, 1870-05-06

E.HhstbiE-sbg aeaH .m- Kilt, OF uoon
pecuni11y consideration moTins from herself
Il simply shoHa- a-thst it WIS coarc:eti to her
but upon what consideration or induceuen
distinction referred to has been recognized IL
the books. In C1sncyH treatise On the right.
ot husband and wife, il Is said that altLougI
The decided csses furnish no instance Of ID.
acquisition OF sepataiA estates except bT EFT
@ oet1ess, still The principle involved would
a1aoaess equally apply to every form 6J
W rsscn nl susn limitation can be made; thst il,
.osse.5 torsn OF method OF limitation to the
qDGFslaIe use OF the js7nme.-Clancy on tbs
Mgn's OF Husband and Wife, Isl, Sd London
lna decided csscs disclose limitations of
b5Gpt pst,3css ~ - a1o ;easatc $50 Of the femme.
il N Euch Instances that tLo irtt;o,, ss,, H.,
occurs, and not, it Is apprehen,ls3 ha..,,-.,
Bueh limitations IRE Necessarily ;ncn,aast;aI. tis, :.
with = deed Of purchase No sufficient a. ~.
Z Rerse1yed loE DENYING % : fe,.ne sois tho
feet liberty to do for her. Il she rakes psa- po-
Tision for sepaate and independent estato
. fzee rom the Interference Of poss;hIo futu-,,
husband, and such husband mikes no ot;.s
tion. who else has any right to complain
Formerly IS nas supposed that tho intarvaa-
ton ofI1ustees Was necessary II the creation
of \ separate estate in the wife. but tLat mo-
ton has low become obsolete. Then , .Iis-
JUNCTION Was souBhe 10 b. drawn between gifts
and hequests to m2r1ied and un,unrrin,l
women Is regards the creation of = serarat.,
estate, but that distinction .,l2s been zenutIi-
ated BY the courts It does not appear that
any distinction had ever before been attempted
to be drawn between The different methoJz Of
creating the separate estate, whether by b,-
quest. deed OF gift or deed OF purchase.
In the csse under consideration there VA,
not only the c1eatpH c3 separate estate, 80
far as ths employment Of ape md technical
terms IN the deed IL concerned, but it appears
te1upted use and enjoyment Of the separate
estate e thus sought 70 ba created, ever sinc.
the execution OF the deed, no objection cu the
PaSs OF the s3ter-taksn husband Appearing.
hle ae9nescence and appEosA rather should
DO in-et1ed turn the facts alleged
M II :. Haa dec1ded III CouShlin vs. Hyan, - No.,
g, that There the wife 6eld 1easehold Al tho
ni1e o. her marriage, and her husband per-
mitted her to hold and enioy the properly.
and to collect and apply the rents and pro,its
to her own usey she paying the taxes, tho 40
cumuIation Of such rents and prohts, upon
estate in~opposi6on to tic marital
rights Of the husband So, it was Gscidea in
Vermont, that where personal property VIII
held and treated by the husband and wife ID
The separate estate Of the latter, her
separate rights therein would be recog-
alzgo - "eA ~ -" AZ IL s4Wty Auu sua&
.1ch property is the proper subject of
1ouotio e0usa morris to her husband, in trust.
for third parties caldwell '. Heafraw, &c
" 4I3 and SEQ Tyler on Infancy and Cover
ture. 49, Bauer y Bauer 40 Mo-, s., is in1p-
olcable 10 the facta and law OF this case.
There tha wife simply hold the premises in fec,
F1tEout any attempt being. msde to create in
hsz separate estater which should exclude
he marital rights OF her husband But sep
sIate estate is that which does exclude such
rights It is 3u estate which belongs to tho
wife aIone. and over which her huaband has,
IN equity, no right or control
We deduca from tha authorities the follow
ing conc1uAons:'' =.
l. That femme so1s may acquire by pur-
:hase, as we'll as by gift. separate est3te,
nd that, too, through ! deed directly 70 her
Ell, without The inter- reuiion Of trustees, aud
hat snch separate estate will be protected, in
guilty, against tho marital rights OF an after
aken husband, who shA1l acquiesce IN the
xtangsmert,. and allow his wife to rnan-
ge end control the property II hsz oui,, not
Outstanding the marriage.
2 Tint equity viii also subject Buch estate
Q tha Payment Of her debts and obligations
Then sho joins IN the execution Of d note, il
III be inferred that abe intended thereby to
harEe her separate property, without further
roof, In the first instance, OF such intention.
tqmty protects the separate interests Of I i.
1a1ied WOMAN against the claims OF her hus-
ano anA al6 cTetus01a, oue not against the
1st c1sims Of the creditors Of the Married
oman herself On the other hand, as a!1eady
uggeated, it viii subject such property to the
aJment Of her Own debts, and indicate tha
iEhts OF those with whom she contracts.
The further point is made that it does not
appear that the plaintiff has e1-
austed his legal remedies against the hns-
and, who Is joint maker ot.the note which
sought to be made good ont Of bis wife'n
.parate estate Tho petitioner avers that be
- no property whatever, and that fact IL ad-
itted By the demurrer. It is not ut once per
5yed what Legal redress creditor can have
;ainst debtor who Is Destitute OF al MEANS
payment. However that may be, this Is not
case where the doctrine in regard to
o exhaustion Of legal remeliea ap-
les. This Is an equitable proceeding to
bject the separate estate or Hrs. Anbs
the payment Of her note, by the execution
which abe IS presumed to havo intended i
Arge upon such separate property A.
ainst this property the plaintiff had no legal
uedy. The jurisdiction OF chancery To s1b-
t it to the, payment Of her debts Is in no
y dependent upon autecedent legal pro-
sdings Of any kind The p1aintiR never h11
r. legal remedy against Mrs~ Aubs or her
operty- His first and only remedy WAS in
anceTy.
result OF the foregoing views the iudg-
ant VIII be, reversed and the cause rem1nded-
"a other Judges concur.
WARREN CCRHIgK.