A deed purporting to be an absolute con= veyance of lands of a married woman will not be construed as a release of dower be cause her husband's name appears first therein; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Whitham, 155 Ill. 514, 40 N. E. 1014, 28 L. R. A. 612, 46 Am. St. Rep. 355. The common-law disa bility, with respect to conveyances of real property, still exists in so far as it has not been swept away by express legislative en actments ; Dean v. Ry. Co., 113 N. Y. 540, 23 N. E. 1054. Where a married woman, at the time an infant, had executed a note and a mortgage intended to convey her separate estate, the mortgage being void, because not executed in accordance with the statutes, she was not estopped to assert the invalidity of the mortgage, by representations at the time of its execution that she was twenty-one years of age ; Carolina Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Black, 119 N. C. 323, 25 S. E. 975.
Mere silence by a married woman who knows her conveyance to be void does not estop her from asserting it ; Coats v. Gordon, 144 Ind. 19, 41 N. E. 1044, 42 N. E. 1025; but in that state it is held that by statute a married woman may be bound by an es toppel in pate; Le Coil v. Armstrong-Landon Hunt Co., 140 Ind. 256, 39 N. E. 922. The wife joining her husband in conveyances of his land is not bound by his covenants in the deed and is not estopped to assert a par amount lien in favor of herself ; Curry v. Mtg. Co., 107 Ala. 429, 18 South. 328, 54 Am. St. Rep. 105.
Where the husband leased his wife's lands for a year with a privilege of four years more, the receipt of a share of the farm products reserved did not estop her from asserting that the lease was void, because not assented to in writing by her; Williams v. Mershon, 57 N. J. L. 242, 30 Atl. 619. Where a married woman is unable to con vey her separate estate without a deed in which her husband is joined, she cannot make a valid deed to him of such property ; Trawick v. Davis, 85 Ala. 342, 5 South. 83.
Such was the case at common law and in like manner a deed from the husband direct ly to the wife was a nullity ; Coates v. Ger lach, 44 Pa. 43; Fletcher v. Mansur, 5 Ind. 267; and a husband and wife could not sepa rate their interests in common property by a partition deed ; Frissell y. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448. There could not be a gift of chattels inter trims from the husband to the wife; 15 Beay. 529; but later this doctrine was modi fied in England and it was held that it was merely a question of evidence and that the husband might be a trustee for his wife ; 34 Beay. 623; and after the wife's separate per
sonality began to be recognized by statute, the courts held gifts to her from the hus band effectual; Dean v. Ry. Co., 119 N. Y. 540, 23 N. E. 1054; Cottrell v. Spiess, 23 Mo. App. 35. In equity both deeds ; Appeal of Bedell, 87 Pa. 510; and gifts ; Reed v. Reed, 52 N. Y. 651; 9 Ont. App. Rep. 374; Fourth Ecclesiastical Soc. in Middletown v. Mather, 15 Cann. 587 ; were upheld wherever the rights of creditors were not affected ; supra. As to the effect of gifts and convey ances by the husband to the wife, see Bar num v. Le Master, 110 Tenn. 638, 75 S. W. 1045, 69 L. R. A. 353, and note, where the cases are collected at large. 'That case held that marriage is a valuable consideration and that the conveyance of land to the wife was good.
A gift of personal property from the hus band to the wife must be clearly proved, even under modern statutes, and the evidence must be clear of his intention to divest him self of all ownership and control of the prop erty given, and the common-law rule that ornaments and wearing apparel given to the wife by the husband during coverture re mained his personal property was held not to be abrogated by the married woman's act or any statute ; Farrow v. Farrow, 72 N. J. Eq. 421, 65 Atl. 1009, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389, 129 Am. St. Rep. 714, 16 Ann. Cas. 507; Tllexan v. Wilson, 43 Me. 186 ; but in other states the right of the wife to her parapher nalia is treated as absolute; State v. Pitts, 12 S. C. 180, 32 Am. Rep. 508 ; McCormick v. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 65, 1 N. E. 99, 52 Am. Rep. 6.
Gifts by a wife to a husband are to be closely scrutinized, but if fairly made and free from coercion and undue influence they ought to be sustained ; Farmer's Ex'r v. Farmer, 39 N. J. Eq. 216. The evidence must be clear and unequivocal, and the intention free from doubt ; Brooks v. Fowler, 82 Ga. 329, 9 S. E. 1089; Johnson v. Jouchert, 124 Ind. 105, 24 N. E. 580, 8 L. R. A. 795. A conveyance by the husband directly to the wife creates in her an equitable estate, but is inoperative to pass a legal title ; and he is left a trustee for her ; Snediker v. Boyles ton, 83 Ala. 408, 4 South. 33; Smith v. Seiber ling, 35 Fed. 677; Miller v. Miller, 17 Or. 423, -21 Pac. 938. He may settle property upon his wife if it does not impair the claims of existing creditors and is not intended as a cover for future schemes of fraud; Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S. 496, 7 Sup. Ct. 1298, 30 L. Ed. 1126.