. ^ 
 
 5 Henchman v. Roberts, 2 Har. (Del.) 74 ; Patton v. Stewart, 19 
 1:kI. 233, 237 ; Button v. Wilder, 6 Hill, 242 ; First v. Garlinghouse, 53 
 Harb. 015 ; Shallcross v. Smitli.Sl Pa. St. 132, ICJ ; Stevens v. Dubarry, 
 Elinor, 37J. 
 
 e Wallingsford, 6 Har. & J. 485, 489. 
 
 7 See Kerchner r. Kempton, 47 Md. 588, .!B8; Travis v. Willis, 55 
 Miss. 557, 566 ; oiUe, ? 461. 
 
 8 Seea;i?e, J 2 84-83,364. 
 
 9 M^ijor V. Svmmes. 19 Ind. 117, 118, 119 ; Porter v. Ilalej-, 55 Miss. 
 66, 6n ; King v. Mittalberger, 50 Mo. 182, 185. 
 
 10 See Myers v. Griffis, 11 Rich. 560, 564. 
 
 U Stevens r. Reed, 112 Mass. 515, 517 ; Porter v. Halcv, 55 Miss. 66, 
 7(1 ; 30 Am. Kep. 602 ; Powers v. Totten, 42 N. J. L. 442, 445. 
 
 12 Owen V. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600, 605 ; ante, I 372. 
 H. & W. — 56.
 
 ? 463 MAXAGEME^TT OF SUITS. 662 
 
 13 Major v. Symmes, 19 Iiid. 117, 120 ; Porter v. Haley, 55 Miss. 66, 
 69 ; 30 Am. Rep. 5o: ; Powers v. Totten, -12 A'. J. L. 44J, +,o ; L,eouard ?;. 
 Kogan, 20 Wis. &4U, .>12 ; ante, J 373. 
 
 14 Powers r. Totten, 42 N. J. I.. 442, 445 ; supra, n. in. 
 
 15 See Glover r. Moore, 00 Ga. 189, 192; KeUii, 26 Kan. 26, 36 ; Hol- 
 lingsworth v. Harman, 83 N. C. 153, 156 ; Cayce v. Powell. 20 Tex. 767, 
 771. 
 
 16 Caycc ;■. Powell, 23 Tex. 767, 771. 
 
 17 Glover v. Mooro, GO Ga. 189, 192. 
 
 18 Ilollingsworth v. Harman, 83 N. C. 153, 1C5 ; supra ii. 17 
 
 19 Discussed post, I 403. 
 
 20 Myers v. Griflls, 11 Klch. 560, 664. 
 
 § 463. Compensation of married women's attorneys. — An 
 attorney wlio lias acted on behalf of a married woman 
 may look for his fees, (1) to her husband, or (2) to her 
 trustee or next friend, or (3) to her property or hersell 
 
 1. Her husband's liability. Since a wife always sued 
 and was sued jointly with hor husband at common 
 law,^ and sinco he employed counsel for them both,^ 
 the laaymont of the fees naturally fell upon him. But 
 when ho by his conduct made it necessary for her to 
 take proceedings against him, the question arose 
 Avhether he was not liable for the expenses of the suit 
 as necessarie:..^ It has been held tliat when a wife sues 
 out a peace warrant against her 'husband,^ or defends 
 herself agaiiiit a similar proceeding by him,^ or when 
 she sues for a separate maintenance,^ her legal expenses 
 are necessaries for which her husband is liable. So 
 her expenses in bringing or defending a divorce suit 
 are held to bo necessaries in England,' Georgia,^ lowa,^ 
 Kan.sas,'*' and I.Iaryland," while the contrary is the rule 
 in Alabama,'-' Connecticut," Illinois,^* Indiana,^^ Ken- 
 tucky,'^ Massachusetts," New Hampshire,'^ Ohio,'^ 
 Tennessee,-" and Vermont.^' liven where such ex- 
 penses may bo neces.saries they are not neces.sarily so ; 
 there must be a reasonable ground for bringing the 
 suit, or some real defense in resisting it.^^ Besides, the
 
 663 MAXAGEIiIENT OF SUITS. § 463 
 
 courts provide for counsel fees in divoroo cases under 
 their jurisdiction to award alimony, e;:e/'^ 
 
 2. Her trustee^ s or next friemPs liabilitj. The trustee 
 of a married woman's separate property may employ 
 an attorney, and though himself personally' bound to 
 comjjensate him,-^ lie may repay himself out of the 
 estate.-* So the reason for the existence ox a next friend 
 is that there may bo a person responsible for the ex- 
 penses of the suit ; and in those cases where a married 
 woman sues by next friend he is liable for the counsel 
 fees.^ 
 
 3. Her liability, personal arid as to her property. At 
 common law, as a general rule, a married vroman could 
 make no contract at all,^' and covild not appear by 
 attorney in a suit,'^^ unless he were appointed by her 
 husband ; -^ and therefore her contract to pay counsel 
 fees was absolutely void,^" and she could not even, 
 according to the better settled rule, ratifj^ such a con- 
 tract after the dissolution of her marriago.^^ Eut if an 
 attorney collected moneys belonging to her, he could 
 keep a reasonable amount thereof as compensation for 
 his services,^- though ho could not have recovered any- 
 thing in any kind of suit against hcr.^a She could, 
 however, charge her equitable separate estate in equity 
 for foes, just as she could charge it for any other debt 
 of hers,^' provided she complied with the rule prevail- 
 ing in the particular State as to the mode in which the 
 charge had to be made'*^ — for example, that the con- 
 tract was made with exj^ress reference to her said estate 
 or was for its benefit,^^ and provided that the property 
 sought to be charged was property over which she had 
 the power of disposition." Under a statuto authorizing 
 a married woman to contract generally, there is no 
 reason why she should not contract for counsel fees ;^^ 
 and when she is authorized to contiact with respect to
 
 g 463 MANAGEMENT OF SUITS. 664 
 
 her jjroiDerty, a contract for lejial services respecting 
 the same would bo valid.^' So "would a similar con- 
 tract be authorized by implication bj^ a statute securing 
 her property to her separate use and control.*" So by 
 implication, a statute authorizing her to sue and be 
 sued alone, empowers her to employ counsel to repre- 
 sent her.'^ Vvhetlier when she may employ counsel 
 she bindfj herself personally or binds only her pi'op- 
 erty, and whether her obligation is to be enforced in 
 equity or at law, are unsettled questions, contracts for 
 counsel fees being governed in this respect by the same 
 rules as other contracts." When a wife is liable for 
 family expenses, how far counsel fees are a family 
 expense must depend on the particular circumstances 
 of the case.*^ 
 
 1 Porter v. Bank, 19 Vt. 410, 417 ; ante, ?5 431, 433, 443. 
 
 2 Frazier r. Folton, 1 Hawks, 231, 237 ; ante, ? 4C0. 
 
 3 See ante, U SI, 95 ; Stewart M. & D. U 180, aj3, 455. 
 
 4 Shepherd r. Mackoul, 3 Camp. 32fi, 327 ; Stewart M. A D. I 3S9. 
 Or for restitution of conjugal rights : Wilson v. Ford, Law K. 3 Kx. (hi. 
 
 5 Warner v. Heiden, 28 Wis. 517, 519; 9 Am. Eep. 515; Stewart 
 31. & D. i Sd'J. 
 
 6 Williams r. Monroe, 13 Mon. B. 514, 518. 
 
 7 Ottawny v. Hamilton, Law R. 3 C. P. D. 3!):!, 307, 309 ; Hooper, 33 
 Law J. N. S. ( h. 300, 305 ; 2 DeGex, J. & S. 91 ; StOfken v. Pattrick, 29 
 Law T. N. S. 507 ; Wilson v. Ford, Law R. 3 Ex. 63 ; Rice ». Shepherd, 12 
 Com. B. N. S. 332, 333 ; Brown v. Ackroyd, 5 El. cfe B. 819, 827, 829 ; 
 25 Law J. Q. B. 193 ; 34 Eng. L. & Eq. 214, 217. 
 
 8 Glenn v. Hill, 50 Ga. 94, 90 ; Sprayberry v. Merk, 30 Ga. 81, S2. 
 
 9 Porter I'. Brig£;s, 38 Iowa, IGG; 18 Am. Rep. 27. Compare John- 
 son V. Williams, 3 Greene, 97, 99. 
 
 19 Gossett V. Patten, 23 Kan. UO, 342. 
 
 11 Handy v. McCurley, 62 Md. 422 ; 19 Cent. L. J. 253, 254. 
 
 12 Parsons i\ Darrington, 32 Ala. 227, 255. 
 
 13 Shelton v, Pendleton, 18 Conn. 417, 433 ; Cooke v. Newell, 40 
 Conn. 6J6, 598. 
 
 14 Dow V. Eyster, 79 111. 2.54, 2.56. 
 
 15 McCullongh v. Robinson, 2 Ind. 630. 
 
 13 Williams i'. Monroe, IS Mon. B. 514, .517, 518. 
 17 Coffin V. Durham, 8 Cush. 404, 405. 
 
 IS Morrison r. Holt, 42 N. H. 478, 480 ; Ray v. Adden.oO N. H. 82, 
 84, 85 ; y Am. Rep. 175.
 
 665 MANAGEMENT OF SUITS. g 463 
 
 19 Dorsoy v. Gooclenow, Wright, 120. 
 
 20 Thompson 3 Head, 527, o29. 
 
 21 Wing v. Ilurlburt, 15 Vt. 607, 615 ; 40 Am. Dec. 6!)5. 
 
 22 Handy v. McCurley, 62 MU. 422 ; 13 Cent. L. J. 2.5:!; Brown v 
 Ackroyd, cited sii2)ra, n 7. 
 
 2:! Dow I Eyster, 79 111. 2.54', 255 ; Stewart M. & D. J 389. 
 
 24 See Gill v. Carmine, 55 Md. 3.39, 342. 
 
 25 Noyes v. Blakeman, 3 Sand. 531, 544. 
 
 26 See Harper v. Whitehead, 33 Ga. i:B, 144 ; ante, ? 437. 
 
 27 Norris )•. Lantz IS Md. 260, 269 ; ante, U ""3, 2;B. 
 
 23 Phillips !'. Bun, 4 Duct, 113, 115 ; ante, {I 460, 462. 
 
 23 Frazier v. Felton, 1 Hawks, 231, 237 ; ante, U 460, 461. 
 
 30 See Drais ?>. Hogan, 50 Cal. 121. 128 ; Pierce v. Osman, 75 Ind. 2.59, 
 260; Putnam r. Tennvson, 50 Ind. 456 458; Thomp.son c. Warren, 8 
 Mon B. 488, 431 ; Porter r. Haley, 55 Miss. 66, 70 ; 30 Am. Hep. 502 ; 
 Musick )'. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624 625 ; 43 Am. Rep. 7S0 ; Wiiinply r. Giles, 
 55 N. H. 13 I, 143 ; Wilson v. Burr,25 Wend. 380, 38J ; Davis 'c. Buriiham, 
 27 Vt. 562, .")ii-<. 
 
 31 Musick V. Dodson 76 Mo. 624, 625 ; 43 Am. Rep. 7-10 ; ante, U 366, 
 368. 
 
 32 Thompson v. Yv'arren, 8 Mon. B. 4SS, 491. 
 
 33 See Davis v. Burn ham, 27 Vt. 562, 508. 
 
 34 Ptirshing v. Falsh, 87 III. 260, 262 ; Major r. Svmmes, 19 Ind 
 117. 118, 119 : Porter v. Hulev, 55 Miss. 66, 69; 30 Am. Rep 50: ; King v. 
 Mittalljerger, 50 Mo. 182, 185; Owen v. Cawley, 42 Barb. 105, 118; 36 
 N. V. 600, ti05 ; Wilson r. Burr, 25 Wend. 386, 388 ; Davis v. Buruham. 
 27 Vt. 562, 568 ; ante, U 206, 207. 
 
 35 Rules stated ante, § 206. 
 
 36 See Major v. Symmos, 19 Ind. 117, 119 ; cases supra, n. 34. 
 
 37 Cozzens v. Whitney, 3 R. I. 79, 83 ; Pierce v. Osmaa, 75 Ind. 259, 
 260; ante, 'i 200. 
 
 33 Sec ante, ? 371. 
 
 39 See Pfirshing v. Falsh, 87 HI. 260, 262 ; Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 
 600,605 ; supra, ii. 34. 
 
 40 Major V. Symmes, 19 Ind. 117, 118 ; Porter v. Ilalev, .55 Miss. 66, 
 6 i; .30 Am. Rep. 502 ; Powers ?\ Totten, 42 N. J. L. 442, 4i5 ; Leonard v. 
 Rogan, 20 Wis. 540, .542 ; ante, \ 373. 
 
 41 Stevens v. Reed, 112 Mas.s. 515, 517. See Glover v. Moore, 60 Ga. 
 189, 192 ; Powers v Totten, 42 N. J. L. 442, 445 ; ante, I 402. 
 
 42 Compare Jlajor v. Svmmes, 10 Ind. 117, 120, with Leonard v. 
 Rogan, 20 Wis. 5-;0, 542. See ante, 'i ). 211, 372 379, 453 ; p:ist, I 476. 
 
 43 Fitzgerald v. McCarty, 55 Iowa, 702, 705 ; ante, \ 3S7.
 
 g 464 SOUKCES OF CAPACITY. 666 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN TRADERS. 
 
 Art. I. Sources op Capacity to Trade, ?? 464-472. 
 II. Incidents of Capacity to Trade, g§ 473- 
 481. 
 
 Article I. — Sources op Capacity to Trade. 
 
 § 404. Sources of capacity to trade, generally. 
 
 i 465. Definitions — earnings, trade, business, etc. 
 
 i 4GG. Capacity when liusband is civflly dead, etc. 
 
 ? 4G7. Capacit.v by custom. 
 
 i 468. Capacity in equity. 
 
 i 403. Capacity bj' husband's consent. 
 
 i 470. Capacity under statutes— Separate property act3. 
 
 'i 471, Capacity under statutes — Express and implied authority. 
 
 i 472. Capacity under statutes —Special requirements. 
 
 § 464. Sources of married women's capacity to trade, 
 gonorally. — Tlio use of the words "trade" and "mar- 
 ried woman trader" has been A^ague, and it is neces- 
 sary, in a discussion of tliis subject, to bear in mind the 
 dllFerent elements which may be involved in the capac- 
 ity of a married woman to trade. 
 
 1. At common law, generally. A married Avoman 
 could make no contract whatever ; i ail her time and 
 labor belonged to her husband,^ as did all the present 
 enjoyment of her property- ;^ she had, in fact, no legal 
 existence apart from her husband;^ therefore she 
 could not trade at all.^ If a female trader married, the 
 trade became her husband's,^ and if she had been trad- 
 ing as partner, the partnership was dissolved by her 
 marriage.' 
 
 2. Her earnings. As a married woman could not 
 contract at all by the common law, she could not enter
 
 667 SOCECES OF CArACITY. 2 464 
 
 into any kind of engagement or eniiiloynient on lier 
 own account, but all her time, services, wages, and 
 earnings of every kind belonged to her hus^band.^ 
 Still her luisband could agree that she should have her 
 earnings, just as he could invest her with anj' j^roperty 
 of his, and his agreement would be enforced in equity ; * 
 his agreement, however, gave her no personal capac- 
 ity, but only the right to collect and keei> the wages 
 and rewards of her labors.'" So by statute, in most 
 States, the wifes earnings are secured to her separate 
 use." These statutes were passed to protect wives 
 from shiftless, imjirovident, and dissipated liu:-;bands,i'' 
 and were in form the earliest of the statutes relating to 
 the trade of married women, 
 
 .3. The increase of her separate property. Although 
 at common law all the interest, profits, rents, and in- 
 crease of a married woman's i^roperty vested in the 
 husband just as the proi^ertj' itself did, except that the 
 rents and profits of real estate vested in him as person- 
 alty,"' she had her separate estate first in equity and 
 then by statute, and the increase of such estate was 
 also separate property ; " and therefore the products of 
 all investments or uses of her separate lirojierty were 
 her separate property, thovigh such products were 
 jiartly due to her efibrts, and to the labor, skill, and 
 knowledge of her husband.'' In a sense, therefore, 
 she could trade with her separate property.'^ 
 
 4. Resulting capacities. Although when a married 
 woman's earnings or property are secured to hr/ sepa- 
 rate use, as above stated, the profits of her business or 
 trade niay be her sejDarate property also,'' her personal 
 incapacity to enter into trade is not necessarily re- 
 moved;'^ for equity recognizes her capacities only in 
 connection with her property, '^ and mere property 
 acts do not affect personal status,-*' So that to trade in
 
 g 464 SOURCES OP CAPACITY. 668 
 
 the wider sense, a married woman must either have 
 the capacities of a/e^ume sole,'^^ or be exjiressly author- 
 ized to enter into business.^'' 
 
 5. Summary of sources. So that a married woman 
 may be found on her own account earning money, 
 trading or in business (and the meaning of these words 
 must be specially defined ^^) by virtue (1) of her right 
 to hei earnings, depending on her husband's agree- 
 ment -^ or on statute ; '^ or (2) of her ownership of equi- 
 table -^ or statutory ^ separate property ; or (3) of htr 
 capacities as a femme sole, due to the peculiar conduct 
 of her husband '-'* or to statute ; -^ or (4) of her capacities 
 to trade, due to custom,^^ or to statute.^^ And her 
 jjowers, riglits, and liabilities, in any particular case, 
 depend largel}' upon the sources whence she derives 
 her capacity to trade.^^ 
 
 1 Noi-rls V. Lantz, 18 Mel. 260, 260 ; ante, U S57, 368. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, i 65. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, 'd 137, 141-183. 
 
 4 Discussed n(!^B, ?? 38,39, 331. 
 
 5 Carev v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 575 ; 43 Am, Rep. 700. See Brad- 
 street I'. Baer, -II Md. 19, 23 ; >;itterville v. Barber, 52 Miss. IGS, 171 • 
 McKlnnon i\ McDonald, 4 Jones Eq. 1. 
 
 6 Ashworth v. Outram, Law R. 5 Ch. D. 923, 929. 
 
 7 Alexander v. Morgan, 31 Ohio St. 546, 550. 
 
 8 Discussed ante, 5 65. 
 
 9 McLemore r. Pinkston, 31 Ala. 267, 269 ; ante, \l 65, 87. 
 
 10 Uhrig V. Horstman, 8 Bush, 172, 177 ; Stewart M. i- D. ? ISl ; post, 
 J 469. 
 
 11 Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 129, li5 ; 16 Am. Rep. 578 ; ante, i 65. 
 
 12 Youngworth v. Jewell, 15 Xev. 45, 47. 
 
 13 Discussed ante, U 137, 141-183. 
 
 14 Discussed ante, U 200, 227. 
 
 15 Wheeler r. Ra\ mond, 130 Mass. 247, 248, 249 ; ante, 5? 87, 209, 227 ; 
 post, II 468, 470. 
 
 16 See Mitchell v. Sawyer, 21 Iowa, 582, 583 ; post, ?? 468, 470. 
 
 17 Mitchell )•. Sawver, 21 Iowa, 582, 583 ; Hawkins v. Providence, 
 119 Mass. 596, 59il ; 20 Am. Rep. 'ArU ; Silveus )■. Porter 74 Pa. St. 448, 
 451 ; Meyers i'. Rahte, 46 Wis. 655, 659 ; post, U 468-470. 
 
 18 Tuttle V. Hoag, 46 Mo. 38, 41 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481 ; post, ?? 468--170. 
 
 19 Discussed ante, zl 206, 207, 211.
 
 639 youRCEs of capacity. § 465 
 
 20 Discussed ante, \l 15, 2:i7, 370. 
 
 21 Carey ;•. Burruss, 20 W. V;t. 571, 575 ; pout, ? -ICS. 
 
 22 Guttman v. Scuiinell, 7 Cal. 455, -450 ; po.it, U 470-172. 
 
 23 Seepo«^?465. 
 
 24 Richardson v. Merrill, 32 Vt. 27, 36 ; post, W 45S, 4P3. 
 
 25 Hawkins v. Providence, ll'J Mass. 5'Jfi, 599; 20 Am. Rep. 353; 
 p «•?, ■'( 471. 
 
 26 Jarnian v. Woolloton, 3 Term, 618, 022 ; post, \ 463. 
 
 27 Mitchell v. Sawyer, 21 Iowa, 532, 583 ; post, \ 470. 
 
 28 Carey v, Burruss, 20 \V. Va. 571, 575 ; post, I 405. 
 
 21 See Frances v. Dickel, 68 Ga. 255, 253 ; Woodcock v. Reed, 5 
 Allen, 207, 203 ; post, U 465, 471. 
 ;» Petty V. Anderson, 2 Car. & P. 33, 39 ; post, I 467. 
 
 31 Xash V. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 200, 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 33 ; post, I 471. 
 
 32 Discassed j:>ost , II 4~'j-lSl. 
 
 2 435. Definitions — earnings, trade, businoss, etc. — 
 Al'.'.iough the difference between earnings and increase 
 of property is clear,' and for this reason married 
 woman's separate proi^erty acts do not destroy a hus- 
 band's rights to his wife's personal services, ^ it is very 
 hard to draw any line between earnings and the profits 
 of trade.^ The terms used in the books dealing with 
 the subject of married women traders are not sharply 
 defined, but a few definitions may be given. 
 
 1. Earnings. Earnings mean what is earned, 
 gained, or merited by labor, services, or performances : 
 wages or reward,- and the earnings secured to a mar- 
 ried woman by a statute ai*e not confined to the results 
 of manual labor, to wages for wasliing or sewing, but 
 include the products of her trade also,^ if it is carried on 
 witli her separate property as capital;^ and the stock 
 in trade of a married woman owned at the time of her 
 marriage, or afterwards bouglit with her earnings, is 
 included in the term "earnings."^ 
 
 2. Trade and business. Trade or business means an 
 employment to the carrying on of wliich the party 
 devotes a considerable portion of her time, skill, and 
 means,^ a business that is continuing in its nature
 
 'i 465 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. 670 
 
 and embraces many transactions.^ Engaging in trade 
 and business means not only trading in a commercial 
 sense, but also being engaged in other employments 
 which require time, labor, and skill — time, attention, 
 and labor.io Trading means engaging in a business 
 pursuit, mechanical, manufacturing, or commercial.'^ 
 Thus, though a single transaction may be a business 
 one, it does not make the party a trader ; ^^ horse deal- 
 ing may be a business, but a woman who buys or sells 
 a single horse is not necessarily in that business ;'^ so 
 farming may be a business, but employing a man to 
 work on one's farm does not make one a farmer by 
 trade ; '* renting a house may be a business transaction 
 and for the purpose of a business,''^ but a lease of rooms 
 is not necessarily' a contract by a trader ; '^ so, a mar- 
 ried woman's receipt and disbursement of her rents and 
 protits, thougli done in a business way, does not consti- 
 tute her a trader ; '' nor is she a trader when she is not 
 acting generally Avith the public, but is simj^ly taking 
 care of her own proijerty,'^ or collecting or investing -^ 
 her income. Wlien she may trade slie is not confined 
 to any particular trade : she may not onlj^ engage in 
 washing,-'- sewing,'^ dressmaking,-' millinery,''^^in keep- 
 ing a dairj',^ a boarding-house,-' a grocery or provision 
 store,''* and in other pursuits specially adapted to her 
 sex,^ but she may be a farmer,^*' a miller,^^ an army 
 sutter,^'^ a saloon keeper^^ or tavern keeper,^' a clotli- 
 ier,3^ an ironmonger,^^ she may Avork a mine or quarry," 
 or may go into the lumber business ;^^ though if lier 
 trade is uusuited to her, this is a fact to be considered 
 if her husband's ci'cditors are trying to show that the 
 business is really his.^* So she may engage in the pro- 
 fessions — may devote her talents to literature, acting, 
 singing ; *" and, in fact, under a general power to trade, 
 may follow anv legitimate caliiug.^i
 
 671 SOURCES OP CAPACITY. g 465 
 
 3. Separate trade. The trade of a married woman 
 is usually spoken of as her separate trade; the word 
 "separate" refers rather to her status than to the mode 
 in which she shall trade, ^'■^ and it does not mean that 
 she shall trade alone," or prevent her living with her 
 husband while trading," or allowing him to join in the 
 business.** In Massachusetts and Indiana it has, how- 
 ever, been held that she must keep her business sepa- 
 rate from her husband,'^ and that their joint earnings 
 are his propert3\''' The eriect of the mingling of the 
 wife's with the husband's p'-operty has already been 
 discussed.*^ 
 
 1 See Mitchell v. Sawyer, 21 Iowa, 582, 5S3 ; ante, I -404. 
 
 2 Glover v. Alcott, U Jlich. 4T0, -ISO ; ante, ? 05. 
 
 3 See Haitcht v. JlcVeasrh, 63 111. 624, G2S ; Dayton v. Walsh, -16 
 Wis. 113, r20 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 4 Dayton v. Walsh, 46 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 737. 
 
 5 Haight V. McVeagh, 6:i 111. 624, 628. 
 
 6 See Duress v. Horneffer, 15 Wis. 195, 197 ; 2'>o.st, U 464, 470, 471. 
 
 7 Lovell 17. Newton, Law R. 4 C. P. D. 7, U, 12. 
 
 8 Holmes, 40 Conn. 117, 119. 
 
 9 Holmes, 40 Conn. 117, 119 ; Proper v. Cobb, 10 1 ?Iass. oS), 530. 
 
 10 Nettervil'.e v. Barber, 52 Miss. 168, 171. 
 
 11 Nasli V. Mitchell, 71 K. V. 200, 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38. 
 
 12 Holmes, 40 Conn. 117, 119; Nettervillen. Barber, 52 Miss. 168, 171. 
 
 13 Holmes, 40 Conn. 117, 120 ; Proper v. Cobb, 104 Mass. 5S3, 590. 
 
 14 Holmes, 40 Conn. 117, 120. 
 
 15 Knowles r. JTuIl, 99 Mass. 562, 564. 
 
 16 Holmes, 40 C/.)nn. 117, 119. 
 
 17 Proper v. Cobb, 104 Mass. 589, 590 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 71 X. Y. 200, 
 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38. 
 
 18 Proper v. Cobb, 104 Mass. 5.89, .590. 
 
 19 Nash (:. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 200, 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38. 
 
 20 Wheeler v. Raymond, 130 Mass. 247, 248, 249. 
 
 21 Guttman v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 4.'i5, 459. 
 
 22 Haight t'. McVeagh, 69 III. 624, 628. 
 
 23 Haight v. McVeagh, 69 111. 624, 628. 
 
 24 Jassov V. Delius, 65 111. 469, 471 ; Tuttle v. Hoag, 4G Mo. 38, 40 ; 2 
 Am. Kep. 481. 
 
 25 Tutt'e V. Hoag, 46 Mo. 38, 40 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481. 
 
 26 Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 205; 207.
 
 I 466 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. 672 
 
 27 Chapman v. Briggs.ll Allen, 546, 547; Dawes v. Rcdier, 125 Mass. 
 421. 42:j ; Itarndeii v. Gould, 12U ilass. 411, 412. 
 
 2S Haight v. McVeagh, 60 111. 624, 628 ; Abbey v. Devo, 44 Barb. 374, 
 382. 
 
 29 Guttman v. Scanuell, 7 CaL 455, 459 ; in/re., n. 41. 
 
 30 Camden v. Mullen, 29 Cal. 5G4, 563; .Snow v. Sheldon, 126 Mass. 
 332, RXi ; 30 Am. Eop. 6«4 ; Ames r. Foster, 6 Allen, 136, 138 ; Abbev v. 
 Devo, 44 Barb. .'^74, ;W- ; Krouskop v. Shnntz, 51 Wis. 2f)4, 205, 207. But 
 see McDaniel v. Cornwall, 1 Hill (S. C.) 428, 429 ; post, i 467. 
 
 31 Cooper r. Ham, 49 Ind. 393, 416. 
 
 32 See Swase.v v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87, 9.5. 
 
 33 Porter r. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 108 ; Xispel v. Laparle, 74 III. 306, 307. 
 
 34 SUveus v. Porter, 74 Pa. St. 448, 449. 
 
 35 Guttman v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 455,456; Bellows ]■. Rosenthal, 31 
 Ind. 116, 117. 
 
 36 Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. .374, a82. 
 
 37 Netterv'ille v. Barber, 52 Miss. IGS, 172. 
 
 38 Netter\ille i'. Barber, 52 Miss. 168, 172. 
 
 39 Guttman r. Scannell, 7 Cal. 455, 459. 
 
 40 Dayton v. Walsh, 46 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 41 Guttman c. .Scannell, 7 Cal. 4.55, 4.59 ; Haight r. McVeagh, 69 III. 
 624, 628 ; Chapman v. Briggs, 11 Allen, .546, 547. 
 
 42 Zimmerman i: Erhard, 58 How. Pr. 11, 14. 
 
 43 I'ost, i 480. But see Haas v. Shaw, 91 Ind. :»4, 389, 336. 
 
 44 Lovell r. Xewton, Law R. 4 C. P. D. 7, 12 ; Xewbrlck v. Dugan, 
 61 Ala. 251, 2.5;: ; Parker v. Simonds, 1 Allen, 2.58, 260. 
 
 45 Ciuttman c. .Scannell, 7 Cal. 4.5-5, 4.59 ; post, 2 480. 
 
 46 Lord V. Parker, 3 Allen, 127, 129 ; Haas ;•. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384, 389, 3:6. 
 
 47 Hawkins v. Providence, 119 Mass. 596,599 ; 20 Am. Rep. 353. See 
 ante, U S'. '-'■>. 311. 
 
 48 Ante, a 129, 311. 
 
 ^ 466. Married woman's capacity to trade when a femme 
 sole by the common law. — Wlien a married woman's hus- 
 band is civilly dead, has finally abandoned her, etc., 
 she has by the common law the cai^acities of a femme 
 sole,^ and may trade as such.^ In some States there are 
 statutes to the .same effect.' How far her husband's 
 absence enables her to trade in his place has already 
 been discussed.^ 
 
 1 Worthington v. Cooke, 52 Md. 297, 307 ; ante. 5? .3.31-.^^5. 
 
 2 Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, .575 ; 43 Am. Rep. 7!K). 
 
 3 Harmon v. Madden, 10 Bush, 664, 667 ; Woodcock v. Reed, 5 
 Allen, 207, 208. 
 
 4 See ante, ? 90.
 
 673 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. ?? 437-468 
 
 ? 467. Married women's capacity to trade by custom. — 
 By the custom of London, a married woman -svho carried 
 on a trade separate and apart from her husband had to 
 the extent of such trade all the capacities of a femine 
 soleJ Such custoin has never existed in the United 
 States,- except to some extent in Soutli Carolina.^ The 
 law recognized this custom not for the sake of wives, 
 but to encourage trade and commerce, and therefore 
 the custom did not applj', for example, to farming.* 
 When trading under such a custom the wife could be a 
 bankrupt ; ^ but lier suits were generally conducted 
 jointly with her husband, for conformity.® 
 
 1 Pettv V. Anderson, 2 Car. & P. 3.S, ST ; Bparrl r. Webb, 2 Bos. & P 
 93, 97; LaVie i-. Phillips, 3 Burr. 177'"', 17«;? ; Nctterville r. Birber, 52 
 Miss. \m, 171 ; Carev v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 575 ; 4J Am. Kep. 7'JO ; 
 2 Briglit. H. & W. 77. 
 
 2 See Jacobs v. Featherstone, 6 Watts & S. 345, 346. 
 
 3 McDaniel v. Cornwall 1 Hill rs. C.I 42S, 429; Newbiggin v 
 Pillano 2 Bay 163, 1&5 ; Dial v. Neu£fer, 3 Rich. 78. 79. 
 
 4 McDaniel v. Cornwall, 1 Hill (S. C.) 42S, 43L 
 
 5 Lavie v. Phillips, 3 Burr. 1776, 17S.3. • 
 
 6 Beard v. Webb, 2 Bos. & P. 03, 97. 
 
 I 468. Married woman's capacity to trade in equity. — 
 In tliose States where a married woman is a femine sole 
 as to her equitable separate estate,^ slie may use the 
 same in trade, and the profits of such trade are equita- 
 ble separate property like^^^se ; ^ but in such trade she 
 has no personal capacities;* equity recognizes her sep- 
 arate existence only with respect to her property,* and 
 her contracts made in the course of her trade can be 
 collected only if they have been properly charged on 
 said proiaerty.* 
 
 1 Discussed ante. |? 203, 205-207. 
 
 2 Johnson v. Oallagrher, 3 DeOox, F. <fe J. 4<M, 509; Jarman v. 
 WooUoton, 3 Term, 618, 622 ; Coiililiii r. Doul. 67 111. 355, 3.J7 ; Jenkins 
 V. Flinn, 37 Ind. 349, 352* Stevens v. Rnei], 112 Mass. 515; Penn v. 
 Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 512, 513 ; Partridge v. Stocker, 36 Vt. 108 
 115 ; Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 579 ; Todd v. Lee, 16 Wis. 430, 
 483. 
 
 H. & W. — 57.
 
 § 469 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. 674 
 
 S Conklin v. Doul, 67 111. 355, 357 ; Tuttle v. Houg, 46 Mo. 38, 41 ; 2 
 Am. Rep 4S1 ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 •1 Discussed ante, U 205, 211. 
 
 5 Todd V. Lee, 16 Wis. -ISO, 483 ; supra, n. 2. 
 
 § 469. Marriod woman's capacity to trade with hus- 
 band's consent. — A husband cannot, by his consent, 
 change the personal status of his wife,' or enable her to 
 trade with the caiiacilies, rights, and liabilities of a/emine 
 sole;^ but he may allow her as his agent to engage in 
 business and give her the profits,^ or he may agree 
 before or after marriage that she shall keep her earn- 
 ings or carry on business for her own use,* and give 
 her, if he cliooses, ihe necessary capital to start with.' 
 Any such gift® of eai-nings, i)rofits, or property to her 
 is good against himself,' and his heirs, voluntary as- 
 signs, etc.,* but not as against his creditors,^ unleso on 
 valuable consideration.'" When a wife thus trades 
 under a settlement frona her husband, she trades in 
 equitj' as with equitable separate property," the busi- 
 ness, profits, etc , are the liusband's absolutely at law.'^ 
 But if the business is really hers, and not carried on 
 by her as his agent, he is not bound for his debts.'^ If 
 his con.sent to her carrying on business is by mere oral 
 assent, and without consideration, though he cannot 
 ask back profits already made and collected by her,'* 
 he can revoke his consent, and claim the business as 
 his own.'» In all cases where she carries on business 
 bj' his mere consent, the business is his, and he is liable 
 for its debts,'" and may claim its profits." Whether 
 the business is his or hers is a question of fact.'* Her 
 agenc3^ for him inaj' be proved directly or indirectlj'.'* 
 But if a wife has engaged in business without authority 
 of law, and Avithout her husband's assent, he cannot 
 be held liable for its debts,^" nor can she on her mere 
 personal contracts ; 2' so if all the credit is given to her,
 
 675 GOURCES OF CAPACITY. § 469 
 
 her husband is not liable, whether she or her property 
 is liable or not.^ Under the statutes usually, the hus- 
 band's consent is not necessary to enable a wife to 
 trade ; ^^ nor does his mere consent involve him. in the 
 liabilities of the business.^* 
 
 1 Discussed Stewart M. &. D. J 181 ; ante, ?? S48, SoO. 
 
 2 fhrig V. norstman, 8 Cush, 172, 177. 
 
 3 Asliworth V. Outram, Law R. 5 Cli. 923, 931 ; vji/m, n. 7. 
 
 4 Penn v. AVhitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 512 ; infi-a, n. 7. 
 6 Lockwoocl V. C'ulli!), 4 Robt. 120, 13G. 
 
 6 Gift from husband to wife : Ante, ? 127. 
 
 7 Jarman x\ WooUoton, 3 Term, 618, fi22 ; Ashworth v. Outram* 
 Law R. 5 Ch. 923, 931 ; OKlfsbv v. Hull, 30 Ga. 3Sfi, 390; Jenkins r- 
 Flinn, 37 Ind. 349, 352; Conklin r. Doul, 67 111. :«.J, 357 ; Fisk r. Cus.i- 
 man, 6 Cush. 20, 24 ; Crnpsr'V v. McKinney, 30 Barb. 47, 57 ; Samm'S 
 r. Mor,ani?hlln, 35 N. Y. 647, 650; Penn i-. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. •S'l'i 
 512 : Ftifhirdson v. M'^rrill 32 Vt. 27. 36 ; Carev c. Bnrrns.s 20 W. Va. 
 571 57J ; Stimson v. White, 20 Wis. .562, -563; cases ante, \ 6.5. 
 
 8 Richardson v. Merrill, .32 Vt. 27, 36 • sujna, n. 7 ; ante, ?? 104, 127. 
 
 9 Uhrig V Horstniin, 8 Bush, 172, 176 ; Crops^y ?•. McKinnpy. ^ 
 Barb. 47, 57 ; McKiunoa v. JVlcBonald, 4 Jones Eq. 1, 6 ; ante, H 113-llS. 
 
 10 Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 512 ; supra, n. 7 ; €Uite, U 104-108. 
 U Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt, 503, 513 ; ante, 2 4C3, 
 
 12 Stimson v. White, 20 Wis. 562, 563. 
 
 13 Tuttle r. Hoag, 4f! :\ro. .38, 41 ; 2 Am. Rep. 4S1 ; pa&t, \ 478. 
 
 14 See Green v. Poll.is 12 N. J. E'j. 2G7, 263; Partridge r. Stocker, 
 36 Vt. 108, 114 ; ante, 'i 127. 
 
 15 Conklin v. Doul, 67 III. a5.5, 8.57 ; Stimson t>. White, 20 Wis. 262, 
 263. 
 
 16 Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East, 432, 434 ; Godfrf»v ?>. Brooks, 4 Har. 
 (Del.) :596 397 ; Conklin v. Doul, 67 III. 35-5, :i57 ; Jenkins i'. Flinn, 37 
 Ind. :i49, .3.52; Cropsev r. McKinnev, 30 Barb. 47, 57 ; Barton v. Beer 
 &5 Barb. 78. 79; Switzer v. Valentine, 4 Diier, 96, 99; Swasev t' An- 
 tram 24 Ohio St. 87, 95 ; Jacob.s v. Ffatherstone, 6 Watts & S. 347, 34'J : 
 Partridge i'. Stocker, 36 Vt. 108, 114 ; ante, ? 0-i ; post, ? 478. 
 
 17 Switzer 7'. Valentine, 4 Duer, 96, 99; Stimson v. ■\^^l^te, 20 Wis. 
 562, S6.J ; tmst. i 4'8. 
 
 18 Jarman v. Woolloton, 3 Term, 618, 622; Glover »•. Alcott, 11 
 Mich. 471, 479; AbbLV r. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343; Partridge r. Stocker. 
 36 Vt. 108, 113 ; ante, ii 87. 93, 
 
 19 Godfrey v. Broot^s, 5 Har. (Del.) 396, .397 ; ante, i 93. 
 
 20 Happek V Hartby, 7 Baxt. 411, 414 ; post, ? 478, 
 
 21 Tuttle r. Hoag, 46 Mo. 38, 41 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481 ; Conklin v. Doul, 
 67 III. 3.55, 3.58, 
 
 22 Jenkins r. Flinn, 37 Ind. 349, 3.52 ; Tuttle r, Hoag, 46 Mo. 38, 42; 
 2 Am. Rep. 481 ; ante, \ 8Q. 
 
 23 See. however. Uhrig v. Horstman, 8 Bush, 172, 177. 
 
 24 See Haiglit r. McVeagU, 60 IlL 624, 62S ; po&t^ I 473.
 
 I 470 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. 676 
 
 I 470. Married women's capacitj to trade under separate 
 property acts. — Married women's separate propertj^ acts 
 do not, by implication, destroy the husband's coniiuon- 
 law riglit to his wife's earnings ; ^ but they do usually, 
 expressly or by implication, secure to the wife the 
 natural increase of her property ; - and since such in- 
 crease belongs to her, even when largely due to her 
 husband's efforts,* there seems to be no reason why 
 her own services to it, though these belonged to her 
 husband, should injuriously affect her rights.* When 
 a married woman has no jjowers by statute inde- 
 pendent of her property, her dealings with her stat- 
 utory separate i^roperty in the way of trade must 
 be subject to limitations of the same character as 
 those wliich control her trading with her equitable 
 separate estate.^ She cannot, for example, under such 
 a statute carry on a business on her personal credit.^ 
 Her right to manage her separate estate and her 
 right to trade are quite distinct.' A contract for 
 furniture to be used in a boarding-house which i.s 
 her separate pi'operty,* or for horses for her livery 
 stable,* may not be valid as the contracts of a trader 
 but valid as contracts with I'elation to her separate 
 property.'" 
 
 1 Spitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 5S0, 5S4 ; ante, ? 65. 
 
 2 Stout V. Perry, 70 Ind. 501, 504 ; ante, § 227. 
 
 3 Aldridge v. Muirliead, 101 V. S. 397, 399 ; ante, ? 87. 
 
 4 See Mitchell v. Sawyer, 21 Iowa, 582, .583. 
 
 5 See O'liiiilv v. Morris, 31 Ind. Ill, 112 ; Todd v. Lee, Ifi Wis. 4S0. 
 483 ; ante, i'i 370, 371, 4fi8. 
 
 « Glover t'Alcott, 11 Mich. 470, 480,485; Uobinwoii r. Wallace, 3) 
 Pa. St. 13i 
 
 7 Wheeler v. Ravmond, 130 Mass. 247, 24S ; Nash v. Mitchell, 71 
 N. Y. 199, 203 ; 27 Am'. Kep. 38. 
 
 8 Tillman v. Shackleton, 15 Mich. 447, 454 ; Chapman v. Briggs, 11 
 Allen, 547. 
 
 9 Manderback v. Mock, 29 Pa. St. 43, 47, 
 10 Discussed ante, U 239, 372.
 
 677 SOXJRCE.S OF CAPACITY. ?? 471-472 
 
 g 471. Married women's capacity to trade under statutes 
 referring theroto. — A statute securing to a married 
 woman her earnings or the products of her skill and 
 industry, by implication, enables her to earn money 
 and to trade, ^ just as statutes securing to married 
 wonicn property acquired by purchase enable them 
 to purchase on credit ; ^ thus alone are such statutes 
 given a reasonable meaning. A statute enabling mar- 
 ried women to trade, unless it contains restricting pro- 
 visions,^ enables them to trade just as if they were 
 sole,' to use any of the usual means of trade,^ and to 
 engage in anj' legitiriiate calling."^ A married woman 
 may also trade under statutes giving her the capacities 
 of a feynme sole as to contracts.^ 
 
 1 See Haigbt v. McVeagh, 61 III. 624, 623 ; Adams v. Honness, G2 
 Barb. 32fi, :{36 ; Krouskop v. fehontz, 51 Wis. 20-1, 21.5 ; Dayton v. 
 Wtilsh, 46 Wis. 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 7r>7. 
 
 2 Tifimeyer v. Turnquist, 85 N. Y. 616, 521 ; 39 Am. Rep. 074 ; ante, 
 i 224. 
 
 3 rost, ? 471. But see Bradstreet v. Baer, 41 Md. in, 23. 
 
 4 Bodine v. Killeeii, -5:} N. Y. 03, 06 ; pogt, ?? 47:J-481. 
 
 5 Guttniaii v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 4.>5, 450 ; post, H 475, 480. 
 
 6 Haight v. McVeagh, GO III. G:4, 628 ; ante, i 465. 
 
 7 See ante, ? 372, 
 
 I 472. Married women's capacities to trade under stat- 
 utes containing limitations. — Under a statute enabling a 
 married woman to trade with a capital of one thou- 
 sand dollars or less, and creating a special remedy 
 against her property for her trade debts, it was held 
 that she had no powers not expresslj' given ; that tlv 
 naming of one mode of ti-ade was a negation of al» 
 other modes ; and that she could not trade as a partner 
 because not expressly authorized.* In many States the 
 statutes require a wife who wishes to engage in trade 
 to comply with certain prerequisites : such as making 
 a declaration of record,"^ obtaining a license,^ or decree 
 of court,* and such requirements must, it seems, be
 
 g 472 SOURCES OF CAPACITY. 678 
 
 complied with to give her any new capacity.^ But a 
 statute providing that her husband shall not manage 
 her business has for its solo object the protection of 
 the husband's creditors, and when no question in 
 which they are concerned is involved, she has the 
 same capacities to trade with as without her husband ;^ 
 and the same would seem to apj^ly to a statute i-equir- 
 ing her to trade In her own name.' When she can be 
 declared a trader only when her husband cannot or 
 refuses to supi^ort her, his mere temporary sickness 
 will not suffice.* Nor will a court of equity with a dis- 
 cretion decree her a trader when she would thus be 
 enabled to commit a fraud.' When a statute requires 
 " a married woman doing business on her separate 
 account" to file a certificate, this does not apply to 
 married w'omen making investments of their separate 
 proi>erty."' A married woman need file no inventory 
 of her business unless this is required by statute ; '^ nor 
 need she have separate property to start with.^'' But 
 her powers are fullj'^ discussed elsewhere.^* 
 
 1 Bradstreet v. Baer, 41 Md. 19, 2:5 ; Cruzen v. McKiiig, 67 Md. 454, 
 462 ; puxi, i 4aO. 
 
 2 Adams v. Knowlton, 22 Cal. 283, 2S3 ; Camden v. Mullen, 2!) Cal. 
 561, oO!) ; Ke.tding; /■. Mullen, iV Cal. 101, 10(i ; Wheeler c. Kayniond, 
 lau Mass. 247, 24S ; Snow c. Sheldon, 12ii Mas.s. 332, 334 ; 30 Am. Kep. 6W. 
 
 3 Youngworth ;•. Jewell, 15 Nev. 45, 47. 
 
 4 Martin. -tz r. Ward, li) Fla. rsi, 8!i(; : Franklin, 1!) Kv. 4!)7, 498; 
 Moran. 1.' iJiish, »i:i: Ihris r. Horstni.iii, ^ Unsli. 172, 177; King v. 
 Thompson, t(7 Pa. St. ;ii;."i. :;ns ; :;i( Am. liep. oM ; ICLsev c. McDaniel, "Jo 
 Pa. St. 472, 474 ; OiTell v. Van (iorder, !»6 Pa St. ISO, 181. 
 
 5 Uhrig r. Horstman, 8 Bush, 172. 177; Elsey v. McDaniel, 95 
 Pa. St. 472, 474 ; supra, notes 2-4. 
 
 6 Porter v. Gauiba, 43 Cal. 105, 109. See Youngworth v. Jewell, 15 
 Nev. 45, 47. 
 
 7 But see Christensen v. Stumpf, 16 La. An. 50. 
 
 8 King V. Thompson, 87 Pa. St. 365, 363 ; SO Am. Rep. 364. 
 
 9 Moran, 12 Bush, 303. 
 
 10 Wheeler v. Raymond, 130 Mass. 247, 24S ; ante, I 470. 
 
 11 Jarman v. WooUoton, 3Term, 618, 622. 
 
 12 Tall man v. Jones, 13 Kau. 438, 445 ; post, I 475. 
 . 13 I-ost, U 474, 475.
 
 G79 ESCIDEN'TS OF CAPACITY. ? 473 
 
 ArticLiE II. — Incidexts op Capacity to Trade. 
 
 i 47i How fiar dependent 0:1 sources of capacity. 
 
 ? ^T-l. Express powers under statutes. 
 
 g -175. Implied powers under statutes. 
 
 i -iia. Rights of wife's creditors. 
 
 Z 47T. Rights of husband's creditors. 
 
 ? 478. Rights and liabilities of husband. 
 
 I 479. Marriod women as agents in trade. 
 
 i 430. Married women as partners. 
 
 J 481. Married women as incorporators, stockholders, etc. 
 
 ^ 473. Incidents of married women's trade, how far de- 
 pendent on the source of her capacity. — The status, rights, 
 and liabilities of a married woman trader depend very 
 largely on the source of her capacitj^ to trade.' Gen- 
 erally speaking, when she can trade only by virtue of 
 ber ownership of equitable or statutory separate estate, - 
 she cannot trade on licr personal credit or act as a 
 femine sole,^ but can only deal with the property so that 
 the profits will enure to her own benefit,* and can only 
 render it liable for her debts by charging it, contract- 
 ing with reference to it, etc., her contracts being valid 
 not on account of her being a trader, but Ix'eause made 
 in such a way or for such a purpose as tlie law allows.' 
 Co when she trades simply as her husband's agent, 
 though she binds him she does not bind lierself per- 
 sonally* — she may have the profits if he chooses to let 
 ber keep them,' but he and the business are liable for 
 tlie debts contracted by her on its behalf.^ When, how- 
 ever, she may trade personally, by virtue of her hus- 
 band's abandonment, by custom, or by statute, she can 
 trade just as if she were unmarried,^ unless, of course, 
 the statute limits her capacity.'" In such case she, for 
 the purposes connected with her business, has the 
 status of a/emwe *ci?c," the fullest rights tothocnjoj'-
 
 II 474-475 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 680 
 
 inent of the profits of the business,'^ and the fullest 
 liabilities for its debta." 
 
 1 Discussed ante, H 464-472. 
 
 2 Ante, U 468, 470. 
 
 3 O'liailv V. Morris, 31 Ind. Ill, 112; Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 
 470, 4S5 ; Kobinsoii v. Wallace, 39 Pa. St. 133. 
 
 4 Carey »'. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 579 ; Mitchell i'. Sawyer, 21 
 Iowa, 582, 583. 
 
 5 See Tillman v. Shacltletoh, 15 Mich. 470, 480, 48.5 ; Chapman r. 
 Briggs, II Allf n, 547 ; Manderbaclt v. Mocli, 2a Pa. St. 43, 47 ; Toild v. 
 Leu, 10 Wis. 4S0, 483. 
 
 See Conlilin v. Doul, 67 111. 3.55, 357 ; Tuttle v. Hoag, 40 Mo. 38, 41 ; 
 2 Am. Kep. 481 ; ante. H :««■ 36:! ; post, B 479, 483. 
 
 7 See Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 5a3, 512; Conivli)i v. Doul, 67 
 III. 355, 3.57 ; ante, l 469. 
 
 8 Partridge v. Steelier, 36 Vt. 1C8, 114 ; ante, ? 469 ; post, i 478. 
 
 9 Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 374, 381 ; post, U 4"4, 475. 
 
 10 Young V. Gorl, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, 14, ii. ; post, i 475. 
 
 11 ^ee post, I 475. 
 
 12 Dayton r. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 120 ; .32 Xm. Rep. 757 ; post, ? 475. 
 
 13 Wallace v. Rowley, 91 Ind. 105, 109 ; jxist, ? 476. 
 
 1 474. Eights and liabilities of married women traders 
 Tinder the express torms of the statutes. — Most of the stat- 
 utes as to married women traders expressly provide 
 that they shall trade as if sole, and under such statutes 
 no special questions seem to have arisen ; ^ the main 
 questions are as to the implied powers of married 
 women traders.'^ In one case it was held that the nam- 
 ing of certain powers of trade was a negation of all 
 other powers ;3 but the weight of authority seems to be 
 to the contrarj'.* 
 
 1 See Berry v. Zeiss, 32 L'p. Can. C. P. 231, 239 ; Porter v. Gamba, 
 43 Cal. 105, 109 ; Martinetz v. Ward, 19 Fla. 175, 187, 188; Kingman v. 
 Fraiili, 19 Cent. L. J. 470, 471 : Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390, 398, 399 ; 
 Krouskop V. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 217. 
 
 2 Discussed post, I 475. 
 
 3 Bradstreet v. Baer, 41 Md. 19, 23 ; Cruzen v. McKaig, 57 Md. 454, 
 462. 
 
 4 Seepo««, ??4"5, 480. 
 
 I 475. Implied powers under statutes of married women 
 traders. — Under statutes enabling a married woman to
 
 681 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. § 475 
 
 trade and not limiting her capacities, she may trade pre- 
 cisely as if unmarried; she is, as to lier business, a 
 femme sole, and may dc all things incidental to trading in 
 general, and all things usual and proper in the particu- 
 lar trade in which she is engaged.^ The object of these 
 statutes is not only to do justice to ■wives, ^ but also to 
 encourage trade.* Thus, she may engage in any legiti- 
 mate calling,' She may conduct the business person- 
 ally or by agent ; she may have her salesmen and 
 clerks;^ she may be a partner, silent or active;* and 
 she may, unless this is i^rohibited by statute, have her 
 husband as her agent,' or be a partner Avith him, though 
 this IS in some States denied.^ She need not, unless the 
 •statute so provides,* have separate projierty to begin 
 with ; i** she may start out on credit,'^ or use property- 
 given her by her husband/-' though in the latter case 
 his creditors may have riglits.'* Tlie capital " and stock 
 in trade i» of her business, as well as the profits,'* are 
 entirely hers ; for instance, tlie bills due her as a board- 
 ing-house keeper , '^ and such proi^erty, though in the 
 possession of herand her husband, is in her possession, 
 the jjossession relating to the title.'* She may on credit 
 purchase goods for her trade ; '* or buy land ^^ or seed •' 
 for farming jjurposes ; or rent a store ; ^- or contract for 
 her services;^ or contract for working a quarry — for 
 t]ie labor and mules ; ^' she may transfer a note received 
 in the course of trade ; ^^ she may even sell out her busi- 
 ness, and agree not to use the same name again. 2* She 
 is personally liable on all contracts which she executes 
 in the conduct of her business,^' even as indorser of a 
 note ; "^ she is liable for the frauds of her employees, -^ 
 and is estopped as if sole from denying their right to 
 represent her;*" she is liable for goods consigned to 
 her.*' She may sue and be sued alone and at law,*' 
 except, perhaps, as to suits with her husband;^* and a
 
 I 475 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 682 
 
 general judgnieut may be obtained against her.^* The 
 question whether a particular transaction of hers was 
 in tlie coarse of Iier business is one of lact.^^ In suing, 
 sho must allege and prove this ; ^"^ and when she is sued, 
 the plaintiff must allege the grounds of the liability ,=^ 
 must allege and prove affirmatively that she was en- 
 gaged in business, and tliat the particular transaction 
 was connected with such business.^* Sho may make a 
 deed for the benefit of creditors,^'* and take the benefit 
 of the Insolvent laws.'** 
 
 1 Young r. Gorl, 13 Abb. Pr. i:J, U, n. See Berry v. Zei&s, 32 
 rp. Can. V. P. 2;il, 239; 'iiieber v. Stuv^r, oU Ar.c. 7i7, 7.^0; Cam- 
 di'ii V. Mullen, 21 Cul. 564, o&O ; I^ortcr v.Ua;ubu,4:5 Cal. 1U.>, UU ; Rock- 
 well %). ClarU,44 Conn. 5"A, 5r.6 ; Martinetz v. \\uia, IJ KUi. 17.3,187; 
 Xispel 1'. Lupa:Ie, 74 ill. AAi. ■ OS ; ^^';uU^ce v. Kowley, 91 InU. .=i8(>, o8J ; 
 T.illman r. Jon^s, 13 Kun. 4-.s, ^l.i ; JiitehcU ■!■. .Sawyer, 21 Iowa, 582, 
 5>3; .Siiow 1'. Sh ia<in, 126 J[..:,s. :.:.2, 3:4 ; ;0 Am. K^p. (»4 ; Kaowlesr. 
 Uull,9jJIass. 5(i2, .">i;4; Rankin c. West, 25 j;icli. l:i.">,'.:ul ; Aliens. Job:> 
 son, 48 JNliss. 413, 41S ; NettervUle v. Barber, 52 Wiss. IGS, 172 ; Young- 
 worth V. Jewell, 15 Nev. 45, 47 ; Wheaton v. Phillips, 12 N. J. l-q. 2:;l, 
 223 ; Barton v, licer, 00 Barb. 78, 80 ; J;;;v.cs i'. T.iv lur, 43 Barb. 5;,0, V.l ; 
 Abbey V. Devo,44 Barb. 374,381 ; Adams v. 1 Ion n ess, Ci Barb. 326, 3:(i; 
 Woocf V. Sancliey, 3 Ualv, li)7, 108 ; N\.sb r. Mitchell, 71 N. V. 2U0, 20:; ; 
 24 Am. Rep. 0,8 ; Frecking v. Rolanft, 53 N. Y. 422, 425 ; BoUine v. KJl- 
 leen, Hi N. Y. i«, ;,6 ; Baum v. Mullen, 47 N. Y. 577, 57l» ; Samir.is v. 
 McLaughlin, 35 N. Y. 647, 650 ; Ki:iKiuan v. Frank, ]!» Cent. I;, J. 470, 
 471 ; Morgan r. PorUamus,;.GOUio St. 517 ; Silveusi'. Porter, 74 Pa. f^£. 
 418, 451 ; Willhaus v. Ludecus, 5 i;ich. 326, 32'J ; Kowbiggin v. Pillans, 
 2 Bay, 1S2, 1G5 ; V.'illiauis v. I-ord, 75 Va. 3;iO, 308 ; Krouskop v. 8bontz, 
 51 Wis. 204, 217 ; Baytoa v. Walsh, 47 Yvis, 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 2 Youngworth ?'. Jewell, 15 Xev. 45, 47. 
 
 a See McDaniel v. Cornwall, 1 Ilili (S. C.) 428, 429. 
 
 4 Guttman v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 455, 459 ; ante, | 4G.\. 
 
 5 Guttman v. Scannell," Cal. 455, 4o,> ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 
 374,381. Consult «H?e, iH4-83. 
 
 6 Parshall v. Fisher, 43 Mich. 520, 534 ; post, ? 430. 
 
 7 Guttman %\ Scannell, 7 Cal. 455, 45:i; Bellows r. Rosentlial, 31 
 Intl. 116; Rankin r. West, 25 Mich. 195, 200; LockwooU f. Culiin, 4 
 Robt. 120, 136 ; unte, U 84-«j. 
 
 8 Zimmerman v. Erhard, 53 How. Pr. H, 13 ; past, i ■i'^. 
 
 9 Franklin, 7j Ky. 407, 403. 
 
 10 Tallman v. Jonest, 13 Kan. 438, 445; Dayton t>. Walsh, 47 Wis. 
 113, 120 ; 32 Am. Rei). 7o7. See ante, U 4liS, 470. 
 
 11 Young V, Gori, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, 14, n, ; miprtc, n. 1, 
 
 12 Lockwoofi V. Cullin, 4 Robt. 120, 130. 
 
 13 See Penn v. Whitehead, 12 Grutt. 74 ; ante, ?? 113-118 ; pr^t, i 477. 
 
 14 James v. Taylor, 43 Barb. 5::0, 531 ; atile, |J 408, 470. 
 
 15 Lovell V, Isewtoa, Law R. 4 C. P. I). 7, 12 ; ante, U 468, 470. 
 
 I
 
 683 INCIDENTS OF CArACITY. 2 ^"^^ 
 
 16 Mitchell v. Sawver, 21 Iowa, 332, 583 ; Sammis v. ?Ter^augMi:i, 35 
 X. Y. frlT, 6oO ; Siiveus r. Porter, 71 Pa. ^^t. ^^S. -l')! ; Jleycrs r. Itahte, 
 4ti Wis. 8.>i, 65); Davtoii v. WaUli, 47 Wis. lia, l.:0; 32 Am. Hop. 757; 
 ante. U -0*, -'-7, 408, 470. 
 
 17 See Dawos ik Itodier, 12.5 Mass. 421, 42n. 
 
 IS Nowbrick v. Dugan, 61 Ala. 2.51, 253 ; nnle, U l'-'J-12l. 
 n Nisjiel I'. Laparle, 74 111. ^06, "C8 ; Freckiiig v. Holland, .53 N. Y. 
 422, 425. 
 
 20 Camden t'. Mullen, 2Cl Cal. 5G4, 505 ; Chapman v. Foster, 6 ^Ulen, 
 138. i;«. 
 
 21 Camden v. Mullen, 23 Cal. 5(H, .566. 
 
 22 Knowles v. Hull, OJ Mass. .5C2, 534. 
 2.J Adams v. Ilonness, 62 Barb. 323, ."",3. 
 2-; Nctterville v. Barber, 52 Miss. IC'3, 172. 
 
 25 Itociiwell V. Clarlc, 44 Conn. bH, 5:6. 
 
 26 Morgan i<. Perhamus, 36 Ohio St. 517. 
 
 27 Barton r. Beer, 35 Barb. 7S, 80. Soo Triobor r. Stover, 30 Ark. 
 727, 730 ; Nispul v. Laparle, 74 111. 306, COJ ; sti2}ra, n. 1. 
 
 2-! Willhaus J>. Ludecus, 5 Rich. 326, 327. 
 2;) Baum V. Mullen, 47 X. Y. 577, 573. 
 
 30 Bodine v. Killeen, 53 N. Y. 93, 96 ; ante, ? 414. 
 
 31 Nexvblggin i>. Pillans, 2 Bay, 162, 105. 
 
 32 Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727, 730 ; Rockwell v. Clark, 44 Conn. 
 .534, 536, Wheaton v. Phillips, 12 N. J. Kq. 221,223 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 
 71 N. Y. 200, 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38 ; Meyers v. Rahte, 45 AVis. 655, 65'J ; 
 ante, 'ti 441, 451. 
 
 3s Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727, 730 ; ante, \\ 54, 4:3. 
 
 34 Porter v. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, KK) ; ante, 5? 4.53, 453. 
 
 35 Camden v. Mullen, 29 Cal. 564, 567. 
 
 36 Smith V. New England, 45 Conn. 415, 420 ; ante, | 431. 
 
 37 See ante, % 431, n. 2. 
 
 3S Reading v. Mullen, 47 N. Y. .577. .571 ; AVood v. Sanchoy, 3 Daly, 
 197, 198 ; Nash v. Mitchell, 71 N. Y. 200, 203 ; 27 Am. Rep. 38. 
 
 3!) Shumann v. Peddlcord, 50 Md. 500. 
 
 40 See Holland, Law R. 9 Ch. .307, 311; Kinkoad, 3 Biss. 405,4:0. 
 But see Reiief v. Schmidt, .55 Md. 97 ; ante, U 16, 36J. 
 
 ? 476. The rights of the wife's creditors. — The bu.si- 
 ness creditors of a married Avomau trader have, under 
 the statutes generally, the same riglits a.s if she wore 
 sole ; ' they may sue her alone, ^ and obtain a general 
 judgment again.st lier.* If she is a partner, all Iho 
 partners must be joined.* The husband cannot set up 
 against them any rights tliat lie miglit have against 
 her 111 property' lie has suti'ered her to use in tlie busi-
 
 J 477 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 684 
 
 iicss.* If she is not trading with a j^ersonal capacity, 
 but simjjly by virtue of her ownership of separate 
 property, such creditors have generaUy no rights in 
 personam against lier." In some States her creditors 
 are given special remedies^ Wlien she acts simply as 
 her husband's agent, her creditors are really his credit- 
 ors, and the business is really his business.^ Her 
 creditors other tlian tliose of her business can proceed 
 against her business onlj^ as they could against her 
 other separate property.^ 
 
 1 Nlspel V. Laparle, 74 111. 306, 3i8 ; ante, i 475, n. 1. 
 
 2 Meyers v. Rahte, 46 Wis. 655, 659 ; ante, I 475, n. 32. 
 
 3 Porter v. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 109 ; ante, H 453, 458 
 
 4 Westphal v. Heuvoy, 49 Iowa, 542, 543. 
 
 5 Green v. Pallas, 12 N. J. Eq. 267, 26S ; Partridge v. Stocker, 36 
 Vt. 108, 114. 
 
 6 O'Daily v. Morris, 31 Ind. Ill, 112; Glover r. Alcott, U Mich. 
 470, 485 ; Kobinson i'. A\'aUace, 39 Pa. St. 133. 
 
 7 Brent v. Taylor, 6 Md. 58, 68. 
 
 8 Conklin v. Doul, 67 111. 35.5, 359 ; Switzer v. Valentine, 4 Duer, 06, 
 R9 ; Swasev u. Antrum, 24 Ohio St. 87, 95; Jacobs v. Featherstone, 6 
 Watts & S. 347, Hi'J. 
 
 9 See Wood V. Sanehev, 3 Daly, 107, 133 ; Xash v. Mitchell, 71 
 N. Y. 200,203 ; 27 Am. Rep."38. 
 
 I 477. The rights of the husband's creditors. — If the 
 wife labors in her husband's business,' or allows her 
 property to be used therein,' the profits are neverthe- 
 less subject to the rights of his creditors ; but she is 
 not personally liable to the creditors of the business if 
 slie has acted only as his agent, and has no caj)acity to 
 contract.^ His creditors have the right to go against 
 her separate business for any sums put into it by her 
 husband in fraud of their rights,* but it is doubtful 
 Avhether this applies to a bona fide gift by him to her of 
 his services ; ^ in eonie cases an apportionment has 
 been made,^and this would of course be done if he and 
 she were partners.' His creditors have no rights in 
 the profits of her separate business,* in cases where he 
 
 I
 
 685 1NCIDE>-TS OF CAPACITY. ? ^Tff' 
 
 has provided neither property nor services. Still, they 
 have the right to treat the business as his wheni she 
 has not complied with the requirements, as tO' filing 
 a declaration of record, etc.^ When she cannot l)e his 
 partner, she incurs no liability by holding herself out 
 as sucIl^*^ 
 
 1 Clinton v. Himmell, 25 X. J. Eq. -lo, -17; ante, §2 65>,WO. See 
 Duiuas ('. Neal, 51 (ja. oGo, 5U6. 
 
 2 Patton V. Gates, 67 III. KH, 1157 ; AVilsoii i\ Loomis, 55 lUi 352, 355; 
 ante, 'ii 12J, 132. 
 
 3 Conklin v. Doul, 67 111. 355, 35S ; O'Daily v. Morris, STV Ind. Ill, 
 112 ; (Jlover v. Alcott, H Mich. -470, 4S5 ; Tuttle v. Hoag, 46.Mo. 38, 41 ; 
 2.Vm. Kep. 4SU 
 
 ■i Thomas v. Desmonci, 63 Cal. 426, 427; Penn v. Whitehead, 17 
 Gratt. o0.i, 512 ; llichardson r. Merrill, 32 Vt. 27, 36; mite, JiU3-llS. 
 
 5 Discussed ante, U 87, i:50. 
 
 6 See Tavlor v. Cilidden, 16 Ohio St. 503, 522 ; Penn v.. Whitehead, 
 17Gratt. 503, 513. 
 
 7 See post, 5 4S0. 
 
 8 Bellows V. Kosenthal, 31 Ind. 116, 117, 118 ; cases ante, U 87, 209, 
 227. 
 
 9 Porter v. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 109 ; ante, i 472. 
 
 10 Montgomery v. Spraukle, 31 lud. 113, 115; Lord v; Parker, 3 
 Allen. 127. 
 
 § 478. Bights and liabilities of husband of married woman 
 trader. — When a man married a woman engaged in 
 trade, he at common law took the business witli its 
 assets 1 and liabilities ; ^ now he is liable only where he 
 is still liable for her antenuptial debts,^ and ha^ the 
 right to tlie business only when such property is secured 
 to her neither by settlement nor by statute.* So at 
 common law, all the profits of her business during 
 coverture vested with her other earnings and tlie other 
 increase of her property in him ; but this, too, is gener- 
 ally changed.^ It is his business and he is fully liablej* 
 and need not give her any part of the profits,^ if she 
 is trading simply by his consent and has no other 
 authority; 8 she may even be a partner in his place.^ 
 When all the credit is given to her he is not liable.'*' 
 Nor is he liable when she is trading independently of 
 
 H. & W. — 58.
 
 gg 479-480 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 686 
 
 him under the statutes," unless he is a iiartner/^ or 
 actually joins in the transaction.'^ 
 
 1 Ashworth v. Outram, Law R. 5 Ch. D. 023, 929. 
 
 2 Alexander y. Morgan, 31 Ohio St. 548, oJO. 
 
 3 Discussed ante, I G7. 
 
 4 Rocliwell V. Clark, U Conn. hM, .536 ; ante, 5? 203, 227. 
 
 5 Stimsou V. Wliite, 20 Wis, 5G2, 5fiS ; ante, i 463. 
 
 6 Jenkins v. Flinn, .37 Ind. »43, 352 ; Oxnard v. Swanton, 33 Me. 
 125, 12;); Barton v. Beer, 35 Barb. 78, 79; Jacobs v. i'eathersby, 6 
 Watts & S. 347, 343 ; ante, | 403. 
 
 7 Conklin v. Doul, 67 III. 35.5, 3.57 ; Stimson v. White, 20 Wis. 562, 563. 
 
 8 Discussed ante, U 93, 469. 
 
 9 Swasey v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87, 'J5. 
 
 10 Jenkins v. Flinn, .37 Ind. 349, 352 ; Tuttle v. Hoag, 46 Mo. 38, 42 ; 
 2 Am. Kep. 481 ; ante, I 89. 
 
 11 Trieber v. Stover, 30 Ark. 727, 731 ; Smith v. Thompson, 36 Conn. 
 117,10 1; Haight v. McVeagh, 6» 111.624,628; .Taycox r. Wing, 6,! 111. 
 1S2, 184 ; Colby v. Lamson, 33 Me. 119, 121 ; Tuttle v. Iloag, 46 Mo. 38, 
 42; 2 Ain. liep. 4!)1 ; Alexander v. Morgan, 31 Ohio St. 546, 551. 
 
 12 See post, ? 480. 
 
 13 Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 217. 
 
 I 479. Married women trading as agents. — A married 
 v.'oniiin is not b}' coverture incapacitated from being an 
 agent ; ' and one may frequentlj' be found conducting 
 another's business, especially that of her husband ; ^ one 
 may be a partner, even, in her husband's place.^ In 
 such cases she binds her principal of course,' but she 
 does not bind herself as other agents may, unless she 
 has the per.sonal capacity to bind herself independently 
 of her agency ; » and it seems that if she acted simply 
 as agent, she would not be trading so as to be liable as 
 a trader. 
 
 1 Ante, U 336, 363 ; post, ? 483. 
 
 2 Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 512 ; Jenkins v. Flinn. 37 Ind. 
 349, 352 ; ante, U 90, 93, 469. 
 
 3 Swasey v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87, 95. 
 
 4 Barton i<. Beer, .35 Barb. 78, 73. 
 
 5 ConsuItiJos<, U 482, 483. 
 
 § 480. Married women as partners. — It has been held 
 that a married woman trading in equity witli lier equi- 
 
 I
 
 687 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. ? 480 
 
 table separate proijerty may enter into i^artnership ; ^ 
 but this statement must be taken witli limitations. For 
 the normal contract of partnersliip is a personal eon- 
 tract, involving a personal caoaeity,^ whicli a married 
 woman does not have either in equity,^ or under mere 
 separate property acts.* And therefore it is settled that 
 statutes securing to married women their property, 
 with the rents, profits, increase, etc., tliereof, altliough 
 they enable her to trade in a limited way,^ do not en- 
 able her to enter into partnership.^ At common law, 
 when a female partner married the partnership was 
 dissolved,' and now she cannot be a partner if she has 
 no capacity to trade personally,^ or if she is oxjiressly 
 prohibited by the statute enabling her to trade,^ or so 
 far as she is partially prohibited, i" as she is in some 
 States. But as she has, under the statutes giving her 
 the capacity to trade generally, the personal capacity 
 to ti-ade as if sole, and the power to pursue all tlie 
 usual metliods of trade," she may, under such acts, 
 trade in partnership ; ^^ she may even be held respon- 
 sible as a secret partner. ^^ Still, in a few cases, and on 
 different grounds, this has been denied.^' So, as she is 
 a/e>nme sole in her trade,'' and may emiDloy an agent, 
 general or special,^^ and may emijloy her husband as 
 such,'^ there seems to be no reason why she should not 
 be able to form a partnership with her husband ; and 
 many cases hold,'* while others assume,'^ that she may. 
 But this is also strenuously denied, on the ground that 
 even where a married woman maj' contract, she can- 
 not, without express authority, contract with her lius- 
 band,'* and that the particular statute enables her to 
 trade on her separate account.-' To this it is replied, 
 that if she may employ her husband as her agent, as 
 all admit she can. 2- it is not consistent to say that she 
 cannot contract with him ;'^ and that the word "sepa-
 
 § 480 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 688 
 
 rate" in the statutes does not refer to the mode in' 
 which a married woman shall trade, but to her status 
 as independent of her husband's marital control and 
 marriage rights.^* In such cases, as she cannot be a 
 partner, and tlierefore could not be held liable on a 
 partnership note signed by one of the other partners,-^ 
 she can, neverclieless, be liable on her individual acts,-^ 
 nor does she, in sucli cases, lose her property put into 
 a firm business.^^ Though she may not join a firm of 
 whicli lier liusband is a member,'-'^ she may, after liis 
 retirement, go in, and on a new consideration become 
 liable for the pre-existing partnership dobts.'^ 80, 
 although she cannot be a partner, she may jointly 
 lease and share the profits of joint property,^** and be 
 bound by Iier husband's acts as her agent with respect 
 thereto,^' If the husband has furnislied joart <jf her 
 caijital, her business may pro tanto be liable for his 
 debts,^'^ and tlie courts have sometimes, without speak- 
 ing of husband and wife as pai-tners, ordered an appor- 
 tionment of the profits of a business jointly carried on 
 \>y them.^^ 
 
 1 Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 512. 
 
 2 Carey i\ Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 570 ; 4-3 Am. Kep. 790. 
 
 3 Staley v. Hamilton, 19 Fla. 275, 2;)7 ; ante, I 206. 
 
 4 Russel V. People, 39 Mich. 671, 673 ; 33 Am. Rep. 444 : ante, U 2.37- 
 2.39, 370. 
 
 5 Discussed ante, U 46S, 470. 
 
 6 Bradstreet v. Baer, 41 Md. 19, 23 ; Mayer v. Soyster, 30 Md. 403 ; 
 Howard v. Stephens, 52 Miss. 239, 244 : Bradford v. Johnson, 44 Tex. 
 381, 383 ; Carey r. Burruss, 2U VV. Va. 571, 576 ; 43 Am. Kep. 790. 
 
 7 Bassett v. Shepardson, 17 N. W. Rep. 216, 219 ; 52 Mich. 3, 7 ; 
 Alexander v. Morgan, 31 Ohio 8t. 54G, 550. 
 
 8 Svvasey ?'. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87, 95; Carey v. Burruss, 20 
 W. Va. 571, 575 ; 43 Am. Rep. 7i)0. 
 
 9 See Todd v. Clapp, 118 Mass. 495, 496. 
 
 10 See Porter v. Gamba, 43 Cal. 105, 10,1. 
 
 11 Zimmerman v. Erhard, .5? How. Pr. 11, 14 ; ante, ? 475. 
 
 12 Kinkead, 3 Biss. 405. 410; Camden v. Mullen, 29 Cal. 564, 565; 
 Francis v. Dickel, (>■* Ga. 2*5, 25S ; Preusser v. Henshaw, 49 Iowa, 41, 
 44 ; Westphal v. Henney, 49 Iowa, 542, 543 ; Plunier v. Lord, 5 Allen, 
 
 I
 
 689 INCIDENTS OP CAPACITY. g 481 
 
 460, 462 ; Parshall v. Fisher, 43 Mich. 529, 532, 534 ; Newman v. Morris. 
 52 Miss. 402, 406 ; Zimmerman v. Krhard, 58 How. Pr. 11, 13 ; 8 Daly, 
 311 ; Bitter v. Rathman, 61 X. Y. 512, 513 ; Scott v. Coiiwav, oS N. Y. 
 619; Oratf v. Kennedy, 31 Alb. L. J. 2 ; Silveus v. Porter, 71 Pa. St. 
 44S, 449; Krouskop v. Shoutz, 51 Wis. 204, 217 ; Horneffer v. Duress, 13 
 Wis. 60i, «i05. 
 
 13 See Parshall v. Fisher, 43 Mich. 529, 534 ; Scott v. Conway, .58 
 N. Y. 619 ; Bitter v. Rathman, 61 N. Y. 512, 51.i. 
 
 14 Haas v. Shaw, 91 Inrl. 3S4, 381, 396 ; Mont!?omery v. Sprankle, 31 
 Ind. 113, 115 ; Mayhow )'. Baker, 15 Iiid. 2.54, 2.')" ; P,ru(lstreet v. Baer, 
 41 Md. 19, 23 ; Cruzen v. McKai?, .57 M'i. 454, 4f.: ; Mov-r /•. Soyster, 30 
 Md. 403 ; Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, .576 ; 43 Am. lleiJ. 799 ; supra, 
 B. 9. 
 
 15 Young V. Gori, 13 Abb. Pr. 13, 14, n ; ante, ? 47-5. 
 IS Abbey v. Deyo, 44 Barb. 374, 381 ; ante, \ 475. 
 
 17 Ranlcin v. West, 25 Mich. 195, 200 ; ante, U 87, 475. 
 
 18 Kinkead, 3 Biss. 40.5, 410; Francis v. Dickel, 6S Ga. 255, 258; 
 Newman v. Morris. 52 Miss. 402, 406 ; Zimmerman v. Erhard, .58 
 How. Pr. 11, 13 ; Graff i'. K.-anedy, 31 Alb. L. J. 2. 
 
 19 Can.den v. Mullen, 29 Cal. 564, 5R5 ; Westphal v. Henney, 49 
 Iowa, .542, 543; Parshall v. Fisher, 43 Mich. 529, .532, .554 ; Silveus v. 
 Porter, 74 Pa. St. 44S, 44 1 ; Krouskop v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204, 217; 
 Horneffer v. Duress, 13 Wis. mi, 604. 
 
 20 See ante, \ 43 ; infra, n. 21. 
 
 21 Lord V. Parker, 3 Allen, 127, 129; Edwards v. Stevens, 3 Allen, 
 815 ; Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen, 460, 462 ; Allen v. Johnson, 48 Miss. 413. 
 419. See Haas v. Shaw, 91 lud. 384, 389 ; supra, n. 14. 
 
 22 Ante, ?? 87, 475. 
 
 23 Zimmerman v. Erhard, .58 How. Pr. U, 13. 
 
 24 Zimmerman v. Erhar 1, 53 How. Pr. 11, 14 ; ante, } 472. 
 
 25 Carey v. Burruss, 20 W. Va. 571, 532 ; 43 Am. Rep. 790 ; Plumer 
 V. Lord, 7 Allen, 481, 4S.5. 
 
 26 Cruzen v. McKaig, 57 Md. 4.54, 462. 
 
 27 Mayhew v. iiaker, 15 Ind. 254, 257. 
 23 Plumer v. Lord, 7 Allen, 481, 484. 
 
 29 Preusser ii. Henshaw, 4T Iowa, 41, 44. 
 
 30 Allen V. Johnson, 48 Miss. 413, 419. 
 
 31 Reiman v. Hamilton, 111 Mass. 245, 247. 
 
 32 Horneffer v. Duress, 13 Wis. 603, 605 ; ante, U 113-118, 129, 1.30, 478. 
 
 33 Taylor v. Glidden, 16 Ohio St. 509, 522 ; Penu i-. Whitehead, 17 
 Gratt, 503, 513 ; ante, i'i 87, 129, 1:50. 
 
 ^ 481. Married women as incorporators, stockholders, 
 eto. — Very nearly the .same questions arise in consider- 
 ing a married woman'.i cai)acity to be an incorporator 
 as those which are involved in lier right to be a part- 
 ner.i Corjjorators enter into a mutual and personal 
 contract, wliicli is concluded by tlie acl; of incorpora-
 
 g 4§1 INCIDENTS OF CAPACITY. 690 
 
 tion ; 2 and, therefore, without personal capacity to 
 contract, a married woman could not be an ineorpora- 
 tor.3 But as business is A^ery commonly carried on by 
 corporations, a married woman with capacity to trade 
 would, it seems, have capacity to be an incorporator.* 
 The fact that the corporation laws provide tliat " any 
 person " may be an incorporator, would not afiect a 
 inarried woman under incapacity, by virtue of a rule 
 already discussed. ^ Bui a married woman may be a 
 stockholder,^ holding her stock as any other chose in 
 action;' and it has been held that when she can hold 
 stock as if sole, she is liable as any other stockholder — 
 for example, for assessments.^ 
 
 1 Plumer v. Lord, 5 Allen, 4G0, 462. 
 
 2 Taylor Corporations, g 31. 
 
 3 No decision. 
 
 4 In accordance with the .spirit of, nnte, ? 475. 
 
 5 Ante, II 12, 369. 
 
 6 See Cal. Civ. Code ISSl, ?? 2S.T-325 ; W. Va. Code 1S7S, ch. 122, ? 9. 
 
 7 Ante, ?? 173, 219. 
 
 8 Anderson v. Line, 14 Fed. Rep. 405, 406 ; The Reciprocity Bank, 
 22 N. Y. 9, IS ; ante, U 12. 369.
 
 691 EEPBESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. ? 482 
 
 CHAPTER XXYIII. 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. 
 
 5 -182. The questions Involved. 
 
 2 4S3. Some general rules. 
 
 J 48-1. Married women as ageiits. 
 
 J 485. Married women as trustees. 
 
 5 4SG. Married women as executrices, etc. 
 
 i 487. Married women as guardians. 
 
 § 482. The questions involved. — Whether married 
 women may act in representative capacities — whether 
 they may be agents, tru.stees, administratoi's, executors, 
 guardians, etc. — and how far their acts in such capaci- 
 ties have the same effect as the acts of persons sui juris 
 in similar capacities, are questions which are nowhere 
 fully discussed ; and much confusion is likel3^ to result 
 in such a discussion, unless the dilterent points of view 
 from which the subject may be approached be borne in 
 mind. For example, a married woman may be au 
 agent, in the sense that slie may, just as if she were 
 sole, bind a party who has authorized her to act for 
 her,' but not necessarily at the same time, in the sense 
 that she may recover compensation for her services,- or 
 be liable for money received to her principal's use,^ or 
 be personally liable to third parties with whom she has 
 dealt in her own name.* So she may be a trustee, ii\ 
 the sense that her husband cannot claim substantial 
 rights in property of which she holds only the bare 
 legal title,^ and that she may dispose of such loroperty 
 in accordance with the powers vested in her by the 
 trust ; ^ and yet she would not therefore be liable per- 
 sonally for work done at her request,' as a i^erson sui 
 juris would be,^ or be able to bind herself personally
 
 § 483 EEPBESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. 692 
 
 to execute the powers of her trust.^ And so she may- 
 be an administratrix, in the sense that once appointed 
 she may act as sucli.'" and yet her appointment may 
 depend on the consent of her husband."' It thus plainly 
 appears that a married woman who may act in a repi'e- 
 sentative capacity, does not, while so acting, have the 
 same rights and liabilities as 2kfemme sole, and that the 
 following questions may arise, namely : (1) How far do 
 her conjugal obligations conflict with her right to act in 
 a representative capacity — how far has her husband the 
 right to control her in this respect ? (2) How far do her 
 personal disabilities — her coverture — alfect her capacity 
 to so act ? (3) How far do her acts in a repre-icntative 
 capacity aftect her personally, (4) or her husband. (5) 
 or her principal or estate, (6) or the third parties with 
 whom she deals ? And these questions will be discussed 
 first generally,'- and then as involved in the most usual 
 of caijacities in which she may act.'^ 
 
 1 Debenham v. Mellon, Law R. 5 Q. B. D. 3W, 402 ; ante, ?? 89-98 ; 
 post, I 4S4. 
 
 2 Hazelbaker v. Goodfellow, 64 111. 238, 241 ; Abbey v. Deyo, 44 
 Barb. 374, 380 ; ante, i 65. 
 
 3 Tuckers. Cocke, 32 Miss. 1S4, 189; Andrews r. Ormsbee, 11 Mo- 
 400, 402 ; Carleton v. Haywood, 49 N. H. 314, 320 ; ante, i 3,S1. 
 
 4 See Tuttie v. Hoag, 46 Mo. 41, 42 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481. 
 
 5 Claussen v. La Franz, 1 Iowa, 226, 234 ; post, i 435. 
 
 6 1 Perry Trusts, I 48. 
 
 7 See Still v. Ruby, 35 Pa. St. 373, 374. 
 
 8 Gill V. Carmine, 55 Md. 339. 
 
 9 Avery v. GrifTin, Law R. 6 Eq. 606, 608. 
 
 10 Pemberton x\ Chapman, El. B. & E. 1056, 1067 ; x)ost, ? 486. 
 
 11 Stewart, 56 Me. 300, SOL 
 
 12 Post, I 483. 
 
 13 Pos^ 5 HS4-487. 
 
 g 483. Some general rules as to married women in repre- 
 sentative capacities. — With regard to the questions al- 
 ready stated,' certain general rules may be formulated, 
 to wit : —
 
 693 KEPKESENTATIVK CAPACITIES, \ 433 
 
 1. ^45 to hiisbamVs consent. At common law, a hus- 
 band not only took his wife "with ail her accrued obliga- 
 tions,^ but he was also jointly liable with her for her 
 torts, whether committed with his consent or not,* and 
 was therefore liable for all her breaches of trust, dc- 
 vastavits, etc ;* so that for his own protection he had 
 the right to say whether she should act in a representa- 
 tive cajjacitj', and subject him to such additional risks.^ 
 But his consent was necessarj' only so far as his liabilities 
 were concerned*^ — he could not, for example, object to 
 her executing a power to convey property ; '' and for 
 this reason, it would seem that his right to object at all 
 is removed by statutes destroying his marital liability 
 for the acts of his wife.* 
 
 2. As to wife's coverture. The fact that a wife has no 
 personal capacities, but is under the disabilities of 
 coverture, does not i:)revent her acting in a representative 
 capacit3' ; ^ she may be au agent,!'' administratrix or 
 executrix,'! trustee,'- or guardian ; '^ it onXy aftects her 
 personal rights and obligations while acting in such 
 capacities.'* A married woman is not in this i-espect 
 like an idiot ; she has as much discretion after as before 
 marriage.'^ 
 
 3. As to personal rights and obligations of u-ife. The 
 fact that a married woman may act in a representative 
 capacity, and is so acting, does not enlarge her per- 
 sonal capacities, or remove, as far as she is herself 
 concerned, her marriage disabilities, or atfect her per- 
 sonal status.'^ Her contracts, though made in her own 
 name, do not bind her personally, unless she has the 
 capacity to contract personally ; '' so she may be unable 
 to stipulate for any compensation.'* For her torts she 
 is, of course, personally liable, for a married Avoman is 
 not even at common law under disa'oiiaty to commit 
 wrongs.'^
 
 1 483 KEPRESEXTATIVE CAPACITIES. 604 
 
 4. jLs to her husbaiid^s rights and obligations. A hus- 
 band has no i^roijertj' or estate in funds held by a mar- 
 ried -woinan in a representative capacity.-" He generally 
 sues and is sued with her for conformity ; -' and on con- 
 tracts on which if sole she could have declared in her 
 own name, he could at common law sue alone.^^ For 
 all her devastavits and acts in the nature of tort he is 
 jointly liable wiih her,^ in accordance with the rules 
 already discussed relating to a husband's liability for 
 his wife's torts.^* He is liable for her contracts only if 
 she acted as his agent.^ He must account for any 
 money which passes into his possession.^^ 
 
 5. As to the estate or principal. The estate or person 
 whom the wife represents is bound, and receives the 
 benefit of her acts just as if she were sole ; -" her con- 
 veyance in accordance with her powers,-* or her receijit 
 for fuud.s,-"9 is binding as if on him. 
 
 G. As to third parties. The rights and obligations of 
 the persons with Avhom she deals as representative are 
 the same, as far as the person or estate which she 
 represents is concerned, as if she were sole ; ^^o but as 
 far as she herself is concerned, they are simi^ly such as 
 may exist against any married woman.^^ 
 
 1 Ante, I 432. 
 
 2 Discussed ante, H f>G, G7. 
 
 3 Ferguson v. Collins, 8 Ark. 2-{l, 252 ; ante, ? G6. 
 
 4 3Ic Williams, 1 8choales & L.. 1G3, 173; Adair v. Shaw, 1 
 Schoales & I.. 243, 2G.;, 2G0, 211 ; Peniburtou v. ClKipaian, 7 1.1. <fc B. 210 ; 
 El. B. & E. lUoH, lOGO ; Clough v. Bond, 3 Jlyluc & C. 4;/0, 4rf9 ; .Smith, 
 21 Beav. 3;o, o-S7 ; Kingham c. Lee, 15 Sim. 3U6,401 • Kearslev v. Oklev, 
 
 2 Hurl. & C. t> JO, fioo ; Loodv v. TiirnbuU, Luw K. 1 Ch. App. 4'.14, 4;is ; 
 34 Law J. X. S. Ch. 533 ; Derbyshire v. Home, 5 DeGex Ji S. 702, 70j ; 
 
 3 DcGex, M. & G. 80 ; Taylor v. Allen, 2 Atk. 212, 213 ; Bubbers v. 
 Ilarby, 3 Curt. 50 ; 7 Ex. 3G3 ; Trust v. Sedgwick, 97 U. S. 304, 309 ; Bobo 
 V. Frowner, 18 Ala. 8J, ii5 ; Kavanaugh x\ Thompson, 16 Ala. 817, 823 ; 
 Carlisle v. Turtle, CO ALi. 6!3, 624 ; Moffit v. ('onmionw. 5 Pa. St. :!-5'J, 
 S6S ; Tabb v. Bovd, 4 C.ili, 453, 457 ; jNloon V. Henderson, 4 Desaus. Eq. 
 453, 461 ; Knox v. Pi 'kct, 4 Desaus. Eq. 112, 93 ; Allen %\ ISIcCuUough, 2 
 Heisk. 174, lo3 ; 5 Am. liep. 27 ; 3IcCreedy, 1 Tuck. 374, STC. 
 
 5 Dve, 2 Kobt. 342, 344 ; Pembcrton v. Chapman, 7 El. & C. 210, 21S ; 
 El. B. & E. 1056, 106J; Clariie, Luw li. 6 P. D. 1U3, 104 ; Ad.:ir r. Shaw, 
 1 Sciioales & L. 243, 266 ; iiugiisii i;, ]!Jc2fuir,34 Ala. 40, 4s, 4J ; Stewart
 
 695 REPRESEXTATIVE CAPACITIES. § 484 
 
 56 Me. 300, 301 ; Palmer r. Oakley, 2 Doug, fitich.) 4.^■5, 46S ; supra, 
 n. 4. 
 
 6 Pemberton v. Chapman, EI. B. & E. ia56, 1067. 
 
 7 See Claussen v. Ea Franz, 1 Iowa, ±26, 2.14 ; ante, U 202, 212. 
 
 8 Consult ante, I 06. 
 
 9 1 Perry Trusts, J 4S ; Story Agencv, l~ \ 1 Williuius E.xecutors, 
 965. 
 
 10 Dibcussed /3o««, 2 4^- 
 
 11 Discussfd /)o.sf , J 4s5. 
 
 12 Discussed post, \ 4^6. 
 
 13 Discussed imst, I 487. 
 
 14 See Pemberton )•. Chapman, El. B. & E. 1056, lOflS ; Avery v. 
 GiiiRn, Law K. 6 Eq. 606, 6as ; Tucker r. Cocke, 32 iiibs. 1»4, lij. 
 
 15 Bell V. Hyde, Prec. Ch. S50. 
 
 16 See Eussel. 5 Coke, 27 6 ; Pemberton v. Chapma^i, El. B. & E. 
 1056, 106S ; Hazelbaker c. Goodfellow, 64 111. 2:5S, 241 ; Abbey v. Deyo. 
 44 Barb. 374, 3S0: Tucker v. Cocke, 32 Mis.':. 1S4. IS'.i ; Andrews v. 
 Ormsbee, U 3Io. 400, 402 ; Tuttle r. Hoag. 46 Mo. 41, 42; 2 Am. Rep. 
 +S1 ; Carleton r. Haywood, 4J N. H. 314, 320 ; .StUl v. Rubv, 33 Pa. St. 
 373, 374 ; ante, } 4S2. 
 
 17 Tuttle r. Hoag, 46 5Io. 41, 42 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481. 
 
 18 Hazelbaker x: Goodfellow, 64 111. 238, 241 ; anu, I 0.5. 
 
 19 Discussed ante, U 66, 421-425. 
 
 20 Workford, 1 Salk. 306 ; Claussen v. La Franz, 1 Iowa, 226, 2.34 ; 
 Roberts v. Place, 18 X. H. 183, 184. 
 
 21 Still V. Uuby, 35 Pa. St. 373, .374 ; ante. |? 4.39, 44;). 
 
 22 Ankersteln r. Clarke, 4 Term, 616, C17; Yard v. Ellard, I Salk. 
 117 ; Jenkins c. Plombe, Mod. 93, 94. 
 
 23 Cases supra, notes 4, .5. 
 
 24 Ante, ? 06. 
 
 •25 Tuttle V. Hoag, 46 Mo. 41, 42 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481 ; nnte, 5 67. 
 
 26 Keister r. Howe, 3 Ind. 268, 263. 
 
 27 See Russel, 5 Coke, 27 6. 
 
 28 Bouldin r. Reynolds, 53 Md. 491, 435 ; Schlev v. McCeiiev, 36 Md. 
 266, 273 ; ante, \ 212. 
 
 29 Pemberton v. Chapman, 7 El. & B. 210, 218 ; El. B. &, E. 1056. 1007. 
 
 30 See Russel, 5 Coke, 27 6. 
 
 31 See Still v. Ruby, 35 Pa. St. 373, 374. 
 
 § 484. Married women as agents. — .A. married woman 
 may be an agent (subject possibly to her liusband'.s 
 consent';, in the sense that her principal and the party 
 ■with whom she deals for him are bound by any trans- 
 action conducted by her, just as if she were sole.'-* 
 Hence, slie may execute any power, whether append- 
 ant or in gross, without any reference to her covert-
 
 g 486 KEPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. 696 
 
 ure.^ She maj^ act as her husband's agent,* and may 
 thus dispose of his property inter vivos^ or by will;^ 
 she may trade in his place,' and be i^artner for hini,^ 
 and may bind liim by her acts, admissions, etc.^ But 
 she is not personally liable for her acts except as a 
 married woman, ^'^ and only as such can she acquire 
 personal rights.^^ Though when her earnings belong 
 to her she may contract for compensation for her ser- 
 vices ;i^ her relation towards her husbami may render 
 any such contract with him invalid.'^ When she is 
 agent before mairiage, the husband does not by mar- 
 riage become jointly agent with her.i* 
 
 1 See an<e, ? JSa. 
 
 2 Story Agency, § 7 ; ante, U S^-SS. 363. 
 
 3 Schlev r. McCeney, 36 Md. 266, 273 ; Bouldin v. Reynolds, 58 Md. 
 431, 495 ; ante, H 203, 205, M2, 363. 
 
 4 Discussed ante, U 89-9S, 348, 469. 
 
 5 Prestwiok v. Marshall, 7 Bing. 555,567; Goodwin i>. Kelley, 42 
 Barb. 1J4, liKi ; ante, U S9-H8. 
 
 6 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 205, 210 ; 57 Am. Dec. 300 ; ante, i 348. 
 
 7 Tuttle V. Hoag, 46 Mo. 41, 42 ; 2 Am. Rep. 481 ; ante, \\ 93, 469. 
 
 8 Swasey v. Antram, 24 Ohio St. 87, 95. 
 
 9 Emerson !•. Rlouden, 1 Esp. 142, 143 ; Hopkins v. MoUineux, 4 
 Wend. 4(i5, 467 ; ante, U m-'JS. 
 
 10 Tucker v. Cocke, 32 Miss. 184, 189 ; Andrews r. Ormsbee, 11 Mo. 
 400, 402 ; Carletoii r. Haywood, 4s) N. H. 314, 320 ; ante, i udl. 
 
 11 See Ankerstein v. Clarke, 4 Term, 616 ; Yard r. Ellard, 1 Salk. 
 117 ; Jenkins v. Plombe, 6 Mod. 93, 94. 
 
 12 Adams v. Ilonness, 62 Barb. 326, 336. 
 
 13 viiite, ?Hl-44, 65. 
 
 14 Marder v. Lee. 3 Burr. 1460, 1471. 
 
 g 485. Married women as trustees. — Married women 
 may become trustees bj' deed, gift, bequest, appoint- 
 ment, or by operation of law ; i for exami^le, one may 
 bo a trustee under a mortgage.^ A wife cannot, how- 
 ever, be at law trustee for her husband,^ as they are 
 one person,'' but in equity she can be trustee for him 
 as for anyone else;^ resulting trusts frequently arise 
 between them.'' So if an estate comes to a mai-ried
 
 697 EEPRESFNTATIVE CAPACITIES. § 486 
 
 woman in any way, charged with a trust, her coverture 
 cannot be pleaded in bar of the trust ; Mf a mere life 
 tenant of personalty, she may be compelled to give 
 bond ;S she may be compelled to perform the duties of 
 her trust ;8 and her husband has no estate in property 
 in whicli she has a bare legal title.'" She cannot, how- 
 ever, bind herself personally in dealing witli her trust 
 estate.ii She and her husband are both liable at com- 
 mon law for her breaches of trust ; ^^ such acts of hers 
 are treated as torts.'* Still, . a court will not readily 
 appoint a married woman trustee.'* 
 
 1 ppiTV Trusts. H^; Trust Co. v. Sedgwick, 97 U. S. 301, 303; 
 Springer r. Berry, 47 Me. S30, :«5 ; Bouldiii v. Reynolds, 03 Md. 4i)l, 
 4!*4 ; .Still r. Ruby, 3.3 Pa. .St. 373, 37-1. 
 
 2 Bouldi:i v. Reynolds, .5S Md. 491, 494, 495. 
 
 3 Mutual V. Deale, 18 Md. 26, 4G ; Warbeck v. Havens, 42 Barb. 
 66, 70. 
 
 4 Ante, I 38. 
 
 5 Uvi:igston,2 Johns. Ch. 541. See 1 Perry Trusts, J? 48. 51. 
 Discussed ante, i 132. 
 
 7 Clarke v. Saxon, 1 Hill Ch. 69 ; Berry r. Xorris, 1 Duval, .302. 
 
 8 Clarke v. Saxon, 1 Hill Ch. 69, 74. 
 
 9 Dundas v. Biddle, 2 Pa. St. 160, 1G1. 
 
 10 Claussen v. La Franz, 1 Iowa, 22(5, 2"4 ; <inte, I 4 v". 
 
 11 Averv v. Griffin, Law R. 6 Eq. 606, COS; Still v. Ruby, 35 Pa. St. 
 373, 374 ; ante, U 482, 483. 
 
 12 Trust Co. V. Sedgwick, 07 U. S. 304, 309. 
 
 13 Ante, § 483 ; jioat, ? 486. 
 
 14 Kaye, Law R. 1 Ch. 387 ; 1 Perry Trusts, ? 51. 
 
 g 486, Married women as executrices, etc. — The law on 
 this subject is in a most confused condition, and is con- 
 trolled in mo.st States by peculiar statutes. Any dis- 
 cussion thereof must therefore be unsatisfactory. 
 
 1. Appointment of married women as. At common 
 law a married woman could be appointed executrix or 
 administratrix,' as her personal disalailities did not 
 ineai)acitate her from acting in a representative cajjac- 
 ity.-' But on account of the liabilities witli which she 
 might thereby invest her husband, she could not be 
 
 H. & W. — 59.
 
 § 486 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. 698 
 
 appointed without his consent.^ His consent could be 
 given before or after tlie granting of letters,-* and in 
 the absence of any evidence that it was given would be 
 presumed ;^ being necessary only on account of liis lia- 
 bilities, it is not necessary when no question of Iiis 
 liabilities could arise.^ By the ecclesiastical law she 
 was a distinct person from her husband, and his con- 
 sent was not necessary at all.' By statutes in most 
 States she may be administratrix, but usually her hus- 
 band is required to join witli her or to go upon her 
 bond.8 
 
 2. Marriage of female executrix. By the common 
 law a luisband, by marrying an administratrix or 
 executiix, consented tliat she should act as such;* 
 and probably, independently of statute, the marriage 
 of a female executrix, etc., in no way affects her 
 authority.!" It has, however, been said that by the 
 marriage the husband becomes co-executor with his 
 wife ; " tliat he administers in her right for his own 
 protection ;i^ and that the rights of administration vest 
 in him just as if he had been hiiuself ajipointed ; '^ 
 also, that marriage does not revoke letters, but is only 
 a cause for revocation, even under a statute which 
 requires a new bond, when an administratrix mai'ries." 
 By statutes in many States the autliority of a female 
 administratrix ceases with her marriage,!^ but such 
 statutes are not retrospectively construed. "^ 
 
 3. Incidents. When acting as administratrix, a mar- 
 ried woman has, as far as the estate is concerned, the 
 capacities of a feniTne sole,^'' but no additional personal 
 rights or liabilities ; ^^ she may, for example, give a valid 
 receipt for funds of the estate.'* Her liusband has no 
 rights over the funds of the estate,^" and if he takes 
 them into his possession it is a devastavit. ^i For all 
 defaults, doN'astavits, etc., husband and wife are jointly
 
 699 EEPRESENTATIVS CAPACITIES. ? 486 
 
 liable, ^^ just as they are for torts in which the wife has 
 some part.^ The husband's lialiility lias been attrib- 
 uted to his getting possession of the funds, ^i or to his 
 consenting to her acting in the special capacity,^^ but 
 tliis would not explain her liability ; besides, his con- 
 sent is said to be necessary only because of his liabili- 
 ties, and these cannot, at the same time, be said to 
 depend on his consent. Although there is consider- 
 able difficulty in treating a devastavit as a tort, some 
 of the eases suggest this view,^^ and it is the only one 
 by which the authorities can be explained ; for usually 
 a married woman is not liable on any contract express 
 or implied,'^' and cannot bo made to account for money 
 received by her for another's use.'^ For conformity, 
 the husband generally sues and is sued with his wife ; ^ 
 but in cases where she could have declared in her own 
 name if unmarried, he might, at common law, sue 
 alone.^'^ A wife may renounce her right to administer 
 against her liusband's consent,^^ though it is said that 
 a husband has sometimes the right to administer in 
 right of his wire.-'- As executrix she could, at common 
 law, make a will.^^ Where the husband is, as hus- 
 band, co-executor, service on him is sufficient.^' A 
 writ ve exeat cannot issue against her alone.^^ Her 
 husband stands in a fiduciary relation, and cannot pur- 
 chase from lier co-executor.^* 
 
 1 English )•. McNair, 34 Ala. 40, 48, 41 ; Stewart, 5«i Me. 300, 301 ; 
 Palmer 7'. Oakle.v, 2 Doug. (.Mich.) 433, 466-i6S ; 47 Am. Dec. 41 ; 1 Wil- 
 liams Executors, 233. 
 
 2 See ante, ? 483. 
 
 3 Bve, 2 Robt. 342, 344 ; Bubbers v. Harbv, 3 furt. 50 ; 7 Eng. r,. 
 363; PpiiihHrtou v. Chapman, 7 Kl. & 1^.. 210, 21s: Kl. 15. Sz. E. 10"6, 
 lOfiO ; Clurkp. i>aw R. fi P. V). 103, 101 ; Adair /'. SIkuv, 1 .Sf>bo.al"S <t L. 
 243, 2(iG: KnaHsh v. McNair, 34 Ala. 40. 4s ; Hti'Wart. ".'1 Me. 3(iO, :^0i ; 
 Hinils V. JoiifS, 48 Me. 348, 350; Wooilrulf v. Cox, 2 Braclf. 153,155; 
 ante, I 483. 
 
 4 Psmberton v. Chapman, 7 El. & B. 210, 210. 
 . 5 Eagli.'-ih I'. McNair, 31 Ala. 40, 43. 
 
 6 Pembcrton v. Chapman, El. C. & E. 1058, 1007.
 
 g 486 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. 700 
 
 7 Palnipr v Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433, 406 ; 47 Am. Doc. 41 ; 1 
 Williiims Executors, 233. 
 
 8 .See Ensrlish v. McNair, 34 Ala. 40, 4S ; Whitaker r. A\'right, 35 
 Ark. 511 ; Cluussjn v. La Fraiiz, 1 Iowa, 22fi, 237 ; Biaiiormau v. 
 Weaver, 8 Md. 521, 523 ; Curser, 25 Hun, 57!), 5S0. 
 
 9 Woodruff I'. Cox, 2 Bradf. 1.53, l.M. 
 
 10 Yates v. Clark, 56 Miss. 212, 216. 
 
 11 Murphee v. Singleton, .37 Ala. 412, 416 ; .Stewart, 5G Me. 300, 301 ; 
 WoodruS ['. Cox, 2 Bradf. 153, 155. 
 
 12 Kavanaugh v. Tliompson, 16 Ala. 817, 823. 
 
 13 Kavanaugh r. Thompson, 16 Ala. 817, 823 : Wood r. Chetwood, 
 27 N. J. Eq. 311. 313 ; Scott v. Gamble, 9 N. .1. Eq. 218, 238 ; Woodruff 
 V. Cox, 2 Bradf. 153, 155; Lindsay, 1 Desaus. Eq. 150, 153; Gates v. 
 Whetstone, 8 S. C. 244, 247 ; 28 Am. Rep. 284 ; Airhart v. Murphy, 32 
 Tex. 131, VU. 
 
 14 Yates V. Clark, 56 Miss. 212, 216; Cassedj' r. Jackson, 45 Miss. 
 397, 401. 
 
 15 Wood V. Storv, 3 DeGex, F. & .T. 125, 126 ; Whitaker v. Wright, 
 m Ark. 511, 51(i ; Tpsohemacher )•. Thompson, 18 Cal. II, 20 ; Duhnc i\ 
 Young. 3 Bush, 343, :t47 ; Frv v. Kimball, 13 Mo. 9, H), 20; Roberts i'. 
 Place, IH N. H. isn, 184 ; Field v. Torrey, 7 Vt. 3r2, 387. 
 
 16 Fry v. Kimball, 16 Mo. 0, 20. 
 
 17 Pemberton v. Chapman, El. B. ,fc E. 1058, 1067 ; ante, § 483. 
 
 18 Bussel, 5 Coke, 27 6 ; Pemberton v. Chapman, El. E. & R. 1056, 
 1038 ; ante, (! 433. 
 
 19 Pemberton v. Chapman, EL B. & E. 1056, 1067. 
 
 20 Roberts i'. Place, 13 N. H. 183, 184. 
 
 21 Wankford, 1 Salk. 306. 
 
 22 Smith, 21 Beav. .385, .387 ; Klngham v. Lee, 15 Sim. .3%, 401 ; 
 Kearslev v. Oklev, 2 Hurl. & C. 8S)6, 900 : Loady r. Turnbnll. Law R. 
 1 Cli. .\pp. 4)1, 4!(S: Derbyshire v. Home, 5 DeGex & S. 702, 70'J ; 
 Woodruff r. Cox, 2 Bradf. 153, 154 ; ante, H 66, 483. 
 
 23 Dis3ussed ante, ? 68. 
 
 24 See Pemb°rton v. Chapman, El. B. & E. 1056, 1060 ; KeLsler v. 
 Howe, 3 Ind. 263, 260 ; supra, n. 21. 
 
 25 See Adair v. Shaw, 1 Schoales & L. 243, 266. 
 
 26 See Pemberton v. Chapnrm, EI. B. A E. 1056, 1060 ; Benvon v. 
 Gollins, 2 Bro. C. C. 323, 324 ; W'oodruff v. Cox, 2 Bradf. 153, 1.54. 
 
 27 Discussed ante, ?? .357, 368, 381. 
 
 28 Tucker v. Cocke, 32 Miss. H4, 189 ; ante, § 66, n. 22. 
 
 29 Wood )'. Cliatwood, 27 N. J. Eq. 311, 313; ante, U 439, 443, 483. 
 
 30 Yard v. Ellard, 1 Salk. 117 ; ante, i 483. 
 
 31 1 ^^'illianls Executors, 2:?4. 
 
 32 English v. McNair, 34 .\la. 40, .50. 
 
 33 Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 353 ; 57 Am. Dec. 330 ; ante, I Ul. 
 
 34 Kavanaugh v. Thompson, 16 Ala. 817, 823. 
 So Pannell v. Tayler, 1 Turn. & R. 96, 103. 
 
 36 Pepperell v. Chamhorhiin, 27 Week. R. 410, 411. But see 2 Wil- 
 ILims Executors, 965 ; ante, I 39,
 
 701 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES. § 487 
 
 g 487. Married women as guardians. — The capacity of 
 a married woman to be a guardian, and lier rights and 
 liabilities as such, depend on tiie same principles as her 
 capacity to be executrix, and lier rights and liabilities 
 as such.' Wlien the husband's common-law liabilities 
 exist she cannot be appointed without liis consent ;^ but 
 if appointed, sucli consent is presumed,^ and thougli her 
 letters may be I'evocable, until they are revoked she has 
 full autliority.* Her common-law disabilities, and her 
 consequent incapacity to bind herself by bond,^ does 
 not aftect her right to be apijointed,^ for lior obligors 
 are liable wliether she is or not.' Wlien a female guard- 
 ian marries, it is not at all settled that even at common 
 law her husband became guardian in her i)luce,^ though 
 this has been asserted,^ and her husband has liabilities 
 similai' to those of the husband of an executrix. i" Even 
 if marriage does revoke her appointment, she may be 
 re-appointed, '* as above. There seems to be no good 
 reason for supposing that marriage revokes the autlior- 
 ity of a guardian ; to the objection that she should not 
 be able to expose her husband to additional liabilities 
 without his consent, '^ it inay bo said that he consents 
 to this by marrying a guardian ; '^ to the objection that 
 she cannot bind herself by bond," it may be replied, 
 that the original bond continues of full eticct in spite of 
 her marriage ; ^^ and the objections that she cannot keep 
 her funds .separate from her husband,"^ and that she 
 cannot l)e so easily held personally liable, ^^ apply 
 equally to her being appointed guardian. iSo that, in 
 Maryland, for example, whore there is no statute relat- 
 ing to this subject, the marriage of a female guardian 
 would not affect her rights as guardian at all ; '^ her 
 authority Avould not cease, a new bond would not be 
 necessary, and her husband would not have any right 
 to interfd'e with her guardianship.
 
 I 487 KKPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES, 702 
 
 1 Discussed ante, i 430. 
 
 2 Palmar ". Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433, 463 ; 47 Am. Dec. 41 ; Jar- 
 rett V. Stale, l Gill &. J. 27, 2S. 
 
 3 See English r. McNalr, 34 Ala. 40, 48. 
 
 4 Palmei- v. Oaklej", 2 Doug. (Mich.) 433, 4G0, 4fin ; 47 Aui. Dec. 41. 
 
 5 English v. McNair, 34 Ala. 40, 51 ; Jarrett v. State, 5 Gill & J. 
 27, 2S. 
 
 G Jarrett ?■. State, 5 Gill & J. 27, 28. 
 
 7 See Spitz v. Bank, 8 Lea, (v41, fi43 ; ante, i 368. 
 
 8 Allen v. JleCullough, 2 Heisk. 174, l'J2 ; 5 Am. Rep. :7. 
 
 9 Martin v. Foster, 38 Ala. 6S8, 630 ; Field i'. Torrey, 7 Vt. 372, :!S7. 
 See Lindsaj , 1 Desaus. Eq. 150. 153. 
 
 10 Allen 11. McCullough, 2 Heisk. 174, 193 ; 6 Am. Kcp. 27 ; ante, 
 ? 4S6. 
 
 U Gornell, 1 Beav. 348 ; Allen v. McCullough, 3 Jleisk. 171, 192; 5 
 Am. Rep. 27 ; Field v. Torrey. 7 Vt, 372, ;«7 (by statute). 
 
 12 See ante, U 4S3, 48fi. 
 
 13 Woodruff i'. Co.x;, 2 Bradf. 153, 154. 
 H Jarrett v. State, 5 Gill & J. 27, 28. 
 
 15 Ante, 'U 67, 365. 
 
 16 Field r. Torrey, 7 Vt. 372, 387. 
 
 17 SeeaHte,5HS3, 4SC. 
 
 IS See Binnerm!'.'! v. Weaver, 8 Md. 517, 521 ; Jarrett v. State, 5 
 Gill & J. 27, 2J; Palmer v. Oakley, 2 Doug. (Mich.;4;j:J, 470; 47 Am. 
 Doc. 41.
 
 IKDEX,
 
 IIN^DEX. 
 
 [References are to sections.] 
 
 Abandonment, of domicile, g 29. 
 
 of homestead, 326, 
 
 of husband by wife bars dower, 269. 
 
 of wife by husband, generally, 60, 90, 91, 167, 332; 
 effect of, on wife's status, 332 ; wife's agency, 90 ; 
 husband's right in wife's personalty, 167. 
 Abatement. See Suits. 
 
 of suits of married women, 77, 79, 340, 434. 
 Abduction, suit for, 78 ; evidence of wife, 5(», 
 Absence, agency of wife during husband's, 90 ; wife 
 
 head of family during husband's, 60, 90, 
 Acceptance, by a married woman, 385, 391, 
 Account, wife's right to make husband, 42, .i3, 
 
 wliether married woman liable to, 66, 91, 381, 483. 
 Accretion, See Increase. 
 
 separate property acquired by, 227. 
 Accumulations, See Increase. 
 
 of earnings, 65. 
 
 of equitable separate property, 209. 
 
 of statutory separate property, 227, -^ 
 
 of business, 87, 468-170, 475. 
 
 efre(H tJirough assistance of husband, 87, 
 Acknowledgment, of married woman's deed, 400, 401. 
 Acquiescence. See Silence, Gift, Presumption. 
 
 implied gift to husband from, 42, 65, 127, 129, 132, 
 209, 213. 
 
 wife estopped by, when, 213, 417. 
 
 wife's appointment of agent by, 84, 121, 213. 
 Acquisition, of domicile, 29. 
 
 of equitable separate property, 197-201. 
 
 of statutory separate property, 220-231. 
 
 marriage contract as to sulisequent, 27, 28. 
 
 law of domicile as to subsequent, 27, 28, 
 Action. See Suits, Choses in Action, Cause of Ac- 
 tion.
 
 706 INDEX. 
 
 Acts. See Stattttes, Contracts, Torts, e^^c. 
 
 Actual domicile, defined, 27, 29. 
 
 Adequacy, of consideration on postnuptial settlement, 
 
 100. 
 Administrator, wife of, no dower, 252. 
 
 married woman as, 48(5. 
 Adverse possession, between husband and wife, 119. 
 
 against dowress, 290. 
 Adultery, of wife, efltect on dower, 269. 
 
 of wife, gives husband right of action, 59, 79. 
 a matrimonial offense, 49. 
 Affection. See Enticement, Love. 
 Affirmance. See Confirmation. 
 Agency, in law and in fact, 82. 
 conjugal, discussed, 82-98. 
 Age. See Infant. 
 
 Agent, liusband as wife's, 84-89 ; in law and in fact, 82, 
 84; appointment of, 84; scope of authority, 85; 
 proof of authority, 86; compensation, 87; effect 
 of fraud, 87 ; special instances and illustrations, 
 88, 121 ; in business, 87, 475, 480. 
 wife as husband's, 89-98 ; in law or in fact, 82, 89 ; 
 appointment of, 89; effect of husband's absence, 
 inability, etc., 90 ; illustrations of want of author- 
 ity, 91 ; scope of authority, 92 ; in business, 93, 
 469, 479 ; or household, 90, 94 ; for necessaries, 95, 
 96; proof of authority, 97; determination, revo- 
 cation, etc., of authority, 98 ; on tort, 60, 423 ; in 
 contract, 07, 409 ; in wills, 348. 
 of married woman, generally, 84, 223, 364, .389, 475. 
 married woman as, generally, 89, 303, 469, 479, 484. 
 Agreement. See Settlement, Contract, etc. 
 to sell or convey, 206, 373, 376, 380, 407. 
 to ]Hirchaso, 223, 373, 380, 383. 
 as to dower, 266, 267. 
 
 between husband and wife, 40-46, 97-134, 367. 
 Alien, dower of, 249. 
 
 curtesy of, 152. 
 Alienation.' See Conveyance, Deed, Forms, etc. 
 
 restraints on, in mai-riage settlements, 204. 
 Alimony. See "Stewart on Marriage and Divorce." 
 Allowance, by wife to husband, 42. 
 
 by liusl)and to wife, 98 ; as pin money, 188. 
 Alteration, of married woman's deed, 408. 
 Ambulatory, whether married woman's will is, 352.
 
 IXDKX. 707 
 
 Amount, of equity to a settlement, lOG. 
 
 awarded in lieu of dower, 294. 
 Annuities, husband's rights over Avife's, 182, 
 
 dower in, 253. 
 Answer. See Suit. 
 
 married woman's separate, 211, 401. 
 Antenuptial, settlement, 40. 
 
 contraets between husband and wife, 44, 26(5 ; as to 
 residence, 60 ; as to marriage rights, 266 ; cftect of, 
 on conflict of laws, 20, 28. 
 
 guardianship of married woman, 487. 
 
 executorship of married Avoman, 487. 
 
 contracts of married women, 44, 67, 365. 
 
 torts of married women, 66, 422. 
 
 wills of married women, 352. 
 
 trade of married women, 464, 466; partnership, 
 480. 
 
 suits of married women, 430. 
 Anticipation, restraints on, 204. 
 Apparel, ownership of wife's, 120, 127, 186, 187. 
 Appearance, of married woman in suits, 211, 452, 460,461, 
 
 462. 
 Appointment, of husband as wife's agent, 84. 
 
 of wife as husband's agent, 89. 
 
 of married woman's attorney at law, 462. 
 
 of executor by married wonian, 344. 
 
 of married woman as guardian, executor, etc., 482, 
 486, 487. 
 
 equitable, under powers, 205, 206. 
 Arbitration, husband's submission of Avifo's rights to, 85 ; 
 as reduction to possession, ISO. 
 
 wife's submission to, 388. 
 Arrears, of pin money, 189. 
 
 Arson, wife ])nrning husband's house not, 14, 49. 
 Articles of the peace, Avife's right to, 48, 56, 73. 
 Assault and battery. See Torts. 
 
 betAA'een husband and Avife, 48, 49, 53. 63 ; testimony 
 in suits for, 56. 
 
 Avife's right of action for, is property, 219, 230. 
 Assessments, against stock held by married Avomen, .390. 
 Assignee, bona fide, for value takes free of fraud or trust, 
 45, 110, 132, 385; right to imjjeach deed against, 
 376, 405. 
 
 contract of married woman in hands of, 368, 
 Assigned doAyer, incidents of, 264.
 
 Assignment, of contract between husband and wife, 
 44. 
 
 of insurance policy, 133. 
 
 deed of, of married woman, 394, 408. 
 
 of liusband as reduction to possession, 181. 
 
 by husband of his personalty, 140, 301. 
 Assignment of dower. See Dower. 
 
 widow's right to, 263, 283. 
 
 who .must assign, 284. 
 
 without suit, 285 ; of and against common right, 
 285. 
 
 by suit, 286-288 ; at common law, 286 ; at law under 
 statutes, 287 ; in equity, 288. 
 
 proof of right to assignment, 289. 
 
 estoppels against defendant, 290. 
 
 in mansion house, 291. 
 
 by metes and bounds, 292. 
 
 in rents and profits, 293. 
 
 in gross sum, 294. 
 
 in improvements, 295. 
 
 damages at law, 296. 
 
 mesne profits in equity, 297. 
 
 effect of, 298. 
 
 excessive, 299. 
 
 new, 300. 
 Assumpsit, against married women, 66, 91, 381, 483. 
 Attorney at law, husband as agent to employ for wife, 
 m, 67, 85, 462, 463. 
 
 wife's, 234, 239, 372, 389, 462, 463. 
 
 compensation of wife's, 463. 
 Attorney in fact. See Agent. 
 
 Avife may join in deed with husband's, 271. 
 
 wife's, cannot make deed, 271, 406. 
 Authority. See Agent. 
 
 of luisljand to act for wife, 82, 84 ; scope of, 85. 
 
 of wife to act for hvisband, 89, 91 ; scope of, 90, 
 92. 
 Award, against married woman, 388. 
 Badges of fraud. See Fraud. 
 
 in dealings between Imsband and wife, 112. 
 Banishment, of husband makes wife a/emme sole, 342. 
 Bank acts, how far affect liabilities of married women, 
 
 13, .369. 
 Bank deposits, in names of husband and wife, 128. 
 
 husband's right to draw wife's, 169.
 
 INDEX. 709 
 
 Bankruptcy, husband's assignment in, does not carry 
 wife's chose-s in action, 181. 
 
 of husband as discharge of wife's joint liability, 
 67, :!82. 
 
 of husband gives dower when, 282. 
 
 conveyance by husband to wife as an act of, 114. 
 
 wife's testimony in, proceedings against husband, 5(5. 
 Barring curtesy, discussed, 159. 
 Barring dowor, discussed, 265-283, 
 Barring equity to settlement, discussed, 194. 
 Bastardy, statute as to, does not include married women, 
 
 13. 
 Beating wife, civil liability of husband for, 47. 
 
 criminal liability of husband for, -IS. 
 Bequest, to married women at common law, 174. 
 
 projierty acquired by, 225. , 
 Bills. See Notes. 
 
 Bill of sale, between husband and Avife, 120, 121. 
 Birth of issue, necessary to curtesy, 154. 
 
 not necessary to dowor, 249. 
 Blank deed, of married woman Avhen valid, 270, 3(>4, 400, 
 
 402, 407, 412. ' 
 Bonds, are choscs in action, 171 . 
 
 husband's rights in wife's, 173. 
 
 wife's separate, 219, 229. 
 
 w'fe's liability on, 384. 
 
 of conveyance of maiTied women, 206, 407. 
 Both, husband's and wife's property discussed, 302-330. 
 Breach of trust, by married women, 6(3, 91, 213, 483, 485. 
 Burden of proof, on wife to show gift from husband, 65, 119. 
 
 in wife to show her title, 119, 132, 232. 
 
 on party asserting married woman's liability, 237, 
 357, 431. 
 Business. See Trade. 
 
 wife as liusband's agent in, 93, 469, 479. 
 
 husband as wife's agent in, 86, 87, 475, 480. 
 
 whe^lier apparently joint, is that of husband or of 
 wife, 87, 93, 97, 119, 129, ■x(j9; or of both, 480. 
 Cancellation of contract, wife's suit against husband for, 53, 
 Capacities of married women. See Status. ^ 
 
 statutes as to, strictly construed, 12. 
 
 depend on law of domicile, 30, 35. 
 
 generally, 331-339. 
 
 to hold "property at common law, 137; :',n equity, 
 197-210 ; under statutes, 217-243. 
 
 H. <fe W.-60,
 
 710 INDEX. 
 
 Capacities of married women — Continued. 
 
 to will, 50, 51, 208, 240, 310-35i. 
 
 to deed, 205, 23(3, 394-408. 
 
 to contract, 40-46, 355-393. 
 
 to be surety, 134. 
 
 to be estopped, 409-420. 
 
 to commit torts, 421-425. 
 
 to commit crimes, 426, 427. 
 
 to sue and be sued, 428-163. 
 
 to trade, 4(i4-481. 
 
 to act in representative capacity, 4S2-487. 
 Case. .See Torts, Suits. 
 
 ac'.ion on the, for crim. con. 79. 
 Causa mortis, gift by married woman, 127, 350. 
 
 };ift by liusban'd to wife, 127. 
 Caus3S of action, in suits by married women, 442. 
 
 in suits against married women, 453. 
 Certificate, to married v.oman's deed, 401. 
 
 pnina facie evidence only, 376, 401. 
 Change, of domicile, 28, 32. 
 
 of possession between husband and wife, 120. 
 
 of realty into personalty'', 127, 136, 226. 
 Charges in equity, against equitable separate property, 
 206, 207 ; lujwV'uforced, 211. 
 
 against statutorv separate property, 235, 238, 371 ; 
 how enf<)reed,"^242, 371. 
 Chastise, husband's right to, wife, 63. 
 Chattels. 8ee Personalty. 
 Chattels real. See Personalty, Realty, Lease. 
 
 husband's rights in wife's, 145. 
 
 entireties in, 303. 
 Checks, are not delivery, 128. 
 
 husliand's, on wife's funds, 169. 
 
 for deposits by husband and wife, 128. 
 Child. See Parent and Child. 
 
 defined, 1. 
 
 right to equity of settlement, 192. 
 
 birth of, essential to curtesy, 154; not essential to 
 dower, 249. 
 Chose in action, defined, 171 ; chattels out of possession 
 as, 172; bonds, stocks, notes, etc, as, 173; lega- 
 cies, etc., as, 174 ; remainders, possibilities, etc., 
 as, 175 ; ex contractu, 44, 219, 229 ; e.c delicto, 219, 
 230. 
 
 husband's rights in wife's, 176 ; not vested, 22.
 
 pi 
 
 INDEX. 711 
 
 Chose in action — Confinued. 
 
 wife's rights in, at common law, 17G ; under stat- 
 utes, 210. 229. 230. * 
 are "property," 4-1, 219, 229, 230. 
 Citizenship, of v.ifo of citizen, 39. 
 Civil dama;jo acts, wife's rlcclits under, 77, 80. 
 Civil death, effect of husband's, on wife'^ capacities, 334. 
 effect of wife's, on husliand's curtesy, ITiG. 
 effect of marria.ire like, as to married Avoman's 
 capacities, 3"^, 119. 
 Civil law, a-; basis for law in United States, 7. 
 
 as to unity of husband and wife, 38 
 Civil wrongs. 8oo Torts. 
 
 between hus]:)and and wife, 47, 48. 
 Clerk. See Aoext. 
 
 of married women, 84, 223, 864, 475. 
 husband as wife's, 87. 
 Clothing, a-i paraphernalia, 18G. 
 
 as necessaries 90, 94, 9'. 
 Co-contractors, with married women liable, 223, 368. 
 Codes, as basis of law in the United States, 7. 
 Codicil. See Wilt.. 
 
 of married Avoman, 353. 
 Coercion, of wife by husband, e:enerally, 62, 66, 68, 110, 
 121, 213, 331, 417 ; as to torts, 66, 423 ; as to crimes, 
 68, 427; as to estoppel, 121,213,417; with fraud, 
 40, 110, 133, 134, 213, 384, 405. 
 Cohabitation, marriage duty of, 11, 59. 
 Comity, forei'^n law recop:nized by, 21. 
 Common courts, married woman's liability on, 381. 
 Common law. See prts-snn. 
 
 a-s basis of law in United States, 6, 8, 9. 
 Common property, of husband and wnfe, 302-311 ; dower 
 
 in, 254; curtesy in, 155. 
 Common rocovery, conveyance by, 394. 
 Community proporty, of 'husband and wife, ponerally, 
 312-319; where system e::ists, 7,313; con:lic of 
 laws as to, 319; history of, 312; statutes relafin.T 
 to, described, 313 ; Avhat is, 31 1; husband's ricrh^ 5 
 over, 315 ; wife's ricrhts over, 316 ; creditor's rinrhts 
 over. 317 ; effect of divorce or doa!^h, 318. 
 Compensation, contract for, between husband and wife, 
 65, 82, 475. 
 of husband as wife's aprent, 87. 
 of married wor:ion'a attcrncys, 433 ; agents, 389.
 
 712 INDEX. 
 
 Competency. See Witness, Evidence. 
 
 of husband and wire to testify. 50. 
 
 to testify depends on la-w of forum, 35. 
 Compromise, of married woman's claims, 85, 388. 
 Con(Utional estates, dower in, 254. 
 Conditions, bindinij; on married v.omen, 223,254. 
 Confidential communications, between husband and 
 
 wife, 5(3. 
 Confirmation, of married women's contracts, 366, 368. 
 
 of married Avomen's deeds, 23, 339, 402-404. 
 
 of deed by infant married woman, 339. 
 
 of husband's agency by wife, 84. 
 
 of wife's agency by Jiusband, 89, 93, 94. 
 
 of marriage bylegisla' ure, 23. 
 Conflict of laws, m'eanmg of phrase, 10, 19, 24, 26. 
 
 past and present law, 19-23. 
 
 home and foreign laws, 24-37. 
 
 as to husband's estate Jure uxor is, 33. 
 
 as to curtesy, 33. 
 
 as to dower, m, 248, 275. 
 
 a-5 to election, 274, 275. 
 
 as to community property, 310. 
 
 as to married women's contracts, 37, 377. 
 
 as to married women's wills, 36, 354. 
 
 as to status, 30. 
 
 as to immovables, 33. 
 
 as to movables, 31. 
 
 as to acts, 34. 
 
 as to procedure, 35. 
 Congress, no power to pass marriage laws, 9. 
 Conjugal agency, discussed, 82-98. 
 Conjugal kindness, defined, 58. 
 Conjugal rights and obligations, discussed, 57-81, 
 Consent. See Agency, Contract, Joinder, etc. 
 
 of husband to wife's will, 348 ; trade, 469 ; contracts, 
 238, 371 ; convevances, 203, 213, 214 ; estoppel bv, 
 419. 
 
 < if wife to husband's using her property, 42, 87. 
 Consideration, in dealings between husband and wife, 
 40, 104-1 OS ; necessity of, 104 ; absence of, as fraud, 
 lOij ; kinds of, 105 ; inarriage as, 44 ; cohabitation 
 as, 59 ; release of dower, etc., as, 105, 271; ade- 
 quacy of, lOl; effect of , 107; proof of a ditferent, 
 from tha*^ stated, lOS. 
 
 valuable, defined, 105. 
 
 I
 
 IXDKX. 713 
 
 Coasideratioa — Continued. 
 
 good, defined, g^ 105, lOS. 
 
 sufficiency of moral, SiW, 
 
 none presumed in quit-claim deed, 108. 
 
 for contract of suretyship, l.i4. 
 
 married woman need restore, when, 2G7, 333. 
 Conspiracy, by husband and wife, G8. 
 Constitutional provisions, against retrospective laws, 
 
 •n. 
 
 self-executing, 218. 
 Construction of statutes. See Ruizes, ere. 
 
 general rules, 11-18. 
 
 retrospeclive and prospective, 17, 20, 65, 67, 268, 308, 
 37S. 
 
 local and foreign, 18. 
 
 as to contracts between Iiusband and wife, 43. 
 
 as to married women's contracts, 359, 378. 
 Constructive possession, as between husband and wife, 
 
 119, 120, 1(J», \m. 
 Consumniato, dower, 2(j3, 264. 
 
 curtesy, 151, 156. 
 Contempt, married woman guilty of, 211. 
 Contracts between husband and wife, discussed, 40-46, 
 9it-134, 367 ; causes afi'ecting validity of, 40, 101 ; 
 at common law, 41 ; in equity, 42 ; vmder stat- 
 utes, 14, 15, 43, 87, 267, 3(37, 479; antenuptial, 
 44, 26<3; forms of, 102, 103; consideration in, 
 104-108 ; fraud in, 10[>-112, 121 ; remedies on, 122- 
 124. 
 
 particular kinds of, 125-134 ; deeds, 43, 102, 125 ; 
 jointure, 126, 267 ; parol gifts, 127 ; delivery of, 
 120; bank deposits, 128; seiwic^s, 65, 87, 130; 
 earnings, 65 ; compensation, 87 ; execution of 
 powers, 203. 
 Contracts of married womoa, discussed, 355-408. 
 
 liability oi husband for, 14, 67, 238, 371. 
 
 liability of wife on antenuptial, 67, 365, 453. 
 
 home and foreign law as to, 37, 377. 
 
 present and past law as to, 22, 378. 
 
 generally invalid, 206, 357 ; void, not voidable, 368 ; 
 cannot bo conflrmed, 366, 368 ; no estoppel 
 through, 415 ; wife may sue on, when, 368. 
 
 exceptional validity of, at common law, 358. 
 
 validity of, in equity, 206, 207, 360, 368, 371. 
 
 as to equitable separate i^roperty, 206, 207, 360.
 
 714 IXD7-.X. 
 
 Contracts of married vomon — Continued. 
 
 validity of, under statutes, i^^ 43, 361, 3G9-37S a ; gen- 
 eral acts not mentioning married women, 13, 3(39 ; 
 married women's separate property acts, 237- 
 23<), 362, 370-373; in equity as charges, 238, 362, 
 371 ; under implied powers, 372 ; under express 
 powers, 373 ; " with respect " to, etc., i)roperty, 
 239, 373 ; statutes authorizing certahi e(jntracts, 
 374 ; statutes prohibiting certain contracts, 374 ; 
 statutes authorizing contracts of married women, 
 generally, 373 ; statutes requiring formalities, 376 ; 
 statutes authorizing trade, 475, 479. 
 
 estoppel through, 415. 
 
 property acquiix'd by, 229. 
 
 special kinds of, 379-393 ; in personam and in rem, 
 379; executory and executed, 380; exjiress and 
 implied, 3S1 ; with husband, 40-46; jointly with 
 liusband, 382 ; antenuptial, 07, 365 ; made through 
 agents, 364 ; purchases and sales, 223, 383 ; cove- 
 nants and bonds, 334 ; promissory notes, 223, 375, 
 385 ; releases and receipts, 386 ; leases, 147, 224, 
 233. 234, 239, 372, 337; for repairs, 238, 239, 371, 
 372, 387 ; for family expenses, 387 ; cultivation, 
 239; arbitration, 388 ; for emiiloyment of agents, 
 etc., 389, 433; as agent, 363, 483; as stockholder, 
 390, 481; as trader, .392, 475, 479; as corpor- 
 ator, 481 ; as surety, 134, 391 ; for insurance, etc., 
 393; deeds, 394-408; powers of attorney, 406; 
 agreements to eonvev, 206, 373, 376, 380, 407 ; 
 agreements to buy, 223\ 373, 380, 383. 
 Control, of wife by huslxmd, 60, 110. 
 
 of equitable sex^arate property hy wife, 203 ; l)y 
 husband, 212. 
 
 of statutorv separate property by wife, 233 ; by 
 husband," 243. 
 Conversion, of realty into personalty, etc., 31, 33, 127, 136, 
 
 226, 261, 280 ; by husband and Avife, 66. 
 Conveyances. See Deeds, Disposition. 
 
 defective, how cured, 23, 402-404. 
 
 between husljand and wife, 41, 42, 125. 
 
 by married women generally, 897-408 ; of equitable 
 separate property, 204, 208, 376, 397 ; of statutory 
 separate i^roperty, 236, 376, 398; at common law, 376. 
 Coparcanary estates, dower in, 254. 
 
 curtesy in, 155. 
 
 I
 
 INDEX. 715 
 
 Corporation, shares in, iinmovablo property, ? 33. 
 shares iu, whether reaUy, 2.5.3. 
 shares in, c hoses in action, 173. 
 Corporator, married woman's capacity to be, 3S1. 
 Corpus or realty, married woman's powers over, 20."), 20(3, 
 
 231), 372, 37(i, 397, 398. 
 Coats, in married women's suits, 437, 46'^. 
 Cotflnants, liusband and wife as, 302-311. 
 Coimsel, wife's, emiiloyed by husband, (iO, 67, S.5, 402, 4113; 
 by wife, 234, 239, 372, 389, 4()2, 40;i ; contpeusation 
 of, 'ML 
 Cotmsdl fo33, in married women's suits, 437, 403. 
 Country. Nee Conflict of I^aws. 
 Covenants, of married women, 37-i, 384, 412; for rent, 53. 
 
 estoppel by, iu deeds, 412. 
 Coverture. See Capacity, Status, etc. 
 detined, 38, 331. 
 
 etiectof, generally, 331-339 ; on pi'operty rights, 184 ; 
 on personal rights, 57-81 ; on iJersonai status, .331 ; 
 on wills, 340 ; on conti^acts, 350 ; on estoppels, 
 410 ; on torts, 421 ; on crimes, 420 ; on suits, 431 ; 
 on trade, 465. 
 and infancy, 339. 
 plea of. 411, 4.55, 457. 
 Cradit, wife's pledge of husband's, 64. 
 
 husband not liable when all, given to wife, 89, 93, 
 
 94, 206. 
 married woman's purchase on, 223, 239, 372, 383. 
 married woman's trade on, 468, 475. 
 Creditor, relation of debtor and, between husband and 
 
 wife, 45. 
 Creditors, fraud on husbands, in dealings between hus- 
 band and wife, 40, 41, 105-118. 
 wlio are. 115. 
 
 rights of, wlien vested, 65, 67. 
 remedies of, 124. 
 
 husband's riglits to wife'.s earnings, 65 ; to mingled 
 Ijroperty, 129 ; to inri-e;isc of wife's property on 
 whicli liusband has labored, 87; in wife's person- 
 alty, 170 ; choses in action, 177; equitable .sepa- 
 rate property, 212; statutory sepai-ate property, 
 243; community, 316, 317 ; libmestead, 330; busi- 
 ness, 476, 477. 
 as again.st husband's, wife must prove her title, 119, 
 223.
 
 716 IXDEX. 
 
 Creditors — Con tinned . 
 
 remedies of wife's, against her, H 211, 241, 242, 372, 
 379, 47G. 
 Crimes, between husband and wife, 49. 
 
 of married women, 68, 426, 427 ; husband's liability 
 for, 68 ; wife's liability for, 426; proof of wife's 
 guilt, 427. 
 Crim. con.., husband's stait for, 79. 
 Crop, of wife's separate lands, is hers, 87, 227. 
 Cruelty, wife's right against husband for, 47, 48, 49 
 
 husband's right against wife for, 49. 
 
 wife whipping is, 63. 
 Cultivation, married women's contracts for, 239,272, 273. 
 
 as farming, 465, 475. 
 Curative acts, validity of, 23, 376, 403. 
 Curtesy, discussed, 1*51-162. 
 
 defined, 151. 
 
 distinguished fi'om estate jure nxoris, 143, 146, 
 151. 
 
 requisites of, 152 ; marriage, 153 ; birth of issue, 154 ; 
 seisin, 155 ; death, 156. 
 
 on what property it exists, 157. 
 
 incidents of, estate, 158. 
 
 initiate, 151, 158 ; whether a vested estate, 22, 162. 
 
 consummate, 151, 158, 
 
 how barred, 159. 
 
 effect of statutes on, 161 ; married women property 
 acts, 162. 
 
 etfect of agreement on, 159. 
 
 ettect of wife's will on, 162, 344. 
 Custody, husband's riglit to, of wife, 62. 
 Custom, trade of married women by, 467. 
 
 deeds of married women by, 270. 
 Damages, wife's right to, against husband, 47, 48. 
 
 as wife's separate proj^erty, 230. 
 
 wife's liability in, 375. 
 
 in suits for torts by wife, 77. 
 
 in suits for enticement, 78. 
 
 in suits for crim. con., 79. 
 
 in suits for dower, 296. 
 
 husband's right to, against wife, 48. 
 
 husband's right to, consecjuential, 77, 
 Dealings between husband and wife, discussed, 99-134. 
 Dealings of husband for wife, discussed, 82-88, 
 Dealings of wife for husband, discussed, 89-98. 
 
 I
 
 INDEX. 717 
 
 Dealings of wife in trade, discussed, ?? 473-481. 
 Death, law at time of, fixes right of heir, devisee, etc., 
 20, 2-2, 31, 32, 36, 50, 248, 354. 
 as a requisite of curtesy, 156. 
 as a requisite of dower, 251. 
 
 effect of, on estate by entireties, 306; community 
 property, 318; wife's choses in action, 44, 55, 170, 
 176 ; wife's suits, 56, 434 ; on estate Jure uxoris, 
 146 ; on equitable separate property, 214 ; on 
 clauses against alienation, 204 ; on marriage es- 
 tate generally, 138. 
 effect of husband's, on wife's will, 353 ; on wife's 
 contract, 368. 
 Debtor and creditor. See Creditors, 
 
 husband and wife as, 42, 45. 
 Debts, wife's assumption of husband's, 134. 
 
 do not include claims for torts, 66. 
 Deceit. See Fraud. 
 
 Decisions collected, as to contract between husband and 
 wife, 46. 
 as to wife's suretyship, 134. 
 as to necessaries, 96. 
 as to contracts of married women, 378 a. 
 Declaration, of wife as husband's agent, 56. 
 of husband as wife's agent, 86. 
 in married women's suits, 442, 453. 
 Declaratory of existing law, statutes, how construed, 12, 
 
 16, 43, 345. 
 Dedication to public uses, effect of, on dower, 278. 
 Deeds, of separation, 40, 42. 
 of settlement, 125. 
 
 in fraud of creditors, 99-124 ; do not carry property 
 previously assigned in fraud, 100 ; a Avife's 
 choses in action, 181. 
 of infant married woman, 335, 339. 
 effect of, to husband and wife jointlj', 304. 
 of married women, 394—108 ; at common law, 376, 
 394 ; when abandoned by husband, 358 ; under 
 statutes, 395 ; of dower, 270-272, 396 ; of equitable 
 sep?rate property, 205, 376, 397 ; of statutory sepa- 
 rate property, 236, 376, 398 ; joinder of husband, 
 399 ; acknowledgment, certificate, etc., 400, 401 ; 
 confirmation of defective deed by wife, 339, 366, 
 368, 402; bv statute, 23, 403; by equitv, 123, 205, 
 233, 270, 2'72, 359, 368, 376, 404; impeachment of,
 
 718 INDEX. 
 
 Deeds — Continued. 
 
 § 405 ; powers of attorney, 40G ; agreements for, 
 407 ; various points as to, 408. 
 
 estoppel by, 41:i. 
 Defamation, betwceu husband and wife, 4S, 49. 
 
 1)3' wife, (jfJ. 
 
 of wife, 77. 
 Defeating, modes of, curtesy, 159. 
 
 modes of, dower, 2i)5-2S2. 
 Defective deeds, curing of, bv party, 339, 3GQ, 368, 402 ; 
 by statute, 23, 403; bV equity, 1-3, 205,236,270, 
 272, 359, 3(J8, 37G, 404. 
 Dofensos, against married women, 443-445. 
 
 by married Avonien, 454-45(3 ; how marie, 401. 
 
 between husband and wife, 55 o. 
 
 in suits for erim. con., 79. 
 Dafinitions, "acquired," 220. 
 
 "agent," 82. 
 
 "child," 1. 
 
 "eliose in action," 171. 
 
 "conjugal rights," etc., 57. 
 
 "contract," 355. 
 
 " coverture," 38, 331. 
 
 " curtesy," 151. 
 
 "dower!," 244. 
 
 " earnings," 465. 
 
 " equitable sejjarate property, 197. 
 
 " estate," 135. 
 
 "estates of husband and wife," 3. 
 
 "estopi)el,"409, 
 
 "exchange," 22(5. 
 
 "/emmf eo?'e>V," .38, 331. 
 
 "general statutes," 12. 
 
 "gift," 224. 
 
 "grant," 224. 
 
 " held," 220, 221. 
 
 "iiousehold furniture," 219. 
 
 "liusband," 1. 
 
 " iini)rovements," 295. 
 
 "marriage," 1. 
 
 " matrimonial domicile," 29. 
 
 " parent and child," 1, 5. 
 
 "personal rights," 219. 
 
 " postnuptial settlements," 99. 
 
 " property," 44, 65, 87, 219, 222, 229, 230.
 
 IXDEX. 719 
 
 Dofinitions — Continued. 
 
 " piiri'haso," 'i 223. 
 
 "retrospective," etc., 19. 
 
 "status," 4. 
 
 "wife," 1, 5. 
 
 new, of married woman's deed, 402 ; by husband, 
 405. 
 Delivery, between husband and wife, 120, 12" 
 
 checlv not a, 128. 
 
 necessary to a gift, IIS a, 127. 
 Deposits, of liusband and wife in bank, 128. 
 Depreciation, in dower lands, 295. 
 Derogation of common law, statutes in, Ki 
 Descent, i-)roperty acquired by, 225. 
 Desertion. Se3 Abandonment. 
 Determinable foos, dower in, 254. 
 Detinue, by wife against husband, 54. 
 Devise, in lieu of dower, 274. 
 
 wife's rights in, 174, 225. 
 Disabilities. See Capacity, Status, etc. 
 
 for protection of married women, 338. 
 
 double, 271, 339. 
 Disaffirmance, by infant married woman of deed, 339. 
 Discharge, of contracts by marriage, 44. 
 
 of torts by marriage, 48. 
 Disposition. See Will,, Deed, etc. 
 
 riijht of, incidental to ownershiii, 205, 206, 236, 
 '372. 
 
 includes all kinds of dispositions, 372 ; encumber- 
 ing, 204, 206, 236, 238, 372. 
 
 restraints on power of, 204. 
 Distributive share, a chose in action, 169. 
 
 husband's rights in Avife's, 174, 225. 
 
 is " property," 225. 
 Dividand, on married woman's stock, to Avhom parable, 
 
 83, 179. 
 Divest. See Vested Rights. 
 Divorce. See ''Stewart on Marriage and Divorce." 
 
 suits, 48, 73, 434. 
 
 eflfect of, on marriage estate generally, 138 ; estate 
 jrire uxoris, 146; curtesy, 152, 159; dower, 281; 
 "entireties, 309 ; equitable" separate property, 215; 
 on wife's status, 333. 
 Domestic arrangements, husband regulates, 60. 
 
 wife as husband's agent in, 94, 95, 97.
 
 720 INDEX. 
 
 Domicile, matrimonial, defined, § 29. 
 
 law of, when govern,';, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37. 
 offec-t of change of, 32. 
 husband's, is wife's, 60. 
 
 Donatio. >See Gift. 
 
 mortis causa of married woman, 350. 
 
 Do3, under civil law, 245. 
 
 D J3 de dote peti non debet, discussed, 255. 
 
 Double disability, discussed, 271, 339. 
 
 Dower, discussed, 244-300. 
 
 nature and incidents of, 244-264 ; defined, 244 ; his- 
 tory, 245 ; at common law, 246 ; under statutes, 
 247 ; conliiet of laws as to, 33, 248 ; requisites of, 
 249-252 ; marriage necessary to, 250, 2"^1 ; hus- 
 band's death necessary to, 2.51 ; husband's seisin 
 necessary to, 252 ; nature of property in which, 
 may exist, 253 ; kinds of estates subject to, 254 ; 
 out of dower lands, 255 ; in ecjuitable estates, 256 ; 
 in partnership estates, 257 ; priorities between, and 
 other encumbrances, 2.5S ; and purchase money, 
 259 ; in mortgaged property, 260, 261 ; inchoate, 
 262 ; consunmiate, 263, 264'; before a.ssignment, 
 26:3 ; after assignment, 2(34. 
 tarring and defeating, 265-282 ; general modes of, 
 265 ; antenuptial agreement, 266 ; postnuptial 
 agreement, 267 ; act of husband, 268 ; act of wife, 
 269 ; release of, 270-272, 396 ; jointure, 273 ; devise 
 in lieu of, 274 ; election, 275 ; estoppel, 276 ; lim- 
 itations, 277 ; dedication to public use, 278 ; 
 termination of husband's estate, 279 ; legal pro- 
 ceedings, 2S0 ; divorce, 281; bankruptcy of 
 husband, 282. 
 assignment of, 283-300 ; widow's right to, 2S3 ; who 
 must assign, 284 ; without suit, 2.85 ; suit at com- 
 mon law, 216 ; suit at law under statutes, 287 ; in 
 equity, 288 ; proof of right to, 2s9 ; estoppeLs 
 against defendant, 290 ; in mansion house, 291 ; 
 by metes and bounds, 292; in rents and profits, 
 293; in gross sum, 294; in improvements, 295; 
 in depreciated property, 295 ; damages, 296 ; 
 mesne profits, 297 ; effect of. 298 ; excessive, 299 : 
 eviction and reassignment, 300. 
 deed of, 270-272, 396. 
 
 Duality. See Unity. 
 
 of husband and wife in equity, 3S, 42.
 
 INDEX. 721 
 
 Duress. See Coercion. 
 Dwelling house. See Home. 
 
 dower in, ? 291. 
 
 marriage right to oocnpy, 59, 60. 
 Dying declarations, of husV)and or wife, 5f>. 
 Earnings of married women, ownership of, generalLy, 65. 
 
 mingled witli husband's, 87, 129. 
 
 as separate property, 228. 
 
 in trade, 4t)5, 473. 
 
 defined, 465. 
 Easement, created by estoppel, 416. 
 Ejectment. Sec Suit. 
 
 V)y wife against husband, 48, 53. 
 
 by married woman to recover lands seijcr'd under 
 void judgment, 411 ; conveyed by void deed, 412. 
 Election, bv widow, 125, 266, 267, 273, 275 ; discussed 
 fully, 275. 
 
 by wife between, holding property as statutory or 
 as equitable separate estate, 216. 
 Elopement, dower, when barred by, 269. 
 Emblements, husband's right to, in wife's life estate, 
 144, 147. 
 
 husband's, tenant's right to, in wife's real estate, 147. 
 Eminent domain, right of, superior to dower, 278. 
 Employment. See Agency, Compensation. 
 
 of agent by married woman, 87, 389. 
 
 of counsel by married woiuan, 389, 463. 
 Encumber, power to, included in power to dispose, 204, 
 
 372, 408. 
 Encumbrance, inchoate dower is, 262. 
 
 priorities of, with respect to dower, 258. 
 
 wife's separate property bound by, 223. 
 Endorse. See Indorse. 
 Enforcing rights. See Procedure. 
 Enticement, liusband's right of action for, of wife, 77. 
 
 wife's right of action for, of husband, 77, 78 ; is 
 property, 219. 
 Entireties, estate by, discu.s.sed, 304-310. 
 
 at common law, 304 ; under married women's prop- 
 ertv acts, 308 ; under statutes destroving joint 
 estate, 13, 307. 
 
 property subject to estate by, 305. 
 
 incidents of estate by, 306. 
 
 eftect of dJAorce on, 309. 
 
 rights of tenants by, Aested, 22. 
 H. & W. — 61.
 
 Equitable estates, dower in, I 256. 
 
 curte.sy in, 157. 
 
 entireties in, 305. 
 
 husband's rights in wife's, 197, 199. 
 Equitable jointure, discussed, 126, 266, 267, 273. 
 Equitable separate property, of married women gener- 
 ally, 197-216. 
 
 detined, 197; distinguished from statutory-, 216, 
 217. 
 
 creation of, 199, 200 ; the intent of the settlor to ex- 
 clude husband, 199 ; words showing tliat intent, 
 200 ; what husbands are excluded, 201. 
 
 trustee of, 202. 
 
 wife's control over, 202 ; restraints on alienation, 
 203. 
 
 disposition of, inter vivos, 205, 397. 
 
 disposition of, by will, 208, 344. 
 
 contracts charging, 206, 207, 360, 371. 
 
 trading with, 468. 
 
 rights to increase, profits, etc., 209, 468. 
 
 remedies for and against, 210, 211. 
 
 husband's rights in, 212 ; estate Ji<re uxoris, 148, 149 ; 
 ctirtesy, lo/; personaltj', 164. 
 
 husband's creditors' rights in, 212. 
 
 how lost, destroyed, etc., 213. 
 
 eftect of death oil, 214. 
 
 elfect of divorce on, 215. 
 
 ctiect of statutes on, 216. 
 Equity. See various titles. 
 
 jurisdiction of, over married women, 337 ; married 
 Avomen's equitable pioperty, 197-216; married 
 women's statutory property, 235, 371 ; married 
 women's Avills, 343 ; married women's contracts, 
 42, 359, 368, 371; married Avomen's deeds, 404; 
 married women's trade, 468. 
 
 as to laws of husband and wife, 8. 
 
 as to unity of husband and wife, 8, 38, 44, 54, 119, 
 137, 359. 
 
 as to fi-aud between husband and wife, 110. 
 
 as to fraudulent convevances from husband to 
 Avife, 124. 
 
 gifts betAveen husband and wife in, 127 ; con- 
 tracts, 42. 
 
 resulting trusts between husband and Avife, 132. 
 
 treats realty as ijei'sonalty, etc., Avhen, 136.
 
 INDEX. 723 
 
 Equity — Co'ntinucd. 
 
 suits of married women in, g 432 ; asainst husband, 
 
 5;J. 
 remedies in rem in, 20(3, 211, 359. 
 settlements enforced in, 123, 125. 
 reetifviiig, reforming, etc., of married woman's 
 eonUact or deed in, 123, 205, 230, 270, 272, 359, 308, 
 370, 401, 404, 407. 
 statutes declaratory of, 12, 216. 
 Equity of contribution, of dowress, 201. 
 Equity of exoneration, of mai'ried woman surety for her 
 husband, 134. 
 of dowress, 261. 
 Equity of redemption, dower in, 256, 260, 261. 
 
 widow's, as to husband's lands, 201. 
 Eqidty of settlement, wife's, discussed, 53, 190-196. 
 defined, 190. 
 
 enforced by what courts, 191. 
 enforced on whose apjiiication, 192. 
 enforced out of wiiat property, 193. 
 enforced under Avliat circumstances, 194. 
 on whom settled, 195. 
 amount of, 190. 
 Escrow, delivery of marriage settlement in, 125. 
 Establishment. See Homi-:, Household. 
 Estates, defined, 135. 
 
 in personalty', 135, 130, 303. 
 distinguished from I'ights, 256. 
 in which dower exists, 254. 
 in which curtesy exists, 157. 
 Estates of husband and wife, defined, 3. 
 discussed, 135-330. 
 in general, 135-139. 
 husband's, in his own property, 140. 
 husband's, in wife's realtj^, 141-162 ; in general, 141- 
 
 l\o; jureuxuris, 145-150; curtesy, 151-102. 
 husband's, in Avife's personalty, "10.3-183 ; in gen- 
 eral, 103-105; choses in possession, 106-170; 
 choses in action, 171-183. 
 wife's, in her ov. n property, 184-243 ; in general, 
 184, 1S5 ; paraphernalia, 186, 187 ; pin-money, 188, 
 1S9; equity of settlement, 190-r.tO ; equitable 
 .separate property, 197-210; statutory separate 
 property, 217-243. 
 wife's, in her husband's realty, dower, 244-300.
 
 724 
 
 Estates of husband and wife — Continued. 
 
 v.'ife's, in husband's personalty, j^ 301. 
 
 husband's and wife's, in iiroperty of both, 302-330 ; 
 in general, 302-311; entireties, 304-309; joint and 
 common, 310, 311; communitv, 312-319; home- 
 stead, 320-330. 
 Estoppel, delincd, 409. 
 
 of defendant in dower to deny husbanfl's title, 290. 
 
 seal making gift good by, 127. 
 
 of husband from denying wife's agency, 89, 98. 
 Estoppels of married women, discussed, 339-31)8, 409-420. 
 
 detined, 409, 410. 
 
 general rules as to, 410. 
 
 by record, 411, 457. 
 
 by deed, 271, 272, 412 ; by release, 3S6 ; by seal 384. 
 
 in, /j«/.s, 413-418 ; delincd, 413 ; general rule, 414 ; 
 contracts, 415 ; false representations, 41(3 ; silence, 
 etc., 84, 121, 213, 417, 419 ; torts, 418. 
 
 acts of wife in which husband joins, 419. 
 
 acts of wife through agent, 84, 475. 
 
 by deed of dower, 271, 272. 
 
 by acts of wdfo after discoverture, 290, 420. 
 Estovers, husband's right to, 147, 15S. 
 
 dower in, 253. 
 Eviction, from dower land, 300. 
 Evidence. 8ee Prksumptions, Proof, Witness. 
 
 competency of, depends on law of forum, 35. 
 
 husband and wife a i v%'itnesses for and against each 
 otlier, 50. 
 
 confession of wife as, in action for crim. con., 79. 
 
 of agency, 85, 86, 97. 
 
 to establish relation of debtor and creditor between 
 husband and wife, 45. 
 
 of fraud, 112. 
 
 of right to dower, 289. 
 
 possession as, of title, 118 a--121. 
 Ex contractu. See Ciiosks ix Action, Contracts. 
 Ex delicto. See Chosks in Action, Torts. 
 Ex post facto laws, discussed, 21. 
 
 Examination, privy, for married woman s deed, 400. 
 Excessive, assignment of dower, 299. 
 
 intei'course, 59. 
 Exchange, wife's rights in her i^roperty acquired by, 226 ; 
 is equivalent to purchase, 223. 
 
 wife's dower in husband's lands by, 254. 
 
 ^
 
 Exocutor, Avife's propertj^ held bj' liusband as, § 1G8. 
 husband's co-liability with wife who is, t)(5/48<>. 
 married woman as, 4S6. 
 Exocutory contracts, of married women generally, 20(j, 
 3S0, 407 ; for purchase of i^roperty, 223, 3fe3 ; for 
 sale of property, 206, 407. 
 Exemption, husband may convey to wife projierty 
 within, laws, 118. 
 laws discussed, 320-330. 
 Existing creditors, rights of, in case of transfer from hus- 
 band to wife, 110, 113-118. 
 Existing rights, statutes aftecting, 20. 
 Expenses, of married women's suits, 437, 463. 
 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, discussed, 12, 16, 43, 
 
 204, 220, 236, 345, 371, 373, 374. 
 Extra territorial effect, of statutes, 30, 33. 
 Fact, agency in, 82, 84, 85, 94, 97. 
 
 fraud in, 87, 112. 
 
 seisin in, 155, 252 
 
 whether business is wife's, a question of, 87. 
 
 to whom credit given, a question of, 80. 
 
 scope of agent's autliority, a question of, 85. 
 False and fraudulent representations, married woman's 
 liability for, 66, 423, 424 ; of agent, 03. 
 
 married woman's estoppel by, 416. 
 
 husband's liability for wife's, G6. 
 Family, husband as head of, 60. 
 
 wife as head of, 90. 
 
 expenses, liability for, 206, 223, 381, 387. 
 
 home, husband's right to fix, 60. 
 
 name, wife's right to use, 61. 
 Foo-simple estates, dower in, 254. 
 Fees, of married women's attorneys, 372, 463, 
 Femme covort. See Wife, Covektuek. 
 
 delined, 38, 331. 
 Femme sole. See Capacities. 
 
 wife acts as, in executing powers, 205 ; as to equita- 
 ble separate property, 203, 206. 
 
 status of married women as, 332-338. 
 
 wills of married women as, 342. 
 
 contracts of married women as, 358, 372, 375. 
 
 trade of married women as, 466. 
 Fiction of unity of husband and wife, discussed, 38, 39. 
 Fine and recovery, conveyance of married woman by, 
 
 205, 3U4 ; dower barred by, 270.
 
 72(3 INDKX. 
 
 Food. See Necessaries. 
 
 Foreign. See Conflict of Lavs. 
 
 Forfeiture, of iiuirried woman under general act, § 13. 
 
 Formalities, contiict of laws as to, 28. 
 
 in niiUTiaf:^e settlements, 102, 103. 
 
 as to contracts and deeds of married women, 374, 
 B7fj, 3'J5, 400. 
 
 in execution of married woman's deed, 400, 401. 
 
 as to married woman trader, 472. 
 Forum. Sec Pkoceduee. 
 
 when law of, governs, 35, 37, 43."). 
 Fraud, in contracts between husband and wife, 40, 110, 
 133, 134, 213, 405 ; when, can be set up against 
 thhd partj^ 84, 110, 134. 
 
 husband's agency, as a, 87. 
 
 retention of possession by husband as, 121. 
 
 of married women, 6G, 423, 424 ; husband's liability 
 for, G:i ; as estoppel, 270, 41G, 418. 
 
 in law and in fact, 109. 
 
 as between parties, 110. 
 
 as against third parties, 111. 
 
 badges of, 112. 
 
 inadcMpuicv of consideration as, 106. 
 Fraudulent conveyances. See Dealings. 
 
 antenuptial, of husband to defeat wife's rights, 2(58. 
 
 postnuijtial, of husband to defeat wife's rights, 301, 
 314. 
 
 dower in land passing by, 252. 
 
 between husband and wife, 99-134. 
 Fraudulent representations, as contracts, 415, 41G. 
 
 as estoppels, 41G. 
 
 as torts, 424. 
 Full age, defined, 339. 
 
 Furniture, husband's rights in wife's, 14, 59, 60. 
 Garnishee, husband as wife's, 53. 
 
 wife as liusband's, 87. 
 
 husljand made, by wife, 54, 65. 
 General statutes, defined, 12. 
 
 whetlier apply to married women, 12, 13, 43, 50, 56, 
 345, 3()9, 471, 481. 
 Gift, defined, 224 ; between husband and wife, 42, 104, 
 107, IKJ, 119, 120, 1:15, 127, 128, 129, 1G4, 178, 198,314. 
 
 wlien presumed between husband and v.ifo, 42, 65, 
 127, 129, 132, 209. 
 
 necessity of delivery, 120^ 127.
 
 Gift— Com inued. 
 
 of labor, j^^ (35, 87, 130. 
 
 causa mortis, 127, 350. 
 
 property acquired by, 224. 
 Grant. See Dei:ds, Conveyances, etc. 
 
 defined, 223, 224. 
 
 property acquired by, 224, 
 Grantor and grantea, marriago of, 44. 
 Gross sum, dower assigned in, 294. 
 Guarantor. See Surety. 
 Guardian, of wife cannot release dower, 271. 
 
 wife may join with, of husband, 271. 
 
 married ■woman as, 487. 
 
 of husband cannot reduce to possession, 177. 
 Habeas corpus, Avife's right to writ of, 48, 62. 
 
 husband's right to writ of, for wife, 62. 
 Harboring, action'for, spouse, 78. 
 Head of family, husband as, 14, 60. 
 
 wife as, GO, 90 ; as husband's agent, 94. 
 Hoir, husband's rights as, vest wlien, 22. 
 
 wife's i-ights as, vest when, 22, 244. 
 Heir-looms, wife's rights in, 186. 
 Holpmoet, Avife as husband's, 14, 64, 65. 
 Horoditaments, dower in, 253. 
 
 Hindering creditors. See Fraudulent Convp:yances. 
 Home, as matrimonial domicile, 29. 
 
 husband's riglit to fix, 29, 60 ; to change, 29. 
 
 spouse's equal right to enter family, 14, 59. 
 
 wife bound to care for, 65. 
 
 wife as agent in, 94. 
 Home and foreign law, effect of, discussed, 24-37. 
 Homestead, discussed, 320-330. 
 Honor, conjugal duty of, 58. 
 House. See IIome. 
 Housohold arrangements, husband's control of, 60. 
 
 wife's control of, 90. 
 
 Avife as general agent in, 94. 
 Housekeeper, Avife as, 94. 
 Husband. See various titles. 
 
 defined, 1. 
 
 conjugal rights of, 14, 57-81 ; enumerated and de- 
 fined, 57 ; to love, honor, etc., 58 ; to cohaljitation, 
 59; to sexual intercourse, 59; to fix and regulate 
 the family lionie, 60 ; to give tlie family name, 61 ; 
 to j)ersonal custody and restraint of wife, 62 ; to
 
 Husband — Continued. 
 
 personally chastise wife, ? 03 ; to wife's services, 
 (ja; to sue for injuries to Avife, 70; to sue for 
 enticing or harboring Avife, 77 ; to sue for crim. 
 con. with wife, 79 ; to represent Avife as agent, 84. 
 
 conjugal duties of, 57-Sl ; to coliabit AA'ith Avife, 59, GO ; 
 to support Avife, 6-1, 74, 81 ; to treat AVife kindly, 58. 
 
 conjugal liabilities of, for Avife's contracts, 67, 81 ; 
 torts, 6G ; crimes, 68. 
 
 property rights of, 70, 135-183 ; generally, 135-139 ; 
 in his OAvn property, 140 ; in his Aviic's realty, 
 141-102 ; in his Avife's personalty, 1()3-1S3 ; m 
 equitable separate property, 212 ; in statutory 
 separate projjerty, 243 ; in community jiroperty, 
 315 ; in homestead, 328 ; in AA-ife's trade, 469- 
 478. 
 
 suing rights of, generally, 439, 449, 460-463 ; on 
 Avife's contracts, 183 ; torts, 76-79. 
 
 rights and liabilities of, hoAV far A'ested, 22 ; depend 
 on Avhat law, 24-33. 
 
 as trustee of Avife, 202. 
 
 as agent of Avife, 8-1-S8. 
 Husband and Ayifo, relation of, defined, 1, 2; discussed, 
 38-134. 
 
 unity of, defined, 38-39, 41, 43, 48, 304 ; as to con- 
 tracts, 4t)— 16 ; torts, 47-49 ; crimes, 47-49 ; AA'ill ■!, 
 50, 51 ; suits, 52-56 ; agencA', 84-93 ; mutual deal- 
 ings, 99-137 ; possession. 118 a-121 ; realty, 304- 
 309 ; personalty, 311. 
 
 estates of, defined, 3 ; entireties, 304-309 ; joint and 
 common, 310 ; in personalty, 311. 
 
 mutual rights and obligations of, 57-81. 
 Identity, of husljand and Avife, 38, 82, 119. 
 Immovables, lex si'ce goA-erns, 27, 33. 
 
 Aviiether property Is immovable, hoAV determined, 
 31, 33. 
 
 marriage contract as to, 27. 
 Impeaclimont, of married Avoman's deed, 405. 
 Implied, promise of husband to restore fund to Avife, 42. 
 
 conti-act betAveen husband and wife for serAdces, 65, 
 87. 
 
 gift from husband to AAnfe, 42, 127 • Avife to husband, 
 42, 65, 127, 129, 132, 209. 
 
 suretyship, 134. 
 Implied contracts of married women, discussed, 375, 381.
 
 INDEX. 729 
 
 Implied poworn of married women, in equity, ?? 203-208. 
 
 under statutes, 234 ; liberal interpretation, 16, 134, 
 231, 371, 
 
 from ownership, 205, 206, 234, 236, 372. 
 
 to contract as to separate property, 203,234, 371, 372. 
 
 to act as trader, 475. 
 Impotence, cause of nullitj^, 59. 
 
 no bar to do-\vcr, 249. 
 Improvements, on wife's property are Avife's, SS, 147. 
 
 wife's contracts for, 239, 372, 373, 387. 
 
 by one spouse of other spouse's property, 131. 
 
 dower in, 295. 
 In any mannor, property acquired in, defined, 222. 
 In law and in fact, agency, 82, 84, 89. 
 
 fraud, 109, 113, 121. 
 
 seisin, 155, 252. 
 In liou of dowor. 8ee Jointurk, Election. 
 
 devise, discussed, 274. 
 In pais, estoppel, defined, 413. 
 
 lu personam and in rem, contracts of married women, 
 206, 379. 
 
 remedies against married Avomen, 211, 372, 379. 
 Incapacity, of husband through marriage, 43. 
 
 of Avi fe, 38, 331-187. 
 Inchoate dowor, discussed, 246, 262. 
 Incidental powers. See Implied Powers. 
 Income, rights oA-er, may differ from riglits OA^er princi- 
 pal, 205, 236, 372. 
 Incorporator, married Avoman as, 481. 
 Incorporeal proporty. See Choses in Action. 
 
 seisin in, 252. 
 
 as chases in action, 171, 173. 
 Increase of wife's property, right to, vested, 22. 
 
 is sei)arate property, 119, 209, 227 ; though the result 
 of liusband's time and labor, 87. 
 
 of equi(:al:)Ie separate property, 209. 
 
 of statutorv separate ]n-operty, 227. 
 
 of business, 87, 464, 46S, 469, 475. 
 
 under community system, 314. 
 
 as earnings, 65. 
 Indorsomont, of note by husband as reduction, 181. 
 
 Aalidity of, by married Avoman, 44, 91, 181, 385. 
 Industry. See r]ARNiNGs. 
 Infancy, etfect of Avife's, generally, 339. 
 
 effect of husband's, generally, 335.
 
 730 INDEX. 
 
 Infancy — Continued. 
 
 full age defined, \ 339. 
 
 and coverture combining, 339. 
 Infant, custody of, wife, 62, 
 
 support of, wife, 64. 
 
 duty to support of, husband, 64. 
 
 dower of, wife, 259 ; release of, 271. 
 
 husband's joint deed with wife, 33."), 339. 
 
 wife's joint deed with husband, 339. 
 
 status "of, ^\ife, 339. 
 Initiate curtesy, discussed, 151, 156, 158. 
 Injuries. See Torts. 
 Injunction, by wife against husband, 48. 
 Insane, wife cannot release dower, 271. 
 
 cannot consent, 213, 339. 
 
 wife's riglits when husband is, 90, 335 ; as head of 
 family, 60 ; to put hu.sband in asylum, 90. 
 
 guardian of, luisband, cannot reduce to jjossession, 
 177 ; may join in deed witli wife, 271. 
 
 huslnind not liable for acts of, wife, 66. 
 Insanity and coverture, elfect of combination, 339. 
 Insolvency. See Bankruptcy. 
 
 laws as to, affecting married women, 13, 369. 
 
 of luisband, wife's claim against estate, 53. 
 Intended domicile, defined, 28, 29. 
 Intention, as to gifts, 127. 
 
 to cxchido husband's rights, hoAV shoA^^l, 199, 200. 
 Intercoiurse, cDujugal right of, 59. 
 Interests, of Iuisl)and and wife the same, 39, 56. 
 Investment, by liusband for Avife, 42. 
 
 by wife with husband's monej', 65. 
 
 of joint funds of husband and wife, 129, 311. 
 
 of separate property, 119, 209, 227. 
 Issue, birth of, necessary to curtesy, 154; notto dower, 249. 
 Jewels, as ]iarai>l)ernalia, 1S6. 
 Joinder of husband, cannot be compelled, 388, 399. 
 
 cannot be delegated, 399. 
 
 in wife's contracts, 206, 212, .302. 
 
 in wife's torts, 66. 
 
 in wife's deeds, 20.5, 212, 399. j 
 
 in wife's wills, 348. | 
 
 in wife's trade, 87, 469. 
 
 in wife's estoppels, 409. 
 
 when husband is infant, 335. ^ 
 
 when wife is infant, 339. ^
 
 INDEX. 731 
 
 Joinder of wife, cannot be compelled, I 407. 
 cannot be delegated, 400. 
 in deed of husband's property, 270-271. 
 Joint, acquisition by husband and wife, 231. 
 contracts by husband and wife, 382. 
 deed by husband and wife, 43, 205, 271, 390 ; binding 
 
 on liusband though void as to wife, 40S. 
 deed to husband and wife, 804. 
 deposit by husband and Avife, 128. 
 estop]jel against husband and wife, 400. 
 investments by husband and wife, 129, 311. 
 property of husband and wife, 302-311. 
 service against husband and wife, 452. 
 suits of husband and wife, 439 ; against husband 
 
 and wife, 449. 
 tenancy of husband and wife, 307, 310, 313 ; mar- 
 riage of joint tenants, 302, 310. 
 tenancy, curtesy in, 155, 157; dower in, 254; hus- 
 band may dissever Avife's, in leasehold, 145 ; stat- 
 utes as to, how affect entireties, 307. 
 Jointure, discussed, 126, 273, 274. 
 
 Judgment, confessed by husband in favor of wife, 53. 
 against married women, 411, 457, 458 ; as estoppel, 
 
 411. 
 by husband on wife's chose in action as reduction, 
 180. 
 Jure uxoris, liusband's suit, 76, 77. 
 
 husband's estate, 146-150. 
 Jurisdiction. See Equity, etc. 
 
 Jus disponendi, as an incident of ownership, 205, 206, 236, 
 372. 
 distingv^ished from^^^s ienendi, 236. 372, 
 Keeping house, position of wife when, 94. 
 Labor. 8ee Eaenings. 
 
 uifts between liusband and wife of, 65, 87, 130. 
 Laches, as to claim of dower, 277. 
 
 as limitations, 277, 339, 365. 
 Lands. See Realty. 
 
 Lapsed legacy, to wife, husband's rights in, 225. 
 Larceny, between husband and wife, 14, 47, 48. 
 Law. See In Law and in Fact. 
 common, 6. 
 civil, 7. 
 etjuity, 8. 
 statutes, 9,
 
 732 INDEX, 
 
 Law — Continued. 
 
 of husband and Avife, defined, H 1-5 ; sources of, 
 6-10; interpretation of, 11-18. 
 
 international, 24-37. 
 
 home and foreign, 24-37. 
 
 past and present, 19-23. 
 
 lex domicilii, 30, 31 ; rei sitte, 33 ; loci actus, 34; fori, 35, 
 Lease, bv married woman, void at ooninion law, 147, 
 387 ; when valid, 234, 239, 372 ; is a " disposition" 
 of property, 233. 
 
 to married woman, is a purchase Ijv her, 387 ; prop- 
 erty acquired by " grant," 224. 
 
 bv hnsliand of wife's property, 145. 
 Leasehold estates, husband's rights in wife's, 145, 
 
 entireties in, 303. 
 Legacy, husband's right in wife's, 174 ; lapsed, 225. 
 
 proi><rty acquired by, 225, 
 
 is a cli'isr in action, 169. 
 Legitimate childron, result from marriage, 1, 
 
 legislature may, 23. 
 
 are so by law of doinicile, 30. 
 Letters. See Administration, Powers, 
 Liberal, interpretation of statutes, 12, 16, 
 Lien, of vendor as against dower, 259. 
 
 of vendor not forfeited by acceptance of married 
 woman's note, 385. 
 Life estates, husband's rights in wife's, 144. 
 
 curtesy in, 155. 
 
 dower in, 254. 
 Limitations, plea of, by married women, 456 ; against 
 married women, 445 ; between husband and wife, 
 55 a; after husband's death, 147, 
 
 in favor of husband and wife, 66, 67, 339, 365, 456, 
 
 as to curtesy, 159, 
 
 as to dower, 277, 
 
 how wife's act affects running of, 91, 368, 381. 
 
 debt barred by, as consideration, 105. 
 Liquor seller, liability of, under civil damage acts, 80. 
 Local law, discussed, 24-37. 
 
 all statutes presumed, 12, 18, 275, 308, 321. 
 Lock up, husband's right to, wife, 48, 62. 
 Love, marriage right to, 58, 
 
 as a consideration, 105, 
 Lunacy. See Insane, 
 Maintenance, suits for, 74. 

 
 I^'^DEx. 7.^ 
 
 Majority. See Infant. 
 
 Management, by married women of separate property, 
 y/',, i;o3, 233. 
 bv hu.sband of wife's i>roperty, 87, 119 ; suits, 66, 67, 
 
 '91, 4(i0. 
 of married women's suits, 460, 461. 
 of household, 60, 94. 
 Manor, dower in a, 253. 
 Mansion house, dower hi, 291. 
 
 Manslaughter, wife's death from husband's neglect as, 
 64 ; boating, 63. 
 killing by husband of wife's paramour, 59. 
 Marital rights. See Conjugal Rights. 
 Market, dower in, 253. 
 Marriage, defined, 1. 
 
 essential to suit for crim. con., 79; curtesy, 253; 
 
 dower, 250. 
 effect of, of contracting parties, 44. 
 effect of, on wills, 352. 
 unity growing out of, 38, 39. 
 rights and obligations growing out of, 57-81. 
 agency growing out of, 82-98. 
 estates growing out of, 135-330. 
 incai)aci;y of husband g.*owing out of, 43. 
 incapacity of wife growing out of, 331-487. 
 Marriage sottloments, discussed, 99-134. 
 as creating separate property, 198. 
 eflbct of, on contlict of laws, 27, 28, 33. 
 Married woman. See Femjik Covert, Wife. 
 Married women's separate property acts, described, 218. 
 construction of, generally, 12, 15, 370-372. 
 effect of, on personal status, 12, 15, 48 ; contracts 
 between husband and wife, 43 ; torts between 
 husband and wife, 48, 49; suits between husband 
 and wife, 54 ; wife's right to supjiort, 64 ; earnings, 
 65 ; husband's liability for Avife's contracts, 67 ; 
 torts, 66 ; crimes, G8 ; on equitable separate prop- 
 erty, 197, 216 ; on equity of settlement, 190 ; on 
 entireties, 306, 308 ; curtesj^ 161 ; wife's surety- 
 ship, 134, 391 ; wife's personal contracts, 370-373, 
 470 ; wife's capacity to trade, 470. 
 estate created by, discussed, 217-243. 
 Matrimonial, domicile defined, 29. 
 suits defined, 48, 52. 
 rights and obligations, 57-81. 
 II. & w. — 62.
 
 734 IXDEX. 
 
 Mechanic's lien, wife's lands, when liable, ? 242. 
 
 placed by husband on wife's lands, 85, 131, 306. 
 Merchandise, wife's rights over, 233, 236, 372, 475. 
 Merger, of wife in husband by marriage, 38. 
 
 of curtesy initiate, 158. 
 Mesne profits, dower in, 297. 
 Metes and bounds, dower assigned by, 292. 
 Mill, dower in, 253. 
 
 wife running a, 465. 
 Mines, dower in, 253, 292. 
 Mingling, of jsroperty of husband and wife, 65, 118 a-121, 
 
 129, 310, 311. 
 Mining interest, is " propertj^" 219. 
 Minor. See Infant. 
 Misappropriation, of money by married women, 66, 381, 
 
 4s3. 
 Mistake, power of legislature to correct, 23. 
 
 reforming, etc., married woman's, in equity, 123, 
 205, 236, 270, 272, 359, 368, 376, 404. 
 Money, rights of husband and wife in wife's, 106, 167, 
 169, 170, 172, 219. 
 
 is " ijrojjerty," 219; whether note is conti'act as to 
 property', 373. 
 Mortgage, jjower to, included in jjower to convey, 1154, 
 372. 
 
 restraint on power to, 204. 
 
 to secure invalid debt, 368. 
 
 for husband's debt, 134. 
 
 foreclosure of married woman's, mider general law, 
 13. 
 
 marriage of parties to a, 44. 
 
 priorities as l>etween, and dower, 260. 
 
 of married woman, generally, 134, 223, 230. 
 Movables, rights in, depend on lex domicilii, 27, 31. 
 
 whether projierty is, 31, 33. 
 
 effect of marriage contract on, 27. 
 Mutual wills, between liusband and wife, 349. 
 "My wife," in case of several wives, 51. 
 Name, family, right of wife to, 01. 
 
 woman bearing man's, not necessarily his agent, 
 97. 
 Naming, of certain powers a denial of others, 12, 16, 43, 
 
 20-t, 220, 374. 
 Necessaries, suit for, 81. 
 
 agency of wife for, 90, 94, 95.
 
 INDKX. 735 
 
 Next friend, suit by wife through, H 53, 192, 440, 4(51 
 
 suit tigaiust wife tlirougli, 450. 
 
 liable for costs, 437, 4(j3, 
 Next of kin, rights of liusband and wife as, 22. 
 Nominal, consideration, lOo. 
 
 party, liusband, wlien a, 429, 439, 449. 
 Notes, of married women, validity of, 223, 375, 335; 
 husband's rights in, 173 ; contirmed after dis- 
 covoi'ture, 3G(J ; discussed, 385. 
 
 to husband, 41, 42. 
 
 of husband to wife, 41, 42; antenuptial, 44, 55. 
 
 to liusband and wife, 132, 13(i, 311. 
 
 hy liusband as agent for wife, 85. 
 
 by wife as agent for husband, 89 ; accommodation, 
 92 ; in business, 93 ; how made, 93. 
 
 invalid, secured by mortgage, 3^8. 
 Notice, to liusband when, to wife, 85. 
 
 invalid deed no, 368. 
 Nuisance, liability for, on married woman's proTiertv, 
 
 243. 
 Obedience, conjugal duty of, 58, 60, 62. 
 Obligation of contracts, acts imj)airing, 21. 
 Obligor and obligee. See Bond, Covenant, etc. 
 
 marriage of, 44. 
 One person, husband and wife as, 38, 39, 303. 
 Oral settlement, discussed, 199, 224. 
 Ornaments, ownership of wives', 120, 127, 18(3. 
 Ownership, presumed from possession, 86, 88, 118 a, 119. 
 
 ineidcMits of, 203, 205, 234, 272. 
 Paraphernal proporty, under civil law, 186. 
 Paraphernalia, wife's, discussed, 186, 187. 
 Parent and child, relation of, detined, 5. v 
 
 law of domicile as to, 30. 
 
 right of parent to harbor child, 78 ; to control, 60 ; 
 to chastise, 30. 
 
 obligation of parent to child, 05, 71. 
 Parol gifts, between husband and wife, 120, 121, 127. 
 Participation of husband. See Joinder. 
 Parties. 8ee Suits. 
 
 two, ne(;essary to every contract, 40. 
 Partition, wife's suit against husband for, 53. 
 
 wife's interest in case of, of husband's propertv, 
 13a, 172. 
 Partnor, married woman's capacity to be, 480. 
 
 wife as, of husband, 87, 480; community, 320.
 
 736 INDEX. 
 
 Partner — Continued. 
 
 husband cannot make wife, § 85. 
 lands of, are personalty, 136. 
 dower in lands of, 254, 257. 
 Past law. See IIetrospective Laws. 
 
 ettbet of, discussed, 19-23. 
 Payment, receipt of, as reduction to possession, 179. 
 Pending sots, etfect of marriage en, 430. 
 
 etteot of dissolution of marriage in, 434. 
 Perpetuities, rule against, 204. 
 Person, liusband and wife as one, 38, 39, 303. 
 Personal, and property marriage rights distinguished, 
 22, 27, 28, 29. 
 rights are "property," 219; when vested, 22. 
 rights growing out of marriage, 57-81. 
 and property obligations of married women distin- 
 guished, 42, 211, 372, 379. 
 contracts of married women, 237, 239, 379. 
 injuries to wife, right of action for, 75-79, 219, 222, 
 
 230. 
 property of husband, his rights in, 140 ; wife's 
 
 rights" in, 301. 
 property of wife, husband's rights in, 163-183 ; her 
 
 rights in, b]2, 184-243. 
 property of both husband and wife, 311. 
 property, "estate " in, 135 ; conversion from realty, 
 
 136. 
 services of wife, 65. 
 custody and restraint of wife, 62. 
 chastisement of wife, 63. 
 Piano, purcliase of, by married woman, 223. 
 
 is "household furniture," 219. 
 Pin-money, discussed, 188, 189. 
 Piscary, dower in. 253. 
 
 Possession, as evidence of title, 86, 119 ; follows title, 88, 
 119. 
 efiect of joint, of husband and wife, 118 rt-121 ; 
 presumption of ownership, 119, 127; change 
 of, as delivery, 120 ; retention of, as fraud, 
 121. 
 wife's personalty in, discussed, 166-170; of wife, 
 
 li)7 ; of liusband, 168 ; of third pariy, 169. 
 reduction to, discussed, 177-183. 
 as seisin, 155, 247. 
 Possibilities, husband's rights in wife's, 175.
 
 IXDEX, 737 
 
 Postnuptial, dealings between husband and wife, gen- 
 erally, ^^99-134; contracts, 40-40; torts, 47, 48; 
 crimes, 47, 49 ; wills, 50, 51, 349 ; suits, 52-56. 
 
 contract as to dower, 26(3, 267. 
 Power, private and statutory distinguislied, 205,206, 376. 
 
 of wife over ecxuitable separate estate, 1203 ; statutory, 
 233, 372. 
 
 wife's execution of, 203, 205 ; in favor of liusband, 
 
 203. 
 
 wife's deed as an execution of a, 23, 3/2, 376, 404, 
 407. 
 
 deedo under, 205, 376, 407. 
 
 wills under, 50, 342. 
 Power of attorney, of married women discussed, 403 ; as 
 to dower, 271. 
 
 of liusband to wife,'89. 
 Practice. .See .Suits. 
 Preference, by husband of wife, 45. 
 Premiums. ,^ee I>-.suea>'ce. 
 
 Presence of hu.sband, coercion iDresumed from, GCy, 68, 121, 
 417, 410. 
 
 torts by married women in, 66. 
 
 crimes by married women in, 68. 
 
 wife's silence in, as an estoppel, 121, 213, 417, 419. 
 Presumptions, of gift between husband and wife, 42. 65. 
 127, 199. 
 
 of agency of wife, 93. 
 
 of title from possession, 86, 88, 118 a, 119. 
 
 of married woman's incapacity, 357. 
 
 of fraud in law, 107. 
 
 of intent to charge separate pi'operty, 200, 235, 238, 
 373. 
 Pretended agency, of husband for wife as fraud, 87. 
 Prima facie, disability of married women, 357. 
 
 evidence of ccrtiticate to deed, -]()1. 
 Priorities, as between dower and other encumbrances, 
 
 258. 
 Private instructions, to agent are of no effect, 84, 90, 94, 
 
 98. 
 Private powers, distinguished from statutory, 205, 206, 
 
 376. 
 Privy examination, of married women, 205, 399, 400. 
 Procedure. See .Suits. 
 
 riglitsand remedies, 429 ; tort Ijotween husband and 
 wife not a question of, 48.
 
 738 INDKX. 
 
 Procedure — Coniinued. 
 
 statutet^ relating to, g^ 20, 43G. 
 
 rights of, not vested, 22. 
 
 depend on tlie law of the forum, 35, 37, 435 ; enforc- 
 ing of contracts, 144. 
 
 after dcatli of husband or wife, 44. 
 Proceeding in rom, discussed, 211, 372, 379. 
 Proceeds of married women's suits, ownership of, 447. 
 Process, against married women, 211, 452. 
 Product. Wee Earnings, Increase. 
 Profits, of equitable sepai-ate property, 209. 
 
 of statutory separate propertv, 227. 
 
 of business, 87, 465, 4()8, 470, 475. 
 Prohibition, by husband to wife against acting as his 
 
 agent, 89, 90, 94, 98. 
 Promises. See Contracts. 
 Promissory notes. 8ee Notes. 
 Proof. 8ee Evidence, Presumption, Witness. 
 
 of foreign law, 25. 
 
 of agency, 8(5, 97. 
 
 of consideration, 108. 
 
 of title to separate property, 119, 232. 
 
 burden of, on wife to show ownersliip, 119, 132, 232 ; 
 on i>arty setting vl\) cajjacity of married woman, 
 237, 357. 
 Property. .See Estates, etc. 
 
 deliued, 44, 65, 87, 219, 222, 229,230; chose in action, 
 44 ; aliility to earn, 65 ; talents, 87. 
 
 what, liable in execution, 66, 67, 458. 
 
 rights and jjersonal rights distinguished, 27, 28, 42, 
 211,379. 
 Property acts. See Married Women's Property. 
 Prospective, statutes presumed, 17, 20, 65, 67, 268.308, 378. 
 Public policy, as to contract between husband and wife, 
 40. 
 
 as to testimony between husband and wife, 36. 
 
 as to unity of husband and wife, 12, 14, 43. 
 
 as to mutual confidence between husband and Avife, 
 119. 
 Public use, dedication to, as bar to dower, 278. 
 Purchase, married women's capacity to, 223, 373, 383. 
 
 )>roporty acquired by, 223. 
 
 joint, of liusband and wife, 132. 
 Purchase money, lien for, prior to dower, 259. 
 
 wife's liability for, 223, 383. N^
 
 INDEX. 739 
 
 Purchase money — Continued. 
 
 wife's estoppel by receipt of, J? 405, 410, 412, 415. 
 
 whetlier wife inuwt restore, 3(38, 3S3. 
 Pure torts, wife's liability for her, 6(3, 423, 424; hus- 
 band's, 66. 
 
 wife estopped by hex-, 418. 
 Quarantine, widow's, 290. 
 Quit-claim daod, presumed without consideration, 108. 
 
 wife's deed as a, 384, 412. 
 Sape, testimony of wife in action for, 5(5. 
 Ratification, of 'wife's agency by husband, 84. 
 
 of husband's agency by wife, 8i), <j;3, 94. 
 - of contracts by married women, 3(36, 368. 
 
 of deeds by married women, 23, 270-272, 339, 402-404. 
 
 of deed by infant, 339. 
 Eealty, estates in, 135, 136. 
 
 converted into personalty, 136. 
 
 improveinents on, 131. 
 
 lex rei sitte applies to, 33. 
 
 husband's estates in wife's, 141-162. 
 
 wife's estates in husband's, 244-300. 
 
 estates of husband and wife in, 302-310. 
 Reasonabla provicion, by husband for wife in settlement 
 valid against creditors, 116. 
 
 hj equity out of wife's choses in action, 190-196. 
 Receipt, of husband for wife, 82,84, 85, 179, 212 ; validity 
 of. depends on what law, 33. 
 
 of wife for husband, 89, 91. 
 
 of married woman, 179, 386. 
 
 by husband as reduction, 179. 
 Recori, estoppel by, 411, 457. 
 Recording, of gift, 120, 121. 
 
 of marriage settlement, 102 ; transfer between hus- 
 band and wife, 120, 121. 
 
 schedule of separate property, 121, 232. 
 
 of declaration of intent to trade, 472. 
 
 of homestead claim, 325. 
 Rectifying, deed of married woman in equitv, 123, 205, 
 23(), 270, 272, 376, 404. 
 
 by statute, 23, 403. 
 Redemption, of mortgage, effect of, on do%ver, 261. 
 Reduction to possession, by husband of wife's choftes in 
 aclini), 177-183; a personal right, 177; the intent 
 and the act, 178 ; payment, etc., 179 ; substitution, 
 180; assignment, 181; release, 179; suit, 180.
 
 740 
 
 I 
 
 Keforming. See Bectifying. 
 
 Relation. See Husband and Wife, Parent and 
 
 Child. 
 "Relating to," contracts, property, Avhat are, ?? 239, 373. 
 Release, f)f dov.er, 271-273 ; as a consideration, 105. 
 
 of mortgage by marriage, 44. 
 
 of mortgage, efT?ct on dower, 2(11. 
 
 of an<^ennptial debts by marriage, 44 ; torts, 48. 
 
 bv linsband as a reduction, 179. 
 
 liusband's, for wife, 82, 182, 212. 
 
 of married Avoman, 38G. 
 Remainders, luisband's rights in -wife's, 17.^. 
 
 curtesy in, 157. 
 
 dower in, 254. 
 Remedies. 8ee Suits. 
 
 statute giving new, does not destroy old, 12, 54. 
 
 and rights distinguished, 237, 429. 
 
 right to, not vested, 20, 22, 4.3(J. 
 
 depend on law of forum, .31, 35, 435. 
 
 in pcrsonain and in rem, 211, 372, 379. 
 
 as to equitable separate property, 210, 211. 
 
 as to statutory separate property, 241, 242. 
 
 as to fraudulent conveyances, 122-124. 
 
 after discoverture, .55, 3i)(). 
 Renouncing will. See EiiEcrioN. 
 Rent. See Lease. 
 
 husliand collecting wife's, 84, 410. 
 
 wife collecting liusband's, 89. 
 
 ownership of, of wife's property at common law, 
 1 W ; equitable separate, 209 ; statutory separate, 
 227. 
 
 wife's liability for, .387; implied, 381, 387. 
 
 assignment of dower in, 293. 
 Requisites, of dower, 249. 
 
 of curtesy, 1,52. 
 Repairs, bv liusband of wife's property, 85. 
 
 wife's'contracts for, 234, 371, 372. 
 
 wif(^"s liability for, 387. 
 Replevin, by wife against husband, 54. 
 
 estop])ing mnn-ied women, 41(3. 
 Representative capacity, married women in, 482-487; 
 f|uestions involved, 4S2 ; general rules, 483; as 
 agent, 84, 303, 4(i9, 479, 484 ; as trustee, 132, 485 ; as 
 executrix or administratrix, 486 ; as guardian, 
 487. 1 

 
 INDKX. 741 
 
 Republication, of married women's wills, ? 353. 
 Bes adjudicata, suit in wife's riglit iis, in suit on hus- 
 band's right, 77 ; judgment against married 
 women as. 411, 457. 
 Residence. See Home. 
 
 not necessary for dower, 249. 
 Eestitution, of cohjugal rights, 72. 
 Restraint, on alienation discussed, 204. 
 
 of wife l^y liusband, 62. 
 Resulting trusts, between husband and Avife, 129, 
 
 132. 
 Retention of possession, by husband as fraud, 121. 
 Retroactive laws, dotined, 19. 
 Retrospective laws, discussed, 19-23. 
 
 defined, 19. 
 
 as to curtesy, 22, 162. 
 
 as to contracts, 22, 378. 
 
 curative acts, 23, 376, 40.3. 
 Reversions, dower in, 254. 
 
 married women's power over, 205, 206, 236, 372. 
 Revocation, of deed by married woman, 270. 
 
 of gift from husband to wife, 123, 127, 469. 
 
 of will bj^ marriage, 51, 351. 
 
 of husband's agency by wife, 84. 
 
 of wife's agency by husband, 94, 98, 
 
 of agency by d'ea'.h, 84, 98, 127. 
 Rights. See Personal, Property, Estates, etc. 
 
 and remedies distinguished, 237, 429. 
 
 valuable and vested, 20, 22. 
 
 personal and property, 22, 27, 28, 29. 
 
 governed by Avhat law, 24-37. 
 
 conjugal, 57-81. 
 
 in action, 171, 
 
 suits in diftorent, 77. 
 
 general effect of marriage on personal, 38, 39, 331 ; 
 property, 137, 
 RtJos, for the construction of statutes, 11-lS. 
 
 no general statute alTects law of husband and wife, 
 12, 13, 50, 56, 345, 369, 481, 
 
 married women acts do not affect relation of hvis- 
 band and wife, 12, 14, 43, 48, 54, 367, 375. 
 
 propertv acts do not aflect personal status, 12, 15, 
 48, 233, 237, 308, 370, 372, 470. 
 
 statute denying certain i)Owers mav impllcdlv give 
 all Others, 43, 56, 374,
 
 742 INDEX. 
 
 Sules — Continued. 
 
 statute enumerating certain powers may impliedly 
 deny ail others, gg 12, IG, 43, 204, 220, i:36, 345, 371, 
 373, 374. 
 some statutes must be stric'.ly construed, 12, 16, 43, 
 
 345, 374, 37G. 
 some statutes must bo liberally construed, 12, 16. 
 statutes must be construed prospectively, 12, 17, 20, 
 
 162, 165, 268, 308, 321, 339. 
 statutes must be construed locally, 12,. 18, 275, 308, 
 
 321. 
 as to contracts of married women, 369-378. 
 as to contracts charging equitable separate estate, 
 
 206. 
 as to estoppels against married women, 410. 
 as to conllict of laws, 27. 
 Sales, of married women, 233, 3S3. 
 by husband trustee to wife, 37. 
 by wife executrix to Jiusband, 486. 
 Savings. See Earnings. 
 
 of married women, 65, 87, 209, 227, 
 Scire facias, writ of, by wife against husband, 53. 
 Scope of authority, of agency of husband, 85. 
 
 of agency of wife, 92, 94. 
 Seal, etiect of married woman's, 384, 386, 408, 412. 
 Secret instructions, to agent, 84, 90, 94. 
 Security, wife coutrac'ang as, 134, 391. 
 Seduction. See Entickment, Crim. Con. ! 
 
 Seisin, in law and in fact, 155, 252. 
 for dower, 252. 
 for curtesy, 147. 
 
 for husband's estate ./wre uxoris, 147. 
 Sell, married women's agreement to, 372, 373, 3S3. 
 
 married woman's power to, 205, 236, 376, 397, .398. 
 "Separate," defnied, 65, 4(i5, 480. 
 
 Separate acknowledgment, of married women, 400, 401. 
 Separate property of married women, is of two kinds, 
 whicli may exist side by side, 216, 217 ; which is 
 created, depends on wording of deed, 199, 224 ; or 
 on mode of acquisition, 199, 220-231 ; or wife may 
 elect, 216. 
 equitable, discussed, 197-217. 
 statutory, discussed, 217-243. 
 dower is not, 26(i, 267, 270, 396. 
 under community system, 314. .i
 
 IXDKX, 743 
 
 Separation, deeds of, ? 40. 
 
 a breach of marriage right, 59. 
 Services. See Earnings. 
 
 husband's right to wife's, 65, 78. 
 
 husband's, given to wife, 87. 
 Set-off, in suits by liusband and wife, 65, 443, 454. 
 Sottleinonts, marriage, discussed, 40, 99-134. 
 Sexual iatorcourse, conjugal right to, 59. 
 Sewing machine, purchase of, by married woman, 219, 
 
 Shares. See Stock. 
 
 Sickness of husband, wife's agency during, 90, 3.35. 
 Sijnaturo, wife bound by her, 405. 
 
 Siionce, of married wonian as an estoppel, 120, 121, 213, 
 410, 417; creates husband agent, when, 84, 121, 
 213, 410. 
 Skill. See Eaknings. 
 Slander, between husband and wife, 48. 
 
 b}'' hu.sband and wife, GO. 
 
 against wife, 77. 
 Sleeping together, conjugal duty of, 59. 
 Society, conjugal right to spouse's, 59, 78, 79. 
 Sole and separate property. See Equitable Separate 
 Pkoperty. 
 
 defined, 197. 
 Sources, of law of husband and wife, 6-10. 
 
 of equitable separate property, 19S. 
 
 of statutory separate property, 220-231. 
 Special occupant, liusband as, 144. 
 Special proceedings, by married women, 440. 
 
 against married women, 211, 459. 
 Specific performance, for Avifo of agreement for settle- 
 ment, 123. 
 
 against Avife of agreement to deed, 407. 
 Station in life, scope of wife's autliox'ity depends on, 
 
 94. 
 Status, tlie marriage, defined, 1. 
 
 of married women, defined, 4 ; discussed, 3S, 39, 
 331-482. 
 
 of liusband and wife, 38-134. 
 
 depends on law of domicile, 30. 
 
 not a vested right, 22. 
 
 not controllable bv contract, 28, 67, 382. 
 
 not affected by property acts, 12, 15, 48, 233, 237, 308, 
 370-372.
 
 744 INDEX. 
 
 statutes. See Rulks. 
 
 as basis of law of husband and wife, § 9. 
 
 interpretation of, 11-18. 
 
 l^ast and present, 19-23. 
 
 home and foreign, 24-37. 
 
 of fraud, 114. 
 
 creating separate property, 217-243. 
 Statutory separate property of married women, defined, 
 217 ; may exist side by side with equitable, 21(j, 
 217 ; dower is not, 267, 270. 
 
 the statutes described, 218. 
 
 '• property " defined, 219. 
 
 "separate" defined. Go, 129, 46a 
 
 sources of, 220-231 ; owned at time of marriage, 22T 
 acquired "in any manner," 222; by purchase. 
 223 ; by gift or grant, 224 ; by devise, descent, 
 etc., 225 ; by exchange, 226 ; by increase, 227 ; b>- 
 .services or trade, 65, 228, 470, 475; by contract, 
 229 ; by tort, 230 ; jointly with husband, 231. 
 
 incidents of, 232-243 ; necessity of inventory, etc., 
 232 ; wife's power and control over, 233 ; powers 
 incidental to ownership, 234, 2.39, 372; jurisdic- 
 tion of equity over, 235 ; trustee of, 235 ; wife's 
 deed, etc., of, 236, 398; wife's wills of, 240, 346; 
 Avife's contracts concerning, 237, 370 ; in equity, 
 238, 371 ; at law, 239, 372 ; remedies respecting, 
 241 ; liabilities of, 242 ; rights of husband in, 243 ; 
 rights of husband's creditors against, 243. 
 Statutory powers, discussed, 405, 406,407. 
 Stealing, from wife is from husband, 167. 
 
 Jjetween husband and wife, 47, 49. 
 Steward, wife as husband's, 94. 
 Stock, is a chose in action, 171. 
 
 is immovable property, 33. 
 
 whether is realty, 253. 
 
 husband's rights in wife's, 173. 
 
 husband's liabilities on wife's, 176. 
 
 husband's transfer of vrifc's, 130. 
 
 wife as holder of, 390, 481. 
 
 dower in, 253. 
 Stockholder, married woman as, 390, 481. 
 Stolen goods, husband's liability for wife's receipt of, 
 
 Sub potestate viri, wife is, 60. 
 Subpoena. See Pkockss.
 
 INDEX. 745 
 
 Subsequent acquisitions, effect of settlement on, §g 27, 28, 31. 
 
 law of domicile as to, 27, 28, 31. 
 Subsequent creditors, rights of, 117. 
 Suits, matrimonial, 48^ 
 
 of divort-e, 73. 
 
 for restitution of conjugal rights, 72. 
 
 for maintenance, 74. 
 
 of supplicant, 75. 
 
 for dower, 28(3-288. 
 
 of husband in which wife is joined, 70. 
 
 of wife in which husband is joined, 7(3, 439, 449. 
 
 reduction to possession by, 183. 
 
 of foreclosure barring dower, 261. 
 
 affecting dower, 2(31, 280. 
 
 between husband and wife, 52-56, 433 ; generally, 52, 
 433; under unwritten law, 53 ; under statutes, 54 ; 
 after dissolution of marriage, 55 ; defenses, 55 a. 
 
 of married women, generally, 428-437; rights and 
 I'emedios, 429 ; effect of marriage on pending, 
 430 ; at common law, 431 ; in equity and by stat- 
 ute, 432 ; effect of dissolution of marriage on 
 pending, 434; law of forum governs remedies, 
 34, 35, 435 ; law of time of suit brought governs 
 remedies, 20, 430 ; costs, 437. 
 
 by married women, generally, 438-447; modes in 
 Avhich married women may sue, 438 ; jointly witli 
 husband, 439 ; by next friend or trustee, 440 ; 
 alone, 441 ; the causes of action, 442 ; the defenses, 
 443; plea of coverture, 444; plea of limitations, 
 445 ; special proceedings, 446 ; ownershiij of pro- 
 ceeds, 447 
 
 against married women, generally, 448-459 ; modes 
 in which married women may be sued, 448 ; 
 jointly with husband, 449; with trustee or next 
 friend, 450 ; alone, 457 ; the service of process, 
 452 ; the cause of action, 453 ; the defenses, 454 ; 
 plea of coverture, 455; jjlca of limitations, 456; 
 effect of judgment, 411, 457; tlie execution of 
 judgment, 458; special proceedings, 211, 459. 
 
 management of married women's, bv husband, 66, 
 360; by wife, 4(31. 
 
 attorney in married women's emi:)loyment, 462; 
 compensat'on, 463. 
 Bummons. See Process. 
 Supplicant, suit of, 75. 
 
 H. & W.-63.
 
 746 INDEX. 
 
 Support, wife's right of, g 64. 
 
 of family, 64, 381, 387. 
 Suretyship, of wife for husband, 134. 
 
 of married women generally, J 34, 373, 375, 391. 
 for wife, bound though wife is not, 308, 486. 
 Survivorship, of liusband and wife, as to personalty, 311 ; 
 as to chases in action, 77, 176, 311 ; as to realty, 306. 
 rights of, depends on law at time of death, 20, 31. 
 Talents. See Earnings. 
 not property, 87. 
 husband may give wife his, 87. 
 result of Vt'ife as earnings, 465. 
 Technical words, not necessary to create separate estate, 
 
 199j 200. 
 Tenancy, joint and common of husband and wife, 302-311. 
 Term of yoars. 8ee Chattels Real, Leaseholds. 
 Testamentary law. See Wills. 
 Testify. See Evidence. 
 
 lausband and wife's capacity to, 56. 
 Thirds, Avidows', discussed, 140, 266, 351. 
 Title, follows possession, 118 a, 119. 
 
 proof of wife's, 119, 132, 232. 
 Torts, between husband and wife, 47-49. 
 liability of husband for wife, 14, 66. 
 right of husband for, to wife, 77. 
 of married Avomen, (i(i, 421-425 ; general considera- 
 tion, 421; antenuptial, 66, 422; postnuptial, &), 
 423; connected with contract, {>{), 91, 416, 424; 
 liability for, how enforced, dii, 425. 
 married women estopped by, when, 416, 418, 424. 
 property acquired by, 230. 
 Trade, of married women, 464-481 ; sources of capacity, 
 464, 465 ; earnings, 65, 87, 228, 464, 465 ; capacity 
 at common law, 466 ; by custom, 467; in equity, 
 468; with husband's consent, 469; under mar- 
 ried women's property acts, 470 ; under other 
 statutes, 471 ; filing declaration, etc., 472. 
 incidents of married Avomen's capacit,y to, 473-481 ; 
 how far dependent on sources of capacity, 473; 
 express powers, 474 ; implied powers, 10, 475 ; 
 contracts in, 392, 475 ; purchase in, 223, 475 ; rights 
 of wife's creditors, 476 ; riglits of husband's 
 creditors, 477 ; rights and liabilities of husband, 
 478 ; as agent, 479 ; as incorporator, etc., 481 ; a^ 
 partner, 475, 480.
 
 Trade — Continued. 
 
 ownership of property acquired in, ?? 05, 87, 209, 
 2-2S, 405, 4()S— 170, 475, 478. 
 Transfer. See Dkaling, Deed, Disposition, etc. 
 Trespass. See Torts. 
 
 husband against wife, 14. 
 
 ^vife against husband, 48. 
 
 for crim. con. 79. 
 Trovor, husband against wife, 14, 54. 
 
 Avife against husband, 4S. 
 
 against liusband and wife, 66. 
 Trusts. See Equitable. 
 
 resuUing, 132. 
 
 dower in, 252, 254, 256. 
 Trustee, of equitable se^jarate property, 125, 202, 205, 
 212. 
 
 of statutory separate property, 235. 
 
 transfer between husband and wife through, 41, 42, 
 125. 
 
 suits of married women through, 53, 440 ; against, 
 450. 
 
 wife may have husband removed, 53. 
 
 property held by husband as, not restored, 168. 
 
 married wcnnen acting as, 132, 485. 
 
 ceshii que irii-^t, husband and wife as, 110, 405. 
 Undue influence. See Coercion, Fraud. 
 User, by luisband of wife's property, 42, 118-121, 127. 
 United States, no jurisdiction over marriage relation, 9. 
 
 retrospective statutes under, constitution, 21. 
 
 citizenship conferred on wife by marriage, 39. 
 Unity of liusband and wife, defined, 2, 38, 39, 40, 56. 
 
 a fiction of the common law, 6, 38, 39. 
 
 not destroyed by married women's acts, 12, 14, 
 43. 
 
 effect of, on possession, 118 a, 119. 
 
 etfect of, on joint lioldings, 303. 
 Valid, void, and voidable, settlements distinguished, 100. 
 
 contract of married women, 308. 
 Validity. See Contracts, Deeds, etc. 
 Valuable consideration, defined, 104, 105. 
 Valuable rights, not necessarily vested, 20, 21. 
 Vested rights, wliat are, 22, 65, 67, 319. 
 
 statutes atibcting, invalid, 21. 
 
 not affected by cliange of domicile, 32. 
 
 under settlenientsj 216.
 
 ^'* 
 
 748 INDEX. 
 
 Vested rights — Coniinued. 
 
 in wife's iversonalty, ? 165. 
 in wife's realty, 149, 158, 162. 
 in Imsbund's realty, 262. 
 in honiestjz-ad, 321. 
 Violence, of husband towards wife, 48, 62, 63. 
 Visitors, husband decides who shall be, 60. 
 Void, contracts of married women not voidable but, 366, 
 368. 
 improperly executed deeds of mai-ried wonien,402- 
 404. 
 Voluntary conveyance. See Fraudulent Conveyance. 
 
 ellect of, lO'J. 
 Wages. See Earnings. 
 Waiver, of constitutional protection, 21. 
 of homestead exemption, 321. 
 of wife's disability to testify, 56. 
 by husband of, agent to wife's earnings, 65. 
 by husljand of, wife's agent to distrain, 85. 
 Warranty, of married women, 384. 
 
 inchoate dower comes within, for title, 232. 
 Waste, by husband on wife's lauds, 147, 15S. 
 
 by doweress, 253, 264. 
 Wearing apparel, wife's, 186, 187. 
 Wedding ring, wife's right to, 187. 
 Whipping wife, by husband, 4S, 63. 
 Wife, defined, 1 ; when several which is meant, 51. 
 domicile of, 29. 
 
 relationsnip of, towards her husband, 38-134; 
 unity with husband, 3S-o6 ; conjugal rights, lia- 
 bilities, disabilities, etc., 57-81 ; agency, 82-98 ; 
 dealings, 99-134. 
 estates of, in husband's realty, 244-300 ; personalty, 
 301 ; in her own equitable separate property, 197- 
 216; statutory separate property, 217-243 f com- 
 nmnity, 316 ; homestead, 329. 
 status of, generallv, 331-;339 ; Avills, 340-354 ; con- 
 tracts, 355-393 ; deeds, 394-408 ; estoppel, 409-120 ; 
 torts, 421-425; crimes, 426, 427; suits. 428-463; 
 trade, 464-481 ; in representative capacities, 482- 
 4S7. 
 Wild lands, dower in, 253. 
 
 curtesv in, 155. 
 Will, of liusband as to dower, 268, 274; thirds, 301; 
 wife's chattels real, 145.
 
 *v^ 
 
 749 
 
 Will — Continued. 
 
 of wife, (Ji; 50 51, 340-354 ; at common law, gener- 
 ally, 3-li'. 
 exception, 342 ; of pin money, 189 ; under powers, 
 342, 352 ; in equity, 343 ; of equitable separate 
 l^roperty, 208, 344 ; under statutes, 13, 345 ; of stat- 
 utory separate estate, 240, 346 ; validity and opera- 
 tion distinguished, 347 ; ettect of, or curtesy, 161 ; 
 effect of husband's consent, 3-18 ; gift cnusa mortis, 
 350 ; revocation of, 57, 351 ; effect of marriage on 
 antenuptial, 57, 352 ; republication of, after discov- 
 erture, 353 ; conflict of laws as to, 36, 354. 
 between husband and wife, 50, 51, 344, 345, 349. 
 "With reference to," contracts, property defined, 239, 
 
 373. 
 Witnesses. See Eviden-ce. 
 
 liusliand and wife as, 56. 
 Writing, evidence contracting, lOS, 119. 
 Wrongs. 8ee Torts. 
 
 /
 
 'califo^"^ V 
 
 liih 
 
 
 
 U ^^omvol 
 
 OaLX£<^\
 
 ^ AA 000 884 540 6 
 
 1^ 
 
 \ 
 

 
 p