Such is the general and leading principle of the common law ; but this supposed identity of poraon, of interest, and of property by no means invokes equal rights.
The theory of the law is, that the husband has over Isis wife's personal property absolute control, and over real property a control modified partly by the general rules of descent, partly by statute, partly by the decisions of courts of equity, which always lean to the protection of the wife's property and the rnaintenane of any contract or provision made, whether by her husband or others, for her benefit, even so far as to admit a suit of the wife in the name of her next friend against the husband for injuries done by the latter to ,her property or for the recovery of rights withheld by him. To this end they interpret the Statute of Uses, as giving the wife, by the inter position of trustees, independent rights to property and control over it. Thus although she cannot take by direct grant from her husband, she may avail herself of such a grant by him to trustees for her benefit, and generally she may take by devise and by descent directly ; and by settlement, or by grant through the intervention of trustees; she may herself be a trustee, and (although that position has been controverted) she may devise her trusts. Again, the common law vests in her husband not only her personal property (excepting her paraphernalia), but her chattels, real or leasehold interests; yet if a settlement has not been made on her expressly in consideration of her fortune, those portions of her personal property which consist of securities for money or beneficial contracts, and her chattels real, survive to herself, pro vided the securities have not been realised, and the chattels real have not been aliened, during his life by her husband; to arrears of rent due on the wife's separate estate, the husband is, however, entitled by statute 32 Henry VIII. c. 37. [Cueses ix ACTION.] Nor does the settlement deprive her of this right with regard to things in action acquired subsequently to the execution of the settlement, unless it expressly reserves to the husband future as well as present personalty. If a husband requires the intervention of a court of equity for the purpose of reducing into possession his wife's property, the court will require him to make on her a settlement proportionate to the benefit which he derives. Usually one-half of the fund is settled upon the wife and children, but the court takes all the circumstances into con sideration, especially whether any settlement already exists. The
adultery of the wife deprives her of her equity (unless she has been a ward of court married without the consent of the court); but her delinquency will not induce the court to vest the whole of her pro party in her husband, because he does not maintain her. The court will eeeure the property for the benefit of the survivor and the children. On the other hand, in case of the cruelty of the husband or his desertion of his wife, the court will award to her and her children not only the whole principal, but the interest of the property in question. On the same principle, if the husband is insolvent, the court will grant to the wife out of her trust property an allowance usually equal to half the proceeds of that property. The interest which the husband takes in his wife's real estate of which she is seised in fee vests the profits in him during her life, but it gives him no power over the inheritance. By the common law a husband might alien his wife's real estate, or lease it for her life or that of the tenant, and she was left to her remedy if she survived him, or her heir at law had his remedy if the husband survived : if they neglected that remedy, the alienation by the husband was good ; but by the 32 Henry VIII., c. 23, the wife or her heir may enter and defeat the husband's act. By that statute the lease of lauds held by a man in right of his wife, or jointly with her, is good against husband and wife if executed by both; the lease may be for years or for life, but it must relate to land usually leased, it must not be by anticipation or in consideration of a fine; it must reserve a fair yearly rent to the husband and wife; and the husband is restricted from aliening or discharging the rent for a longer term than his own life. If, however, the wife receives rent after her husband's death upon any lease of her estate improperly granted by him, she con firms that lease. A wife's copyhold estates are forfeited to the lord by any such acts of her husband as are ruinous to the estate (for example, waste), as destroy the tenure (for example, an attempt to convert it into a freehold), or otherwise deprive the lord of his rights, as a posi tive refusal to pay rent or perform service. But courts of equity will relieve the tenant when the forfeiture is not wilful or can be 'com pensated.