The legal status of married women before the emancipatory legislation of the past half century was not quite as degraded as has some times been represented. The statutory changes are, to a large extent, matters of form. Under the statutes passed in the United States and in England, it is true, the husband, on marriage, acquires no rights whatever in the personal property owned by the wife at the time of mar riage or acquired by her in any manner there after. It remains her separate property. But, as we have seen, even before the passage of this legislation both personal and real property could be owned separately by a married woman if she or her grantors and devisors took the precaution of converting it into a °use.° Under the new law a man, on marriage, acquires no right in his wife's real estate during her life time; but he still has a life estate by curtesy which vests on the wife's death. Women, as before, acquire a right of dower in their hus band's real estate when they marry; in this respect, as with respect to estates by curtesy, the law has not been altered. The wife, by her marriage, now acquires as little as she did un der the old law with regard to the husband's personal property. If the husband dies intes tate she gets one-third or one-half, or whatever share thereof the statutes of the State of her domicile may award her; if he chooses to make a will in favor of anybody else, even his *affinity,° the widow has no remedy at law nor in equity. There is little comfort in the reflec tion that she fares neither better nor worse than her sisters of a by-gone age. The hus band's right to administer a deceased wife's personal property and convert it to his own use may be defeated by a will. Moreover, there are statutes of distribution fixing the rights of the next of kin of an intestate wife. The American statutes uniformly permit married women to hold separate property and conduct business as °if they were unmarried.° This, undoubtedly, marks a great advance over former conditions. Neither the common law nor equity recognized the right of a wife to her separate earnings. The husband was en titled to the wife's personal services and to the fruits thereof, and in theory this is still the case. It is so also in fact, except with re spect to a wife's earnings in a business or profession separately conducted or practised by her, or where it is clearly intended that the earnings of the wife are on, and for, her own account. The right of a husband to recover damages for injuries suffered by his wife is based on the real or assumed loss of her serv ices as the result of the injuries. Formerly she was incapable in law from prosecuting an action for tort. This disability has been re moved, though in some jurisdictions the action must be brought jointly with the husband as her °next friend.° In other localities husband and wife may each sue independently and re cover damages for the same injury. The right now accorded to married women to conduct business in their own names and keep the earn ings thereof is most valuable, pecuniarily as well as morally; it gives them a degree of inde pendence far beyond that attainable in the mar riage-settlement stage of civilization. The sepa
rate property held by married women in form of equitable luses,° after all, was merely a de vice for the idle rich. The New York Court of Appeals years ago regretted that the statutes, which granted married women the right hold separate property and conduct business as if unmarried,° was not associated by the legis lature with °the correlative rule that they have also capacity to contract debts as if unmarried.° A married woman is still exempt from prosecu tion for any debt, unless it be contracted with respect to or for the benefit of her separate property, or in the conduct of her separate busi ness. She would not be responsible for neces-• saries consumed in her household, though her earnings in business amount to 10 times those of her husband and her house were being con ducted on a scale of living commensurate with her income rather than his. If she were dis honest enough to do so, she could repudiate her liability without fear of the law; the hus band being still solely responsible for the sup ply of °necessaries.° In the New York case above referred to a woman, known to have means, contracted in her own name for a large bill of goods, which she received and delivered to her husband to be used by the latter in his business. An action against her was dismissed, because the debt was not contracted by the wife in a business separately conducted by her, and her separate estate was not shown to have benefited by the transaction. This defect of the law has been remedied in many places. The English Married Woman's Property Act of 1870 laid down the more equitable rule, that the wife's separate estate is answerable for all debts contracted by her except as her husband's agent. To sum up the law, neither husband nor wife have any rights in the personal property of either that cannot be defeated at the caprice of the other; their interest in each other's real property is, an estate by curtesy to the hus band if he survive, and a right of dower to the wife if she survive. Beyond this the wife has the right to be supported, which may be enforced either by the decree of an equity court for her separate maintenance, by actions in debt against the husband for necessaries, or by a quarter sessions court in a criminal pro ceeding for desertion. There remains to be mentioned the widow's right to her °parapher nalia?' This consists of clothing, bedding, fur niture, jewelry and trinkets suitable to her con dition; and this property .forms a part of the husband's estate only in so far as it is charge able for the payment of his debts if there is insufficient other property to pay the same. As against next of kin the paraphernalia belongs to the widowed wife.