MARRIED WOMAN. A woman who con tracts a marriage thereby changes her legal status as to her personal rights, her contractual rights, her property rights, her rights before the eriminal law, and in some cases her political rights. So complete is this change at the com mon law that she has been spoken of as becom ing a legal nonentity. Generally speaking, she is after marria7e, at the common law, in a less favorable position in all these respects than be fore, except possibly at the criminal law, where the presumption of her husband's coercion in case of criminal acts done in his presence makes her irresponsible for such acts, except in case of the more serious crimes. Her personal property in possession and her chattels real, generally speak ing. become her husband's or can be disposed of by him; in her real property he has an estate for their joint lives, and may have an estate during his own life. (See CurrEsY.) Her rights in his property during their joint lives are prac tically Bruited to her right to the necessaries of life, and the control over his real property that arises from her dower rights which enable her as a matter of law to refuse to release her dower right. (See DowER.) In fact this right is of little avail, as the husband's position generally enables him practically to coerce her into com pliance with his wishes in this respect.
By the fact of her marriage she loses her ca pacity to enter into any contract except the re lease of dower (which can only be done jointly with the husband) and for the necessaries of life, whether living with her husband or apart from him, except as concerns her separate estate. Her capacity cannot be increased by any act or repre sentation of her own, nor can any implied prom ise be raised against her, nor any liability be imposed by estoppel. Even for torts against her person she is forced to seek damages through her husband. The hardship of these disabilities of
the common law, and of the merger of the wife's property in the husband's estate, caused the courts of equity to give certain equitable reme dies against the husband in order to protect her and leer children in the enjoyment of at least a portion of her property, and to neglect some of the legal formalities in giving effect to agree ments to create a separate estate for the wife, and to protect her by establishing the doctrine that the use of the separate estate must be for its use or her benefit, and that its income could not be antieipated.
Modern legislation has, however, largely re moved these disabilities. There is a mass of heterogeneous legislation, so local and various in its provisions as not to admit of any except the most general classification. The first tendency of this legislation was to free the wife and her property from the husband's control; lint there has been in the United States a subsequent tend ency to impose upon them a joint liability for such obligations as naturally arise from the marriage relation. In most of the States the wife is practically free from common law disa bilities. In England, the legislation on this sub ject has. of course, had more unity than that of the various States of this country, but it is not based upon any genera] and definite plan. The disabilities of the wife have not been removed to such an extent as generally in 111e 'United States. The subject is practically governed in England by the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 (45 and 46 Viet.. c. 75), as supplemented by the law of 1886 (49 and 50 Viet., e, 52). See CA CURTEST; HUSBAND AND WIFE; DOWER: SEPARATE ESTATE; etc. Consult the local stat utes for special matters, and also the authorities referred to under HUSBAND AND WIFE.