, 1872-12-19
A WiFE'S TITLE TO REAL ESTATE.
An Entirely New Decision Affecting
the Property Of Bank
rupt's Wife.
The Provision Made for the Woman to Be
Ascerta1ned and Made by the
Court.

The matter Of the petition for review Of Fred
ericka Brandt, up for argument before Judge
Drummond, has been decided. This is the case
in which the motion to dissolve the injunction
against the petitioner, restraining her from col.
lecting the rents OF her real estate, was ovor-
ruled by Judge Blodgett in the District Court, in
the matter Of her husbands bankruptcy, and
from which decision her counsel took an appeal
to tho United States Circuit Court by petition for
review, assigning this decision of Judge Blod-
gett as error, and asking Judge D1ummond to
reverse the Same. The question involved is i'm
portant, as the title to much OF the real estate
held by married women in this city stands IN the
same way as in this case, viz: conveyed by the
husband to third party, and By the third party
to the wife, tho husband being entirely solvent.
Judge Blodgett held that the creditors OF the
husband we're entitled to the rents and profits OF
this real estate. hIr. Boute1le, Assistant Dis
trict Attorney, representing the creditors, took
the ground, before Judge Dtummond,
i. That, under the Married Womcn's act of
this State, Of 1861, the wife could not hold this
property as her separate property, because
property acquired from the husband is specially
excepted from the provisions Of that act and
3. That, at common law, the husband ia en-
titled to the rents and profits Of the wife's real
estate, during connection, unless the property
has been specially limited to her separate use.
Mr: John Y. Ella, Of Ella d Parker, REPRESENT
ing the petition, took the ground
]. That the wife is entitled to these rents
under the statute Of 1861, not having acquired
the property from her husband within the mean
ing OF the exception in that act, the policy Of
the Courts being liberal construction OF these
provisions for support Of wife and family.
2. She is entitled to these rents at the
common law, and without reference to the Stat
ute. The rule that the property must be limited
2 the wife's separate use not applying where
i is q gift from the husband to the wife.
!. Even If the Court should hold that
this g not the separate property Of the wife,
wher, creditors are asking the Court to subject
the in> .me Of the Wife's property to the hus-
bands abts the Court should order a reference
to asceIt> IN whether any provision has been
made for the maintenance OF the wife and
family, and, il not, then the Court should make
such provision out OF this income, On the prin-
ciple that where party is seeking equity he
ahall first do equity.
Many authorities wore cited On both sides,
and the argument occupied the entire day.
Yesterday morning an elaborate decision WAS
sustained the two points made by the counsel
for the creditors holding that on construc-
ton Of the statute and the rules OF the COM
mon law together, the wife could not hold the
income Of this property as her separate prop
orty; but sustained the last point made by
counsel for the petitioner, and directed refer
enco after adjudication in bankruptcy, to ascer-
tain the value Of the income, that tho Court
might make q suitable provision for the wife and
family; and directed . modification Of the in
junction.
This question is an entirely new one, and the
discussion will have the effect to considerably
unsettle titles to this class Of property.