The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-02-20

the marriage contract and depends
upon the law for the time being
which may be altered from time to
time. subject only to vested rights.
See authorities supra and Sleight V.
Read. Is Barb. 164; Pritchard '.
Bank, IS Am. Dec. LAY 1872; Rugh
Y. Ottenheimer. 6 Or. 30.
In brief, assuming for the purposes
of this case, that the Queen Consort
had only the same rights as other
married women, the King had
vested right in the land in question
for their Joint lives; she could not by
executing lease diyest him of his
right. and the legislature could not,
and did not attempt to give her
power to do so; but she had a vested
reversion in the land to take effect IN
possession upon his death; he had no
vested right in this reyersion; she
had by Section of the Act of 1883
power to dispose of this reversion by
lease, besides power by Section 2 to
make contracts. oral or written, seal
ed or upsealed, as if sole, with GER
tain exceptions which do not apply
TO this case: her power thus to dis
pose of her property and to contract
was constituuonslly given to her by
the Legislature without interfering
with his vested rights. Her lease
was therefore valid. As between the
lessor and lessees. it was good as
contract from the time OF its execu-
ton and delivery. aud, the King
having died, the lessees became en-
titled to the possession of the dennis
ed premises st the time when the
term was by the provisions of the
lease to commence. If the King had
continued to live, the lease would
have been subject to his rights, as
between him and the lessees. The
question is not whether the lease was
void or voidsble, but whether 1t wss
void or valid. and We are of the opln-
ion that twas valid, so far as the
lessons power TO execute it is con
cerned
In Parry '. Kelley. 81 Cal. 334,
Mrs. Kelley. while covert, executed a
mortgage of community property
By statute, the community property
was not liable for her contracts made
after marriage unless secured by
pledge or mortgage thereof e1ecut-
ed by the husband, but she had
power TO enter into any engagement
as If unmarried. Her husband after
wards died and she inherited share
of the mortgsged property. The
Court held that while she had at the
date of the mortgage no title on
which she could create a lien, yet
that since she had power to make
8 mortgage as If unmarried
the mortgage was good as g
contract and that her interest after
wards acquired by descent Injured to
the benefit of the mortgage. So in
the case at bar, if the lessor had had
no title at the date of the lease, the
lease would nevertheless be good as
q contract and if she had afterwards
acquired title, the lessees would be
entitled to possession. But this is
not case of after acquired proper
ty;" for the lessor already had, at the
date of the lease, the title to the re
version.
In Hershizer Y. Florence, 80 Oh.
St. SIC. the defendant, woman,
married and acquired certain real es
tate prior to the Act Of 1860 which
placed her property under her sole
control. and the amendment OF 1866
which enlarged heC power to contract
with reference TO her separate estate
and rendered such estate liable to
execution i'll actors against her- In
1867 she became surety upon certain
promissory notes Her husband had
acquired BY virtue Of his marriage q
vested right in the real estate prior
TO the passage Of the Act The
Court held that. subject to the hus-
bands vested right. the notes are a
chsrge upon the wIfe's estate, which
can be sold. II necessary, to pay
them" In other words. she could by
contract made after the passage OF
the Act charge her reyersion IN the
estate acquired before It's passage.
In FAIR V Sherman, II Mich. 50.
Inc AdLIAazC. anu az A---A4OA VI Tic
land by the wife. took place before
the passage of the Act of 1855.
Soon after Its passage she conveyed
the land without the knowledge or
consent OF her husband. Prior to the
passage OF the Act her sole deed was
void By the Act she was given power
of alienation IS if sole. The husband
died before the action, which was
ejectment, was brought. The Court
held that the deed was valid, saying,
whether the husband, If living with
her. or surviving her. may not have
rights adverse TO the claim OF her
vendee to possession. and superior to
that claim during the life of such
husband. is q question not involved
in this case; certainly no one but the
husband can dispute the plaintiffs
claim or title; and as the husband is
dead. the right of the plaintiff 70 the
possession is perfect"
Plaintiffs counsel argued at some
length that the Queen Consort had
v,o1or m arocrta rha lezea in 0r1est-