Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-10-10
From the Cincinnati Gazette.
THE RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN.

Merton as. Clark, ct ais, Superior CouH Of Gin
cinnati--iSpecjaI Tegm-detoye &orey, Judge.
The plaintiff files his petition, averring that he
has recovered judgment against the defendant
Clark for SSO3 in the Court of Common Pleas oil
Hamilton Co., that execution has issued thereon
and no property real or personal can be found tC
satisfy it. He further charges that Gregory, one
of the defendants is indebted to Clark. or holds
in trust for him large sum of money that ought
to be subjected to the payment of the plaintiffs
Judgment.
The defendants severally answer denying the
allegations of the petition and testimony has
been offered to establish them.
1t appears that Clark several years prior to the
recovery of the Judgment against him, was mar.
red to the widow of john Taylor, who then held
in her own right, valuable real estate that du-
ring her coyerture she joined her husband Clark
in mortGaging her estate, the money raised upon
which, by her consent Was invested in other prop
erty for her benefit, in the transfer Of which the
agency of Gregory appears also to have been EN-
ployed for the benefit of Mrs. Clark. The money
loaned upon the mortgage, was received By the
husband, who acted throughout the transaction as
The agent of his wife,
1t is claimed by the plaintiff that the possession
Of the money derived from Inc loan, having been
in the defendant Clark, it became thereby lis own
property: that being thus reduced into possession
by him, the right of the wife was co inStani d.
vested and the funds became subject to the pay
ment of .he husbands debts
At common law, there can be no doubt that the
separate property of the wife, ct the time of her
marriage, if afterwards reduced to the husband 6
possession vests in him. and viii pass to his heirs.
and the rule applicable TO personal chgttols Gp-
plies to the proceeds Of the wles real estate, il
they come to the husbands hands without fraud
or coercion on his part. The fact that the hus-
band controls the fund, is the best evidence Of his
right to claim it it is presumed he then holds it
with the appreciation Of his wife, who is regarded
a m har rot u1I9 anl
may dispose of it as she pleases,
But the rule referred to is greatly modified, if
not entirely changed in Ohio by statute.
By the law of 1876 Swan, 7l2. it is enacted
that ''the interest Of the husband in his wiie's
real estate, whether owned by her at the time Of
marriage, or subsequently acquired shall not be
taken by any process at law, or in Chancery, for
the payment of his debts, during the life of the
wife, or the life or lives of the heirs of her body
1t is also provided ''that the husband shall not
alien his interest in his wfes real estate during
her life, or that of the heirs of her body and all
such alterations, if made are declared void"
1t is further provided that the Husbands inter
ests in the personal estate of the wifo, of every
kind, shall not be liable for his debts unless he
shall have first reduced the same to his possession
SO as by the rules Of law, to have become the own
er thereof in his marital right"
The Legislature have thus very clearly indica-
ted that it their intention to save the estates
of married women, not only from being subjected
to pay the debts Of their husbands but to pre-.
vent altogether the disposition thereof by the
husband, to the extent, even, of his own life es-
tate. Their object, undoubtedly, was to keep the
wife's property where the husband found it ; and
though by his wfes permission he may enjoy
the possession of her estate and take the profits
he is her trustee, nevertheless, and in a proper
case she may compel an account and secure the
fund, if his management has put it in jeopardy
or impaired its value.
We suppose that the mere possession of the
fund by the husband, however it might formerly
have conferred title to the property. cannot under
the laws We have referred to, create right on
his part to control the fund for his own purposes
much less to subject it to his debts. There must
be in every case the assent Of the wife to the dis
position Of her property by the husband; and
this may be either express or implied.
If she voluntarily bestows it, she may impart
as well to him as to a stranger, what was only
hers to grant. If she permits him to use her per-
sonal property with the knowledge of the purpo-
ses to which it is applied, and third parties are
defrsuded, or their interests injuriously affect
ed, che will be stopped from setting up her claim
Smiley ct rex VS.. Wright, . Ohio 500. 5lU.-
Evans vs. Bickuel 6 Yes. l74, Jones ys. kear-
nep, l Dru. & Warren l67, in which Lord Ch,
Sugdeu states the principle fully.
The wife then must be regarded as holding the
exclusive right over her separate property BY
the 2Sth section of the "Code," for all practical
purposes, in the protection of her estate, she Is