As the chattels a woman had upon her marriage immediately passed to her husband, she was obviously incapacited from transferring such property even aside from her inability to make a valid bargain, because she had no title.9 If chattel property was transferred to her while she was married, it vested immediately in the husband in the same way as property owned by her at the time of her marriage, and it was immaterial whether the properly was acquired by the wife's personal services, by gift, or otherwise.10 She might, however, take land by grant or devise if her husband did not dissent;11 and even her husband's dissent would not preclude her from taking as heir.12 The husband, however, was entitled to the rents and profits of land owned by the wife, whenever or however she may have acquired it.13

6 See cases in the following note.

7 Brashford v. Buckingham, Cro. Jac 77; Dalton v. Midland, etc., Ry. Co., 13 C. B. 474, 478.

8Com. Dig., Baron & Feme (E. 3), (Z).

9 "If the wife sell or dispose of the money or goods of the husband without his assent the sale is void, and the husband may have trover." Com. Dig., Baron & Feme (Q.); Manby v. Soott, 1 Sid. 109, 122.

10 Com. Dig., Baron & Feme (E. 3); Buckley v. Collier, 1 Salk. 114.

11 Com. Dig. Baron & Feme (P. 2); Perkins, Profitable Book, Sec. 43.

12 Dane's Abr. 368.

131 Bl. Com. 442.