HUSBAND AND WIFE, A man and wom an married to each other. Th, modes of con tracting marriage, with the iteemnpanying cere monies, and the impediments to marriage will lie more properly described under the head of NI.valuve.r: (q.v.), and the mode of dissolving the marriage has been already described under DIVORCE (TV.) elect of marriage upon the rights of the parties and upon their property will here be described.
The effect of marriage at common law may he Viewed under two heads: first. ns regards the persons and the personal of the married persons, rind. secondly. Its regards their property. (1) As TO TIIE PER,0N. DV marriage nt common law the husband became legally bound to sup port the wife inn consistent with his re sourees and social position. lie also became bound to pay all debts contracted by her before the marriage. and when sued with the wife be came responsible for her torts vommitted either before or (hiring the (-overture. In all other re spects he remained in precisely the same position as before marriage. Independently of his wife lie could sue and be stied, enter into contracts, and bind himself as fully after as before mar riage. and he could even make a will and be queath all his property to strangers regardless of the wife. As regards the person and personal rights of the wife. however. there was a material difference. Iler person is said to he merged in that of her husband. and for many purposes they were treated :Is one person in the eye of the law. The wife could neither sue nor be sued indelien dently of the husband. Iler contracts were void even m lien mache with her hil.lbatkl. Even t he per sonal property she had before marriage became her luisband's absolutely, and he could dispose of it :it will. She had no puller to make a will of real estate and her will disposing of personal property owned by In•r belore her marriage could be effective only authorized or consented by the husband at her death. As the husband, was lioun(I to support the wife, she had authority in law without his consent to pledge his credit for neve—arks supplied by third per sons. This obligation, being imposed by law. v, as not properly a contract. but a quasi contraet (q.v.). Necessaries are any article-. of personal Ilse, as food or wearing apparel. which are suited to the rank and position in life of the husband. and with which the wife is not provided. There fore, if goods we re ordered by the wife which mere not necessary, the husband was under no 1gal liability to pay for them unless lie ex pressly or impliedly ratitied his wife's act in purchasing them. Thus he could not keep the goods and refuse payment. If. for example. he saw his wife wearing an expensive dress which he knew he did not himself order or pay for, and did not at once repUdiate the purchase and return the goods. he woulil be held to have Coll 'Wilt'sd and approved of the purchase. Though the husband is bound to maintain his wife, there mere, curiously enough, only circuitous means of enforcing this duty. The wife. for example. could not sue the husband herself. but having an im plied authority to order necessaries, the trades mint] so supplying, them could sue the husband ft r the price. The wife also might impose liability on the husband by contract for articles not neces sa•ies by virtue of am implied authority a- agent of the husband to purchase such articles: thus, a husband might be liable to pay for articles such as he had remilarly permitted his wife to pur eliase on his credit before, although he knew noth ing of the particular purchase in question. See
.\(;I:x r.
The husband, being entire master of his own aeti ins. has the power to Ilis•1111' Al here to live, and the duty of the wife is to live with him in the same house. So long, then. as the husband and wife continue to live together. the domicile of the wife is determined by the domicile if the hus band. If she ceases to line pith her husband sli, may then mouire an independent domicile. If the wife lives apart from the husband without just cause he is not bound to support her even with necessaries. If, however. she separates from him for just cause, the liability of the husband for necessaries eontinues. There are, at common law, several just causes for her living apart from her husband. If the husband, for example. treats her with what is deemed cruelty in the eye of the law. as keeping a mistress in the house, nr starv ing her, or assaulting her. she is entitled to leave him. and can order necessaries at his expense from any tradesman willing to supply her. There are, however, many degrees of cruelty and ill usage for which the wife Inns practically no remedy, and of mhich the lam• can take no cognizance. The tatement frequently found in the early treatises that the husband has at common law the right to reasonably chastise the wife was probably without authority, and certainly has no support in modern law. The husband can enforce the wife's antenuptial contracts. and can recover for torts committed toward her either before or after the marriage by joining her with himself aaplain tiff in an action. For torts resulting in loss of her services to him or requiring him to provide medi cal attendance or other necessaries he can recover in his own name and right. He may also recover damages from a third person for unlawful inter course with his wife, and either husband or wife might recover damages from a third person for alienating the affections of the other. As regards crimes committed by a wife, she is in general lia ble to be punished for them in the same way as if she were unmarried. But there is a peculiarity as regards crimes committed by the husband and wife jointly in the husband's presence. If the crime be treason or murder, both are punished precisely as if they were unmarried. But in all the lesser crimes the theory, as well as the prac tice, is that if the wife was a party to the crime, and committed it in her husband's presence. she is presumed by the law to have so acted under the compulsion or coercion of her husband. and is acquitted as a matter of course. The presump tion, however. is a presumption of fact only. and may be rebutted by showing that in fact the wife was not coerced by the husband: but in the ab sence of any direct evidence one way or the other on the subject of coercion it is presumed that the wife acted under this marital coercion, and so she escapes punishment. Another curious anom aly arising from the common-law maxim that husband and wife are one person is that the wife cannot be convicted of stealing her husband's goods. If she absconds with his property. how ever valuable. she cannot be punished. But this rule is qualified by the circumstance that if she commits adultery. and afterwards absconds with the adulterer, both taking away the husband's goods, the adulterer may he convicted of the lar ceny. though it is doubtful if she is in that case liable to any punishment. Where the third party does not have in view any adultery with the wife, but joins her in taking away the husband's goods. neither he nor the wife can he punished criminally.