When a wife came into the hand of her husband she was properly called Mater familiae: when she did not come into the hand of her husband, she was simply Uxor (Cicero, Topica, 3). The conven tio in manum,' or coming into the hand of the husband, made the wife a part of the husband's family, and her personality, like that of the husband's children, was merged in that of her husband. It fol lowed that if she had property, it became her husband's property. As the wife in manu was in the place of a daughter to her husband and a sister to her children, she inherited, in case of the husband's in testacy, like one of her children. (Gains, :di. 14.) If there was no conventio in manum, the wife still belonged to her former family, and the husband had no power over her property, except that which he received as Dos, the nature of which will presently be explained. In the late Republic and under the Empire, it appears that the conventio in manum became lees common, and the husband and wife (uxor) were two different per sons in all matters that related to their property. The wife (uxor) was, in fact, nothing more than a person of a different sex, who bore children which were in the power of the husband. The wife was independent of her husband, who had no right over her, except the exclusive en joyment of her person, and the wife could divorce the husband, just as the husband could divorce the wife. When there was conventio in manum, it is impossible that the wife could have divorced her husband by her own act. [DivoncE.] As the wife who was not in mann did not belong to her husband's family, she could neither succeed to the property of her children, nor could they succeed to her property, according to the old Civil Law. If the wife was in manu, she and her children could inherit the pro perty of one another, by virtue of the consanguinity between them, like other Agnati. The Praetor so far modified the law in the case of children of a mother who was not in manu, as to allow the mother and children to succeed to one another as Cognati. The Senatusconsultam Tertullianum passed in the time of Ha drian, allowed the mother (uxor) to suc ceed to the property of her children who left no sui heredes (sons or daughters, or their descendants, in the power of the deceased) or agnati in the first degree, such as father, or brothers or sisters. The Senatnsconsultum Orphitianum, in the time of Marcus Aurelius, gave the children the succession to the mother's property in preference to her agnati.
There could be no dos (marriage por tion), unless there was a legal mar riage. The term dos comprehended both what the wife brought to the hus band on her own account, and what was given or contracted to be given by and other person, in consideration and for the purposes of the marriage. (Dig. xxiii. tit. 3, s. 76.) When the dos came from the wife's father, it was called profecticia, but when from any other person, adven ticia. It was a general rule that the dos advesiticia remained with the husband, unless there was some agreement to the contrary, in which case it was called dos recepticia. What came into the hus
band's possession, not as dos, was included in the term Parapherna (erapdcpepva), or Paraphernalia, and did not become the property of the husband. All kinds of property could be the subject of dos. If they were things that could be estimated by number, weight, and measure (res fungibiles), the husband took them, sub jest to the liability, in case of a dissolu tion of the marriage, of restoring things the same in number, weight, and measure. Things given as dos might be valued or not valued : in ease they were valued, the complete ownership of them passed to the husband, inasmuch as the valua tion was in the nature of a sale, and the husband could dispose of the things as he pleased, subject only to the liability of restoring their value, in case of a disso lution of the marriage. If the things were not valued, and any loss ensued, without the fault or culpable neglect of the husband, the loss fell on the wife. In the case of things which were not fungibiles or not valued, the ownership during the marriage might be considered as in the husband, and as returning to the wife on the dissolution of the marriage. In such a case the husband could manage the wife's property as his own; he en joyed the profits of it during the mar riage, and could sell it. With some ex• ceptions however he could not sell or dispose of the wife's immovable property which was included in the dos (dotale praedium). (Gaius, ii. 63 ; Instit. tit. 8.) The portion became the hus band's on the solemnization of the mar riage, and he had the profits of it during the marriage. In the case of divorce the portion, or a part of it, according to cir cumstances, was restored. In case the wife died during the subsistence of a marriage, part returned to her father, and part remained to the children of the marriage, if any ; but it might, by the terms of the marriage contract, become the husband's, even if there were no children of the marriage. As to the portion of the wife, whatever might have been originally the rights of the husband over it by virtue of the marriage, it was iu later times the subject of the express stipulations of the marriage settlement. The questions of law which arose on the subject of the dos were numerous and sometimes difficult.
& gift from husband to wife, or from wife to husband, was void (with some few exceptions). The transaction was the same as if nothing had been done. The Donatio mortis causa, or divortii caned, in contemplation of death, or in consideration of divorce, was a valid gift.
In enumerating the modes by which a man may acquire property per universi totem, Galas mentions the case in which a woman comes in manum viri, and he observes that all things pass to the hus band.
(Dig. 23, tit. 3, De Jure Dotium ; tit. 5, De Fundo dotali;' Ulpian, Fray. vi., De Dotibus ;' Gains, i. 108, &c.; Thi baut, System des An outline of the Roman law of Marriage mid its consequences is given in La boulaye's Recherches sur la Condition Civile et Politigue des Femmes, Paris, 1843.)