New-York daily tribune., 1859-05-17

,rd e-cr SD rLpa the-e !. NJ Eui.s,iO-
paIus Of ,he srln,se the s' dects'es hi
! b. ~ be entitled 10 ats ln.e ire.
Berr n. R,,,ed sA,Utes there could h. Ri'ior q pr
tory devise aferr brqur., Tor h tHyae FsrTlt' W
Tsu Ti<sr d. So; Wcs;co;i W Csdy john Oh SS,
ho5a- Strcus Iohu. - b., usa OF beIs' Of soo
el- rl, l, with ,b-ate P'',-r 4 d'p, made
tr E - to ths rs' tshsr ab~oge ard sI uieoI si'a
nrEurneuts SCI in Jark.ou Robbins i6 Johul
nru safe hi. ~r sr sss. and chsi,r. or the q
goods and ehsr'e for life with absolute OF dp S''in
hsm that the hssnd weld have tsseu then liz w
',gf q , rs Srsn. h ED .s a: hS;ess6 Sf ,es e's
above cited, sad Mc~hFins w. Mitchell, Barb Ch X, Hi
NJ eoob the risLts his wife. personality
and her zeal which he acquired BY marriage ard By
usFEsee anc he birth OF issue as tHi by ne eosre eers
ns. given him BY w, be could ~sive or Ies-s tien sb.o
uy either by nuptisl agreement brt the pri H.
ths, II the instrument ~eut ~ further n to rsess aud Nr
and chlttt the sole ard separate u'e ct
her ha with an .bsomr power uf disposition bis risl- o
ou O. the goods and chatte aud as srt h ne
bad m her death with ~ avus disposed them The prc
sunpoa ,1ovid ben thafhe made h agreement ~ tso
laf b. Sid not intend 70 yeepe any stis n, eEpc
q te ia.s' and ne specific T'ya and porrsT te'esr
Precisely 80 .hes Of 1919 ,ud 1872
mr. ~ that the Ia s;s passed them with the knowcdy of
the tusauo, comuouw rights snd that these rights were not
irteuded h. taken further than necessary 10 e
cure 70 MARRIED womep as INST their husbands the e sole.
separate u.c and enjoyment and absute disposition Of hr
opcy. These all the beseGeM rights OF property that
could h- coLierrsd on them, or secured to them.
Of the legal disposition OF their property their DEATH without
necessarily for the deired Of the sc,' taking rights
from the husband and conferrns them not on his wife, ed' on
What prinor Of public policy or political economy woud
wtrs usdisposc # pTsously and give y to
her Of hin after securing the wife during her life al hs
beneficial rights she had could have te~e sole IL OF
II the force and direction of ones affections while living
should like believe that majority of married women
would ask for the construction of these act. Insisted on by the
30 doubt for the Legislature to abolish
c.use prspccc the right Of srcces0n Of the husband 70
bis wfs urdi'P 'edof Peony and b right as tenant by me
of nhertauco bur think the situ ineuded take away
neither right by these acts ardins tue eor 1pnon
Mr. Justice Potter the Latter point IN Billings ag Baker ana
express opinion tii. question. yhche the rst
or estate # enan BY the has survived the acts Of 1873
shd ie49 De, ansr tre Gpon & a. 1s m % ,b ~ as syv'n@pt t
h case; AID admit after coucedpg the appellant
Ter position ca that the husband, rish TO his ws TN
disrscd r.onsy d. ar II BE- has since the acts,
is elt as husband existing ioiee in the lifetime Of the wife,
show that such rgh with the in the main,
apply qsy the question Of the husbands tight or estate %
tenant by the courtesy.
both question. questions Of utentionhow
for the intended to op,ra,e.
tse tights Of hu-band beeu taken away by the
Ia Bov'r Lease Ia 2S, the Court 4, law. ;Ee
tumed be passed with delbeston and VITA full knowedge
conclude that the Legislature in passing statute dd not intend
matter uns the cpugnsacy between the Two IS irFeooncb
IL.Lee repeal by mpieaio Is not !yosd &e' tses also
Much stress been pat words and shan continue
her spsTat- property il she were snse lem
shall 10 her sole and separate property as
female Sc, ia the hr-t and second e ions OF
The 2i3 and ths words Snd the same ail noe D.
bt m the ds of her husband h. iiGe r his ds5',
IN he fret section s49 showing theso acts 20 be
sbe with the continuance Of the rights o the husband
As 70 the words above quoted from the Act Of 49, taken liter
sly they are siupy Sb.Td AID would involve legislative
npas-bHty. 80. ,,- r.,
after marie q as she single female The Act oflS
intended married woman the sole and separate
r Ia
pbraseogy above qu ted probably intended To e hef
and probably would have given her. right 70 dispose o II
tLrrvis than her ally by Will. "a II she were
susl.; bur Act OF lG43, probably, dd not remove
uartd married by the heNlsrd us
Of pg their personally by will Nldaius ast The Ari.
can n lnsfy Socisiy Kean, Il5; nave both acts
moved the disability her property 50 that she
bind herstf personally femme se by hr c1as sd
thu 1p involuntary alienation o her property bY
Judgment Xae DdeTer, recently decided by
the Court of Apprais, not yei reported =, -.
TLs, acts therefore IN all respects removed the dsd
b,y the property Of married women Ihey
have rem ID H. or their beusn' and no further
B,r tr .tsonaity o. married dying ntesac can 60
To their the ptOu Of their estats from the S,,r
Of BE- rsyssrdwhpcan thst ts acts oi 1870
end 9lg repeal that such repeal would be- Tor their
Oftle act Of
shall f subject - the disposal OF her In sand or nDe S
d,Jts" he act intended protect the property OF the
wife aga lsban snd hs debts In her lifetime Or wat
her whether the property sold o the debts
Of her ,baud, of mex, Of kin, atcE her death
For reasons which have been stated muh az large
than Iiended before booked into the bearing on the con
ctio Of the opinion that tue decree O the
Surrogate IN this hould b. affirmed With costs