Cases on the Law of Husband and Wife (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900 edition. Excerpt: ...least, that she may permit him to participate in the enjoyment of whatever is her own. It must, however, be admitted that, by our law, a woman may, by marriage settlement, so transfer her estate, as to divest herself irrevocably of all right of future control or disposition of it. So, also, she may limit and restrict herself, as to the precise mode of disposing of her separate property. But this is against common marital rights; it is generally unfavorable to conjugal happiness, and is inconsistent with public policy. I, therefore, incline to the rule of equity as administered by Lord Macclesfield, Lord Talbot, Lord Hardwicke, Lord Thurlow, and Sir William Grant; and as it was very ably, though unsuccessfully, vindicated by the learned and venerable Chancellor E)essaussure, in the case of Ewing v. Smith (3 Equ. Rep. S. Carolina, 447), which rule I understand to be substantially this: that a feme covert, having a separate estate, is to be regarded as a feme sole, as to her right of contracting for and disposing of it. The jus disponendi is incident to her separate property, and follows, of course, by implication. She may give it to whom she pleases, or charge it with the debts of her husband, provided no undue influence be exerted over her; and her disposition of it will be sanctioned and enforced by a court of equity, without the assent of her trustee, unless that assent be expressly made necessary by the instrument creating the trust. And the specification of any particular mode of exercising her disposing power, does not deprive her of any other mode of using that right, not expressly, or by necessary construction, negatived in the devise or deed of settlement. Powell v. Hankey (2 Peere Wms. 82), Squire v. Dean (4 Bro. 326), Smith v. Camelford (2