Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1870-02-23
woman's Status In Vermont.

In our issue two weeks since, in m article
upon the rights Of married women in Yer
mont we stated, among other things that
" any married woman who has property when
married can, and most women do, under our
laws, retain tho possession and control Of this
property and Of its income and proceeds
In communication to the Freeman OF
last week, "Ciyis says this is not true, but
that the common law rule prevails in YER
mont, by which the husband becomes entitled
whom married to the personal property Of the
wife absolutely, and her chooses in action
when reduced to possession. We were aware
that the common law rule prevailed in Ner-
mont but VIC also supposed that it had been
essentially modified, not only by statute but
also by the rules in chancory which "Ciyis -
seems to ignore. On further examination we
find -
l. That whenever property, real or per-
sonal is limited to the separate use Of the
wife by will Of her parents or others, chan
Gerry will protect it to her separate use.
? Where there is no will, and it comes
to her by inheritance before marriage, she
can, at the time Of her marriage provide that
her property shall be to her separate use, and
any such ante.nuptal contract between her
and her husband will be upheld in ohancery
and will protect her property against her hus-
band or his creditors
g. Where there is no ante-nuptial contract
STILL if she retains possession Of her property,
and it is treated as hers, chancery will treat
it as hers and protect it against the husband 5
creditors.
The foregoing rules apply to all property
real or personal which a woman may have be-
fore or at the time Of marriage.
We never supposed there we're now, or were
likely to be hereafter, any law which would
prevent woman surrendering her property
to her husband Marriage begets confidence,
and We know Of no way to prevent it, except
to forbid the marriage relation. And many
women doubtless do surrender their property
and some lose it, Many, on the contrary,
take the precautions herein before indicated
and thus their property is protected. Where
they do not, the fault is not in the law.
Besides the foregoing Chancery rule, the
common law rule is changed by statute, and
to save misconception we quote as follows
All personal property and right of personal
action acquired by any married woman duriRl
Overture by inheritance or distribution, shall b,
held TO her sole and separate use"
| I. 1.-THE rents issues and products Of the rea
estate Of any married woman, and all money
and obligations, arising from the sale Of such rea
estlte, and the interest of her husband IN he1
right in any real estate which belonged to her be
fore marriage, or which she may have acquired
by gift grant OF devise or Inheritance during GOV
ertiire, shall. during coverture, be exempt from
attachment or levy OF execution for the sole debts
of her husband, and no conveyance made during
overture by such husband Of such rents, issues
and profit or Of any interest in such real estate
sha II be valid, unless the same be by deed, exc
cuted by the wife jointly with the husband, and
acknowledged by her in the manner now PROVIDE
by law in case Of the conveyance by husband anC
wife Of the real estate ofthe wife provided how
ever such annual products may be attached Of
levied upon for any debt or liability Of the hus
band created for the necessares for the wife ant
family of such husband, all for debts for labor O
ina erials furnished upon or for the cultivation o.
Improvement of such real estate subsequent t
the goth Nov. 1861
g. " Whenever any married woman shall b,
abandoned by her husband, such married woman
shall be entitled to her own earnings, and al
the proceeds thereof, and the same shall be unde
her sole control, and the wife may maintains GOV
erture therefor in her own name, the same as
unmarried.
"Civis says the husband may spend tn,
income of her real estate for rum. May no
she spend his hard earnings for silks and gcv
gaws? Extreme cases prove nothing.
"Ciyis" thinks Lucy Stone is not expected
to know the laws of our State. We think sh,
is expected to know them when she under
takes to teach them to our people from tn,
fplatform, and we hold ourselves responsible
to the same rule.
The numerous other statements in our ar
tce in regard to the rights of married womeI
do not seem to be denied, although they may
not be stated with the accuracy of lawyer
On the whole, we are impressed with the ide;
that womans legal status in Vermont is by ne
means designed to be unjust to her. Tho
whole tendency of modern legislation, as well
as the rules of the courts, has been in their
favor