A wife has a right to relief against a con veyance or transfer made or contemplated by her husband in fraud of her support and maintenance which is generally recognized by the courts ; Fahey v. Fahey, 43 Colo. 354, 96 Pac. 251; 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1147, and note with cases.
The husband is not liable for necessaries furnished to a wife after desertion without cause; Board of Sup'rs of Monroe Co. v. Budiong, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 493; or where the husband has abandoned her for just cause; Sawyer v. Richards, 65 N. II. 185, 23 Atl. 150; Billing v. Pilcher, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 458, 46 Am. Dec. 523; contra, Button v. Weaver, 87 App. Div. 224, 84 N. Y. Supp. 388 ; Hatch v. Leonard, 165 N. Y. 435, 59 N. E. 270; 6 Mod. 171; but see 19 Q. B. D. 379. Even where the common law disabilities of the wife, during coverture, have been removed, she cannot, either before or after divorce, maintain an action to recover damages from the husband for his failure to supply her with necessaries or for any other act or failure of duty arising out of the marital re lation; Decker v. Kedly, 148 Fed. 681, 79 C. C. A. 305.
He was required to fulfil toward her his marital promise of fidelity, and could. there fore, have no carnal connection with any other woman without a violation of his ob ligations. She is under obligation to be faithful in chastity to her marriage vow ; See Divoacs; ADULTERY; CRIM. CON.
As he was bound to govern his house prop erly, he was liable for its misgovernment, and he could be punished for keeping a dis orderly house, even where his wife had the principal agency. See BAWDY HOUSE ; DISOR DERLY HOUSE; HOUSE OF ILL-FAME. He was liable for his wife's debts incurred before coverture; 1 P. Wms. 462, 469; Barnes v. Underwood, 47 N. Y. 351; Cole v. Shurtleff, 41 Vt. 311, 98 Am. Dec. 587; Platner v. Pat chin, 19 Wis. 333; Howes v. Marshall, 13 Mass. 384; Bryan v. Doolittle, 38 Ga. 255 ; Hetrick v. Hetrick, 13 Ind. 44; Morrow v. Whitesides' Ex'r, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 411 ; Hawthorne v. Beckwith, 89 Va. 786, 17 S. E. 241; provided they were recovered from him during their joint lives ; id.; and this rule applies where the husband was an in fant; Roach v. .Quick, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 238; Butler v. Break, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 164, 39 Am. Dec. 768; Cole v. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220, 60 Am. Dec. 258; and, generally, for such as were contracted by her after coverture, for neces saries, or by his authority, express or im plied, and for her funeral expenses ; 12 C. B. 344 ; 1 H. Bla. 90; Cunningham v. Reardon, 98 Mass. 538, 96 Am. Dec, 670; Sears v. Gid dey, 41 Mich. 596, 2 N. W. 917, 32 Am. Rep. 168. See DEAD BODY ; Pummel. EXPENSES.
R/Ights, Duties and Liabilities of the Hus band. Where a tradesman attempts to es tablish a joint liability against the husband and wife and fails to do so, he cannot then be permitted to charge against the husband a separate liability as contracting from his wife as agent ; [1903] 1 K. B. 64, where it is clearly held that the mere fact of two per sons living together as man and wife does not of itself hold out the wife to the trades man as authorized to incur debts on the hus band's behalf for ordinary household ex penses ; 6 App. Cas. 24; 15 C. B. (N. S.) 628.
The liability of the husband for debts incur red by his wife, depends upon the law of principal and agent, and further, that the relation has been established, it seems to be necessary to determine in each case; 19 L. Q. R. 122. See an article on the "Changes in the Law of Husband and Wife in England," by Alfred Fellows, 22 L. Q. R. 64.
The husband is head of the family and as such had the right to establish himself wher ever he pleased, and in this he could not be controlled by his wife; Angier v. Angier, 63 Pa. 450 ; Hunt v. Hunt, 29 N. J. Eq. 96 ; Ken nedy v. Kennedy, 87 Ill. 250. Although he be a drunkard and the wife support the family, he still continues the head of it and his ad mission as to the adverse occupation of land concludes her right after his death ; Com. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225; Daveis v. Collins, 43 Fed. 31. As head of the family he has the general common-law right to regulate it and exercise general control over it; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 267; Shaw v. Shaw, 17 Conn. 189 ; L. R. 2 P. & D. 31; he has also the right to fix the family name; Linton v. Bank, 10 Fed. 894 ; and to the cus tody and control of the children. See PAR ENT AND CHILD.
Though, under a modern statute, the wife may, with her husband's consent, conduct a business on her own account, she may not compete with him against his consent, if he is willing and able to support her ; Root v. Root, 164 Mich. 638, 130 N. W. 194, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 740. He was entitled to all her earnings; 2 Man. & G. 172; Russell v. Brooks, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 65; McDavid v. Adams, 77 Ill. 155; Prescott v. Brown, 23 Me. 305, 39 Am. Dec. 623; Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 24 L. Ed. 1,79 ; Yopst v. Yopst, 51 Ind. 61; Turtle v. Muncy, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 82; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 32 Miss. 279 ; Skillman v. Skillman, 15 N. J. Eq. 478, 82 Am. Dec. 279; Bucher v. Ream, 68 Pa. 421; Reynolds v. Robinson, 64 N. Y. 589; and formerly he might use such gentle force to restrain her of her liberty as might seem necessary ; 2 Kent 181; but this is now otherwise; 1 Q. B. D. 671; although it has been held that be may restrain her from committing a crime; Richards v. Richards, 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 389; or from interfering with the exercise of his parental control over his children; Gorman v. State, 42 Tex.
221. He also is said to have had the right moderately to chastise her ; 1 Bla. Com. 445 ; State v. Rhodes, 61 N. C. 453, 98 Am. Dec. 78 ; but this is no longer recognized, and any chastisement inflicted on the wife renders him guilty of assault and battery; Com. v. McAfee, 108 Mass. 458, 11 Am. Rep. 383; Perry v. Perry, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 501; [1891] 1 Q. B. 671 ; Abbott v. Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 24 Am. Rep. 27; Poor v. Poor, 8 N. H. 307, 29 Am. Dec. 664 ; and excessive cruelty or fre quent repetition of slight abuses is in many states a ground• of divorce. See DIVORCE;