15 Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. v. Bun-dy, 64 Kan. 444; 67 Pac. 816; 56 L. R. A. 739.

16 Lee v. Guano Co., 99 Ga. 572; 59 Am. St. Rep. 243; 27 S. E. 159.

17 Michigan, etc., Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384; 58 Am. St. Rep. 490; 64 N. W. 334. See Sec. 426.

18 Carse v. Reticker, 95 Ia. 25; 58 Am. St. Rep. 421; 63 N. W. 461. (This case was also explained by the court as in effect a gift of the profits.)

19 Phillips v. Blaker, 68 Minn. 152; 70 N. W. 1082.

20 Foote v. Nickerson, 70 X. H. 496; 54 L. R. A. 554; 48 Atl. 1088. See Sec. 428.

21 Pinkham v. Pinkham, 95 Me. 71; 85 Am. St. Rep. 392; 49 Atl. 48.

22 Potter v. Potter, 43 Ore. 149; 72 Pac. 702.

23 Luhrs v. Hancock, 181 U. S. 567.

24 First National Bank v. Albert-son (X. J. Eq.), 47 Atl. 818; Bishop v. Bourgeois, 58 X. J. Eq. 417; 43 Atl. 655; Rahway Bank v. Brewster, 49 X. J. L. 231; 12 Atl. 769.

25 Ward v. Shallet, 2 Ves. Sr. 16; Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225; Jones v. Chenault, 124 Ala. 610; 82 Am. St. Rep. 211; 27 So. 515; Luhrs v. Hancock, - Ariz. - ; 57 Pac. 605; Magruder v. Belt, 7 App. D. C. 303; Fritz v. Fernandez, - Fla.- ; 34 So. 315; Herbert v. Mueller, S3 111. App. 391; North v. North, 166 enforce payment out of his estate after his death.26 Thus a contract by a wife to repay to her husband money advanced to improve her property, even if it is used as the family homestead;27 or by a husband to repay to his wife a loan made by her,28 or interest thereon,29 is valid, as is a contract to dismiss a divorce suit,30 or a conveyance of real31 or personal property,32 or a contract by a wife to release her dower in her husband's realty in consideration of his promise to pay her a certain part of the purchase money received by him.33 So is a contract by a married woman to repay her husband out of her share of her father's estate for advances to her by him.34 So a husband signing a note as surety for his wife may recover from her estate.35 So under a contract whereby a wife authorizes her husband to buy property for her as her agent, the title to such property vests in the wife, even as against her husband's creditors.36 So a contract whereby it is agreed that a house built by a husband on his wife's land shall remain his property is valid.37 While under statutes allowing a married woman to contract with reference to her separate estate as if unmarried, it is often held that she may contract with her husband,38 it has been held that such statutes do not authorize contracts between husband and wife.39 So while a, statute conferring general power to contract has been held to make valid a contract between husband and wife,40 the opposite view has been taken, on the theory that though the wife's disabilities are removed, those of her husband are not.41 So a husband and wife can-

111. 179; 46 N. E. 729; affirming 63 111. App. 129; Luttrell v. Boggs, 168 111. 361; 48 N. E. 171; Milburn v. Milburn, 143 Ind. 187; 42 N. E. 611; Walker v. Walker (Ky.), 41 S. W. 315; McCann v. Letcher, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 320; Moayon v. Moa-yon, - Ky. - ; 60 L. R. A. 415; 72 S. W. 33; Peaks v. Hutchinson, 96 Me. 530; 59 L. R. A. 279; 53 Atl. 38; Matley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1; Sturm-felsz v. Frickey, 43 Md. 569; Need-ham v. Sanger, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 500; 19 Am. Dec. 292; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 533; Just v. Bank, - Mich. - ; 94 N. W. 200; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319; Far-well v. Johnston, 34 Mich. 342; Gregory v. Doods, 60 Miss. 549 ; Rice v. Sally, 176 Mo. 107; 75 S. W. 398; Crawford v. Crawford, 24 Nev. 410; 56 Pac. 94; distinguishing Dickerson v. Dickerson, 24 Neb. 530; 8 Am. St. Rep. 213; Nims v. Bigelow, 44 N. H. 343; Thompson v. Taylor, 66 N. J. L. 253; 88 Am. St. Rep. 485; 54 L. R. A. 585; 49 Atl. 544 (decided under New York law) ; In re Collister, 153 N. Y. 294; 60 Am. St. Rep. 620; 47 N. E. 268; Cornman's Estate, 197 Pa. St. 125; 46 Atl. 940; Kolbe V. Harrington, 15 S. D.

263; 88 N. W. 572; Ficklin v. Rixey, 89 Va. 832; 37 Am. St. Rep. 891; 17 S. E. 325; Atkins v. Atkins, 69 Vt. 270; 37 Atl. 746.

26 In re Callister, 153 N. Y. 294; 60 Am. St. Rep. 620; 47 N. E. 268; Atkins v. Atkins, 69 Vt. 270; 37 Atl. 746.

27 North v. North, 166 111. 179;

46 N. E. 729; affirming 63 111. App. 129.

28 Fritz v. Fernandez, - NFla. - ; 34 So. 315; Herbert v. Mueller,

.83 111. App. 391; In re Callister, 153 N. Y. 294; 60 Am. St. Rep. 620;

47 N. E. 268; Kolbe v. Harrington, 15 S. D. 263; 88 N. W. 572.

29 Cornman's Estate, 197 Pa. St. 125; 46 Atl. 940.

3o Crawford v. Crawford, 24 Nev. 410; 56 Pac. 94; distinguishing Dickerson v. Dickerson, 24 Neb. 530; 8 Am. St. Rep. 213.

31 Duffy v. White, 115 Mich. 264; 73 N. W. 363.

32 Sherman v. Davenport, 106 Ia. 741; 75 N. W. 187.

33 Dailey v. Dailey, 26 Ind. App. 14; 58 N. E. 1065.

34 Hendricks v. Isaacs, 117 N. Y. 411; 15 Am. St. Rep. 524; 6 L. R. A. 559; 22 N. E. 1029.

35 Feather v. Feather, 116 Mich. 384; 74 N. W. 524.

36 Jones v. Chenault, 124 Ala. 610; 82 Am. St. Rep. 211; 27 So. 515; Paull v. Parks (Ky.), 45 S. W. 873; Young v. Hurst (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 355.

37 Peaks v. Hutchinson, 96 Me. 530; 59 L. R. A. 279; 53 Atl. 38.

38 Leach v. Rains, 149 Ind. 152; 48 X. E. 858; Huffman v. Copeland, 139 Ind. 221; 38 X. E. 861; Third National Bank v. Guenther, 123 N. Y. 568; 20 Am. St. Rep. 780; 25 N. E. 986; Suau v. Caffe, 122 N. Y. 308; 9 L. R. A. 593; 25 X. E. 488; Williams v. Harris, 4 S. D. 22; 46 Am. St. Rep. 753; 54 X. W. 926.

39 0'Daily v. Morris, 31 Ind. 1ll; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319; Hendricks v. Isaacs, 117 X. Y. 411; 15 Am. St. Rep. 524; 6 L. R. A. 559; 22 X. E. 1029.

40 Grubbe v. Grubbe, 26 Or. 363; 38 Pac. 182 (holding that the statute restricting the form of conveying really did not apply to contracts).

41 Heacock v. Heacock, 108 Ia. 540; 75 Am. St. Rep. 273; 79 N. W. 353 (a note given by husband to wife during coverture) ; citing and following Hoker v. Boggs, 63 111. 161; Lord v. Parker, 3 All. (Mass.) 127; Knowles v. Hull, 99 Mass. 562; Roby v. Phelon, 118 Mass. 541; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260; White v. Wagner, 25 X. Y. 328; Real Estate, etc., Co. v. Roop, 132 Pa. St. 496; 7 L. R. A. 211; 19 Atl. 278; which do not all sustain the proposition. " Both husband and wife were under such legal disabilities at Common Law as that they could not contract with each other. To remove the disability of one will not validate the contract for one of the contracting parties has no assenting mind; and it would be strange doctrine to announce that because the disability was removed from one of the contracting parties, the contract is good, although the other is without a concurring mind." Heacock v. Heacock, 108 Ia. 540, 544; 75 Am. St. Rep. 273; 79 not contract as to the distributive share of the husband in the wife's estate.42 Contracts between husband and wife had previously been recognized in Iowa,43 and as the statute allowed either to sue the other for conversion of property, it was held that a note given by the husband to the wife for property of hers which he had converted was valid.44