The daily gazette., 1881-02-16

1t is a very important paper, and very
valuable to the public, as it decides
the right of married women in real
property. 1t is as follows:
Laura Evans, I In the Court of Err
rors and Appeals
vs. of Delaware.
Jan. Tenn, 1881.
VIM. W. Lobdell. Case stated.
WALES, 1.-THE plaintiff is the
devisee IN fee simple of an undivided
interest in a house and lot in the city
of Wilmington. At the time the de-
wise took effect she was the wife of
Edwin b. Evans aud had by him issue
born alive and capable of inehriting
her estate. BY deed, dated March /,
1873. the said Evans and wife convey
ed &Vthtir interest in said land TO
William w. Lobdell 10, upon the
delivery of the deed, refr~oI to nav
the purchase money, clam !, that a
judgment, heretofore rendered INST
The said Evans in the Superior c irt
for New Castle county, was a lica
against the inchoate right of the eour
tesy of the husband.
The question reserved for decision
is, has ths husband any estate or in
terest in his wife's land which is bound
by the judgment
The contention of the plaintiff is:
Q.) That TIE several Acls OF As
sembly for the benefit OF married wo-
men were enacted for the purpose of
exempting her property from liability
Tor the debts or contracts of her hus g.
band.
80 That being remedial statutes
hey should be so construed as 10 ad-
vance the remedy and effect the pur-
pose OF the law; and
(3.) That the statutes abolish the
husbands freehold interest in his
wife's real estate, jure uroris, also the
tenancy by the courtesy initiate, and
leave only possibility contingent on
the husband surviving his wife, which
possibility is not subject to execu-
tlon.
Before the passage of these several
acts for the benefit and protection Of
married women. and which taken to-
ether may be considered as one stat
ute, the real estate of the wife was
subject to the control OF her husband
and liable for his debts, according to
the common law then in force in this
State. IT, upon her marriage, or at
any time during coveture, she was
seized of an estate of Inheritance in
land, her husband became seized OF
the freehold, lure ugOris, and he took
the rents and profits during their joint
lives. This was an estate in him for
the life of the wife only, unless he was
also tenant by the courtesy. 1t was
an estate in him for his own life if he
died before his wife, and in that event
she took the estate again in her own
right. If the wife died before the
husband without having had issue,
her heirs Immediately succeeded to
the estate. If there had been a child
of the marriage born alive, the hus-
band took the estate absolutely for
liie as tenant by the courtesy, aud on
his death the estate went to the wife
or her heirs. The husband, therefore,
might become successively possessed
of three several interests in his wife's
lands.
1st. A freehold interest by right
of the wife; I'd. tenancy by the courte.
sy initiate OH the birth of a child and
3D.. tenancy by the courtesy consummats
he survived the wife, having had l.sue.
2. Kent Com. 1870 ; 2. Bl. Com. 12S.
The rights OF the hu.band could be as
signed by Kim to a purchaser, were liza
bic for his debts, aud could be seized
and sold on execution by his creditors,
and were therefore subject to the lien OF
auy judgment that might be recovered
against him. Has the statute for the
benefit OF married women abolished this
lienp We answer this question in the
affirmative. The first section of he act
of 1878, as amended by the act of 1878,
provides "That the real and personal
property of any married woman, which
has been heretofore acquired, is now
held, or which she may hereafter acquire
in any manner whatsoever, from any
person other than her husband, shall be
her sole aud separate property, and the
rents, issues aud profits thereof shall
not be subiect to the disposal of her
husband, nor liable for his debts" The
fourth section gives to the wife the right
10 dispose OF her property both real and
personal by will "but such dispos-
al shall not effect the rights of the hus-
band as tenant by the courtesy and IL
she die inteslate, her property both real
and personal shall descend to her heirs as
now provided by law" (Amend. .Sts.
479, 10 Del. Laos, 2S9.) The intent of
the statute is clearly expressed and is
too plain to be misunderstood. Ii was
to release the wife's property from the
control OF her husband during her life,
aud to exempt it from all LIABILITY foIIhis
debts. This intent would fail if a judg-
ment against the husband was held to be
lien on his possible interest in his
wite's land, so as to prevent Its aliena-
ton by them no matter what advantages
might be derived from sale.
Under the operation of the statute.
the rents and profits of her land are no
longer subject to her husbands dis
posal, as formerly, nor liable for his
debts. 1t was designed to abolish both
his freehold, jure u50ris, and the ten
ancy by the courtesy initiate, leaving
him only the tenancy by the courtesy
consummate in the event of his sur
viying his wife, and having had issue
by her during the marriage. This con-
tingent right may now, by force of the
statute, be extinguished by the Joint
conveyance of the husband and wife
to a purchaser, as in the present case,
and the grantee would take atitle free
of all liens and incumbrances against
the husband. He no longer has any
interest or estate in his wife's lands
.l..:.... I,.,I.co sla I, ol1S tho, ... . ~