Arizona citizen., 1876-03-18

uu NtAhs dhu CNci uoNAS7' AO' 'Ai ''''-
 the observance of which Is required III
 the transaction of affairs, Is b limIta-
 tion upon the freedom exercIsed m the
 performance of the act, and that the
 requirement. ill this section of this ac-
 knowledgment does not leave the wife
 to convey as fully and perfectly ss II
 she We're unmarried, seems to Us very
 clear. In fact the wife cannot COIL
 vey perfectly, where such acknowI- edgment IS required; without the cer-
 titicate of the officer she cannot convey at all. No sale or other alienation ot any part of such property cal be made, &c., without this writing and acknowl- edgment, Is the language of the Act of 1865. That of 1871 Is, that she may convey as fully and perfectly, as If unmarried. To illustrate: Jane, a married woman, and Sarah, unmar- ried, each own & lot ill Tucson they
 both sell to a purchaser, who waits upon them while they write the deeds; each writes the deed for the lot she intends to convey; each signs and seals her deed, and in the same man ner and each delivers her deed to the purchaser and demands the contract price for the property. The purchaser hands the price Ofthe property to Ssr- sh, but says to Jane, ''thIs Is nol your deed, nor, can it become so until you go before 8 notary or other officer, get him to inform you of the contents of the deed you have just written, make an acknowledgment, on an examination separate and apart from your husband, Sc., and then if the certificate of the officer IS in proper form, your convey snce will De complete and you will Oe entitled to the purchase money" Each has executed and delivered her deed, in the same manner, and the Act of 1871, provides that the married wO- man may, by herself, without being joined by her husband, convey as fully and perfectly as if unmarried. And yet while the deed from Sarah has passed the title to the purchaser, that from Jane Is wholly without eff ct, un- til she and an officer have done some thing, not necessary to be done, to give effect to Sarah's deed.
 Again, the bad uses to which the cum bersome machinery of this require ment Is put could hardly be more ap- parent than i'll the case before us, where the husband seeks to defeat the wife's deed,-a deed which 1t IS very clear he would never have moved her to make, and one made wholly against his wishes,-by setting up that she has not by any acknowledgment, made upon an examination separate and apart from himself, shown that he. himself has not coerced or over-per- suaded her to execute 1t.
 We conclude this branch of the case by adhering to the ruling made in Miller vs Fisher, believing the Act of 1871 Is and was intended by the Legislature, to be a complete en of the wife, in the con- trol or conveyance of her separate from every badge of infrm- ity or serfdom, and relieving her from all humiliating conditions in regard net imposed upon other per sons. This acknowledgment, then, and apart, Sc., not being re- quired in the conveyance of the sepa-' rate property of the wife, 1t follows that no acknowledgment of the deed was necessary, to entitle 1t to be re. ceived in evidence in this case, (the defendant not being a purchaser if it sufficiently appeared that the prop erty intended to be conveyed was the property of Anna c. Wolf fenden.
 What constitutes, then, the sepa rate property of the wife, under the Act of 1871, taken in connection with the Act of 1865! The Act of 1865 already quoted, so far as it affects this question, provides that "all property, real and personal, of the wife, owned by her before marriage, and that ac- quired afterwards, by gift, bequest, devise or descent, shall be her separate The same Act provides, that the husband shall have the man. agement of the wife's separate prop erty, and that the rents and profits of the separate estate of either husband or wife, shall be common property, and that the husband shall have the entire management and control of the common property, with absolute pow CT to dispose of the same, as of his own separate estate. The Act of 1871 gives the sole and exclusive control of her separate estate to her, if she bo of the age of 2l years, with the right of dispOsing of the same, free from any influence of and without the consent of her husband. This sole and exclusive right of control, by the wife, of her separate property, is wholly inconsistent with the rights of her husband to the rents and pro fits. Of what value to the wife,
 would l3 the right to control and convey, if upon the lease or convey ance, the rent on the one hand and
 the purchase money upon the other,
 became at once community funds, un
 der the absolute control of the hus-
 band:
 By the fourteenth section of article
 II, of the constitution of California, it Is provided that "all property, both
 real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by her before marriage,
 and that acquired afterwards by gift,
 devise or descent, shall b, her sepa
 rate property" By an Act of tn,
 Legislature of that State. regulating
 the relation cf husband and wife, ii
 was enacted that "the husband shall
 have the entire management and con-
 trOl of the common property. with
 like absolute power of disposition ss
 | T tra