A married woman has power to mortgage her propery to secure her husband's debt if she is authorized by statute to contract as a feme sole; or if she has power by statute or in equity to deal with her separate estate.1 Even under statutes which do not allow a married woman to be surety or guarantor for her husband, it is held that such statutes refer to personal liability, and that her power to mortgage or pledge her property for her husband's debt is not thereby limited.2 Such statute does not prevent her from assigning a life insurance policy of which she is the beneficial owner as security for the debt of her husband.3 Under the Kentucky statute a married woman can secure her husband's debt only by setting aside some part of her property by deed, mortgage and the like.4 A pledge of an insurance policy to secure the joint note of husband and wife,5 or a written assignment of a life insurance policy,0 complies with this statute; but a note given by her to take up her husband's note is invalid.7

50 Vosburg v. Brown, 119 Mich. 697; 78 N. W. 886.

51 Compton v. Smith, 120 Ara. 233; 25 So. 300.

52 Williams v. Bank (Ky.), 49 S. W. 183. Contra, Allen v. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 377; 11 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. N. S. 20; 43 Atl. 681.

53 Harper v. O'Neil, 194 Pa. St. 141; 44 Atl. 1065.

54 Richardson v. Stephens, 122 Ala. 301; 25 So. 39.

55 Exchange, etc., Bank v. Wolver-ton. 11 Wash. 108; 39 Pac. 248.

1 Thompson v. Kyle. 39 Fla. 582; 63 Am. St. Rep. 193; 23 So. 12; Marx v. Bellel. 114 Mich. 631; 72 X. W. 620; Ferguson v. Soden, 111 Mo. 208; 33 Am. St. Rep. 512; 19 S. W. 727; Rines v. Mansfield. 96 Mo. 394; 9 S. W. 798; Hagerman v. Sutton, 91 Mo. 519; 4 S. W. 73;

Wilcox v. Todd, 64 Mo. 390; Schneider v. Staihr, 20 Mo. 269; Wilson v. New, 1 Neb. Un. 42; 95 N. W. 502; Watts v. Gantt, 42 Neb. 869; 61 N. W. 104; Holmes v. Hull, 50 Neb. 656; 70 N. W. 241; Linton v. Cooper, 53 Neb. 400; 73 N. W. 731; Meares v. Butler, 123 N. C. 206; 31 S. E. 477; Knoll v. Kiessling, 23 Or. 8; 35 Pac. 248; Campbell v. Snyder, 27 Ore. 249; 41 Pac. 659; Citizens', etc., Association v. Heiser, 150 Pa. St. 514; 24 Atl. 733.

2 Meares v. Butler, 123 N. C. 206; 31 S. C. 477; Gore v. Townsend, 105 N. C. 228; 8 L. R. A. 443; 11 S. E. 160; Siebert v. Bank, 186 Pa. St. 233; 40 Atl. 472; Kuhn v. Ogil-vie, 178 Pa. St. 303; 35 Atl. 957. So with suretyship in general, Meads v. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 620; 19 S. W. 1111.

Under statutes specifically forbidding a married woman to mortgage her property for her husband's debts; and even in some cases under statutes which forbid her to act as surety, she cannot give a valid mortgage for his debt.8 So an assignment of a life insurance policy as security for her husband is void.9 So a pledge of a note owned by a married woman to secure a debt which is due in part from herself and in part from her husband is valid as to her debt but not as to her husband's.10 So a mortgage on land owned by husband and wife in common,11 or by the entirety,12 is invalid at least as to the wife's interest. The mortgage is not valid even if the wife gives it by way of compromise, believing that her husband's debt is enforceable out of her estate.13 A mortgage given to a surety or co-surety of her husband's to indemnify him, has been held invalid.14 Under this statute such a mortgage is void at law and equity, even as to a bona fide purchaser. No decree in equity is needed to interpose such defense in an action of ejectment at law.15

3 Dusenberry v. Ins. Co., 188 Pa. St. 454; 41 Atl. 736.

4 New, etc., Bank v. Blythe (Ky.), 53 S. W. 409.

5 Wirgman v. Miller, 98 Ky. 620; 33 S. W. 937.

6 New York, etc., Co. v. Miller (Ky.), 56 S. W. 975.

7 Russell v. Rice (Ky.), 44 S. W. 110; Crumbaugh v. Postell (Ky.), 49 S. W. 334; Bank v. Stitt, 107 Ky. 49; 52 S. W. 950; Milburn v. Jackson (Ky.), 52 S. W. 949.

8 American, etc., Co. v. Owens (S. C), 72 Fed. 219; 18 C. C. A. 513; American, etc., Co. v. Owens, 64 Fed. 249; Osborne v. Cooper. 113 Ala. 405; 59 Am. St. Rep. 117; 21 So. 320; Elston v. Comer, 108 Ala. 76;

19 So. 324; McNeil v. Davis, 105 Ala. 657; 17 So. 101; First, etc.. Bank v. Bayless, 96 Ga. 684; 23 S. E. 851; Merchants, etc., Association v. Scanlan, 144 Ind. 11; 42 N. E. 1008; Carrigan v. Drake, 36 S. C. 354; 15 S. E. 339.

9 Union, etc., Ins. Co. v. Woods, 11 Ind. App. 335; 37 N. E. 180, 353; 39 N. E. 205.

10 Johnston v. Gulledge, 115 Ga. 981; 42 S. E. 354.

11 Osborne v. Cooper, 113 Ala. 405; 59 Am. St. Rep. 117; 21 So. 320.

12 Wilson v. Logue, 131 Ind. 191; 31 Am. St. Rep. 426; 30 N. E. 1070.

13 First, etc., Bank v. Bayless, 96 Ga. 684; 23 S. E. 851.

Evasions of this statute are common, but are repressed by the courts wherever shown by the evidence. A mortgage was held invalid where the creditor suggested that the married woman deed the property to her son, and that the son then give a mortgage for his debt;16 and so where a husband and wife, tenants by the entirety, joined in conveying the realty to a third person, who reconveyed to the husband; the latter then mortgaged the land to secure his individual debt, this way of evading the statute being taken with the knowledge of the agent of the mortgagee.17 A different rule applies where the husband held the legal title as trustee for his wife and with her consent deeded the property to their son by a deed reciting a money consideration, in order to enable the son to raise money for his father by mortgage.18 If a married woman borrows money secured by mortgage on her property to discharge a prior mortgage given by her to secure her husband's debt, such subsequent loan and mortgage are both valid.19

14 McNeil v. Davis, 105 Ala. 657; 17 So. 101. Contra: where a trust deed given to indemnify several makers of a note against liability thereon was held valid though the principal debtor was her husband and the others his sureties. McCollum v. Boughton, 132 Mo. 601; 35 L. R. A. 480; 30 S. W. 1028; 33 S. W. 476; 34 S. W. 480.

15 Richardson v. Stephens, 122 Ala. 301; 25 So. 39; distinguishing Williams, etc., Co. v. Bass, 57 Ala. 487, as under a statute by which appropriation of property by a wife for her husband's debt would be declared void on her application, and which required a precedent decree so declaring it void; and qualifying Richardson v. Stephens, 114 Ala. 238; 21 So. 949. To the same effect see Taylor v. Allen, 112 Ga. 330; 37 S. E. 408.

16 National Bank v. Carlton, 96 Ga. 469; 23 S. E. 388.

17 Abicht v. Searls, 154 Ind. 594; 57 N. E. 246; Bennett v. Mattingly, 110 Ind. 197; 10 N. E. 299; 11 N. E. 792; Crooks v. Kennett, 111 Ind. 347; 12 N. E. 715; Machine Co. v. Scovell, 111 Ind. 551; 13 N. E. 58; Long v. Crosson, 119 Ind. 3; 4 L. R. A. 783; 21 N. E. 450; Wilson v. Logue, 131 Ind. 191; 31 Am. St. Rep. 426; 30 N. E. 1079; Sohn v. Gantner, 134 Ind. 31; 33 N. E. 787; Klein v. Gantner, 135 Ind. 699; 35 N. E. 2; Gezesk v. Hibberd, 149 Ind. 354; 48 N. E. 361; Government, etc., Institution v. Denny, 154 Ind. 261; 55 N. E. 757.

18 Smyth v. Fitzsimmons, 97 Ala. 451; 12 So. 48.

Under a statute forbidding a married woman to act as surety, she may, if within the general powers conferred on her by equity or by statute, pay the debt of her husband or of a third person,20 even though she cannot act as surety,21 and her executory contracts of suretyship are void,22 such as a contract to convey her realty to pay for the sale to her husband of a printing establishment.23 Thus she may convey realty to pay such debt.2* Thus if she joins her husband in conveying property owned by them in entirety, in trust for her husband's debts, this amounts to a payment of her husband's debts after a sale of such property under such trust deed, and she cannot maintain ejectment against the purchaser.25 In Georgia a married woman, while she cannot be surety may pay the debt of a third person,26 but cannot pay her husband's debt even by way of compromise of an alleged claim against her therefor,27 or if she was surety for such debt.28 If the wife delivers property to pay her husband's debt,29 or money,30 she may recover it. So where a married woman borrowed money and gave her note for the amount of the loan plus a debt of her husband's, and paid part of her note, she could recover the excess so paid over the amount of the loan to her.31 A statute forbidding a conveyance for the debt of the husband is held to include a mortgage.32

19 Field v. Campbell, - Ind. App. - ; 67 N. E. 1040; rehearing denied,

. 68 N. E. 911.

20 Hollingsworth v. Hill, 116 Ala. 184; 22 So. 460; Hubbard v. Sayre, 105 Ala. 440; 17 So. 17; Babbitt v. Morrison, 58 N. H. 419; Thompson v. Ela, 58 N. H. 490; Shipman v. Lord, 60 N. J. Eq. 484; 46 Atl. 1101; affirming 58 N. J. Eq. 380; 44 Atl. 215; Meiley v. Butler, 26 O. S. 535.

21 Hubbard v. Sayre, 105 Ala. 440; 17 So. 17.

22 Warwick v. Lawrence, 43 N. J. Eq. 179; 3 Am. St. Rep. 299; 10 Atl. 376.

23 Thomas v. Weaver, 52 N. J. Eq. 580; 29 Atl. 353.

24 Pratt, etc., Co. v. McClain, 135 Ala. 452; 33 So. 185; Rogers v.

Shewmaker, 27 Ind. App. 631; 87 Am. St. Rep. 274; 60 N. E. 462.

25 Rogers v. Shewmaker, 27 Ind. App. 631; 87 Am. St. Rep. 274; 60 N. E. 462.

26 Villa Rica, etc., Co. v. Paratain, 92 Ga. 370; 17 S. E. 340; Finch v. Barclay, 87 Ga. 393; 13 S. E. 566; Freeman v. Coleman, 86 Ga. 590; 12 S. E. 1064.

27 Mickleberry v. O'Neal, 98 Ga. 42; 25 S. E. 933.

28 Riviere v. Ray, 100 Ga. 626; 28 S. E. 391.

29 Grant v. Miller, 107 Ga. 804; 33 S. E. 671 (where the husband delivered the property with the wife's consent).

30 Maddox v. Oxford. 70 Ga. 179; Chappell v. Boyd, 61 Ga. 662.

A married woman may buy up her husband's debts and give a mortgage on her lands to secure the purchase price thereof.33