The effect of this modern legislation is to create what has been termed a statutory sep arate estate, which is not to be confused with the equitable separate estate; Stew. H. & W. § 217 ; the two may exist side by side; Musson v. Trigg, 51 Miss. 172. The word property in these acts has been held to in clude money; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 35 Miss. 108; choses in action ea contractu; Vreeland v. Schoonmaker, 16 N. J. Eq. 512 ; Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390; and ea delicto; West lake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621, 32 Am. Rep. 397; Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 145; Laughlin v. Eaton, 54 Me. 156; Gibson v. Gibson, 43 Wis. 23, 28 Am. Rep. 527; corporeal and incorporeal interests ; Smilie v. Siler's Adm'r, 35 Ala. 88; animate and inanimate ; Gans v. Williams, 62 Ala. 41 (but not mere contingent interest ; L. R. 6 Eq. 210); a mining interest in a lead; Cheuvete v. Mason, 4 G. Greene (Ia.) 231. In England married woman's property does not include a general power of appoint ment under a deed or will of which she is donee; 17 Q. B. Div. 521. Most of the acts define the mode of acquisition of property which shall be affected by it, and such specification excludes all others ; 2 B.ish. M. W. § 17. The most common meth ods of acquisition are, purchase, gift or grant, devise, bequest, descent, distribution, exchange, increase, trade or service, contract, and tort ; Stew. H. & W. §§ 223-230, where the cases, as to each, are collected.
Earnings of the wife made by her in carry ing on a business, such as keeping a boarding house, and used to pay for stock in a build ing association, belong to her, and the stock is her separate estate; Wenger v. Wenger, 34 Pa. Co. Ct. 93.
Where a husband employs' his wife and ,pays her wages otherwise payable to some other employd, she cannot be deprived of the money or of her property in which she has invested it; Woodruff v. Clark & Apgar, 42 N. J. L. 198; Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 298; Henderson v. Warmack, 27 Miss. 830. A grant or devise to a married woman and her husband as tenants by entireties, is not abrogated by the married women's property acts even where they provide that she shall hold real estate as if sole; Bertles v. Nunan, 92 N. Y. 152, 44 Am. Rep. 361; Bramberry's Estate, 156 Pa. 628, 27 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 594, 36 Am. St. Rep. 64; Phelps v. Simons, 159 Mass. 415, 34 N. E. 657, 38 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; Chambers v. Chambers, 92 Tenn. 707, 23 S. W. 67 ; Noblitt v. Beebe, 23 Or. 4, 35 Pac. 248; Georgia, C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 38 S. C. 34, 16 S. B. 185, 839; Appeal of Rob inson, 88 Me. 17, 33 Atl. 652, 30 L. R. A. 331, 51 Am. St. Rep. 367; contra, Clark v. Clark, 56 N. H. 105 ; but a married woman may, under those acts, without joining her hus band, sue for and recover land conveyed to her and him in fee; Bains v. Bullock, 129
Mo. 117, 31 S. W. 342 ; and the husband is not exclusively entitled to the use and bene fit of lands held in entirety or as joint ten ant with his wife; Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N. Y. 306, 39 N. E. 337, 30 L. R. A.•305, 43 Am. St. Rep. 762. In England, since the married wo men's property act, a conveyance to• both cre ates the same estate as if they were not mar ried; L. R. 39 Ch. D. 148; 1 Brett, Com. 62. In some states a conveyance to a married woman and her husband is unaffected by these statutes, either because tenancy by en tireties and joint tenancy have not been adopted; Whittlesey v. Fuller, 11 Conn. 337; or not recognized by the courts; Wilson v. Fleming, 13 Ohio 68 ; Hoffman v. Stigers, 28 Ia. 302; or are abolished by statute; Oglesby v. Bingham, 69 Miss. 795, 13 South. 852. Where a married woman was a tenant by entirety it has been held that a divorce changed it into a tenancy in common ; Enye art v. Kepler, 118 Ind. 36, 20 N. B. 539, 10 Am. St. Rep. 94; Kirkwood v. Domnau, 80 Tex. 645, 16 S. W. 428, 26 Am. St. Rep. 770; Harrer v. Wallner, 80 Ill. 197; Hopson v. Fowlkes, 92 Tenn. 697, 23 S. W. 55, 23 L. R. A. 805, 36 Am. St. Rep. 120 ; Russell v. Russell, 122 Mo. 235, 26 S. W. 677, 43 Am. St. Rep. 581. See In re Bramberry's Estate, 156 Pa. 628, 27 Atl. 405, 22 L. R. A. 594, 36 Am. St. Rep. 64; Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N. Y. 306, 39 N. E. 337, 30 L. R. A. 305, 43 Am. St. Rep. 762.
In most of the states the deed of a mar ried woman is ineffectual to pass a title, un less when her husband is a party ; and gen erally a separate acknowledgment and pri vate examination of the wife is required ; and if signed by her alone without her band it is absolutely void; Overseers of Poor v. Overseers of the Poor, 112 Pa. 99, 3 Atl. 862; Franklin v. Mill Co., 88 Ala. 318, 6 South. 685; and so by statute is a mort gage ; Cook v. Walling, 117 Ind. 9, 19 N. E. 532, 2 L. R. A. 769, 10 Am. St. Rep. 17. The deed of a married woman without the sepa rate examination will pass neither her in terest nor that of the husband; Rust v. Goff, 94 Mo. 511, 7 S. W. 418. Where her ac knowledgment is not made in compliance with the statute she is presumed to have acted under the coercion of her husband; Hepburn v. Dubois, 12 Pet. (13. S.) 345, 9 L. Ed: 1111; Rust v. Goff, 94 Mo. .511, 7 S. W. 418.
In Indiana the deed of a married woman to which her husband is not joined gives color of title; Wright v. Kleyla, 104 Ind. 223, 4 N. E. 16. If the deed of a married woman be void by reason of a defective acknowledg ment, it may be ratified by her after her husband's death; Jourdan v. Jourdan, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 268, 11 Am. Dec. 724.