A husband, as has been seen, has curtesy only in estates of which the wife is seised during the coverture. The estate of the wife v. Galloway, 1 Mclean, 476, Fed. Cas. No. 1,037; Den v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) 446; Mcdaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Clay v. White, 1 Munf. (Va.) 162; De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469; Lowry's Lessee v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793; Malone v. Mc-laurin, 40 Miss. 161. Contra, Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48.

41 De Grey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469. Or of a tenant at sufferance. Tayloe v. Could, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 3S8; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74; Lowry's Lessee v. Steele, 4 Ohio, 170; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 245; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179; Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261; Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 177; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793.

42 Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy's Heirs, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401

43 Co. Litt 29a; Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 507; Jackson v. Sellick, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 262; Buck worth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note.

44 Co. Litt. 30a; 2 Bl Comm. 128. And a disclaimer by him will not divest his estate. Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83.

45 Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83.

Must also be one of inheritance.46 Otherwise, it would be at an end with the death of the wife, and so there would be nothing left out of which the husband could have curtesy. That is, a fee simple or a fee tail in the wife gives the husband curtesy, but a life estate does not.

Determinable Estates

There is considerable confusion in the cases as to whether there is curtesy in determinable estates, which, as will be seen,47 are estates that may come to an end before their natural termination. As to such estates, it will be impossible to do more than to state the rule as it now seems to be recognized by the weight of authority. When the estate which arises and cuts off the wife's interest is a shifting use,48 or executory devise,49 the husband has curtesy. When the limitation over takes effect in some other way, there is no right to curtesy.50 If the event which is to cut off the wife's estate has not happened at her death, the husband takes his curtesy until the happening of the event, no matter what the form of limitation of the estate may be.

Equitable Estates

Curtesy attaches to the beneficial interest of the wife in equitable estates, as well as to legal interests.51 But an equitable es46 Barker v. Barber, 2 Sim. 249; Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. 47; Janney v. Sprigg, 7 Gill (Md.) 197. If the wife was tenant in tail, and died without issue still the husband would take curtesy, because the estate had been one of inheritance. Paine's Case, 8 Coke, 34; Buchannan's Lessee v. Sheffer, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 374; Hay v. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 203; Buckworth v. Thirkell 3 Bos. & P. 652, note; Holden v. Wells (R. I.) 31 Atl 265,

47 Post, p. 169.

48 Post, p. 300.

49 Post, p. 300.

50 11 Am. Jur. 55; Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 554; Wright v. Herron. 6 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 406; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note; Moody v. King, 2 Bing. 447; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 285; Evans v. Evans, 9 Pa. St 190; Mcmasters v. Negley, 152 Pa. St 303, 25 Atl. 641; Webb v. Trustees. 90 Ky. 117, 13 S. W. 362; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Thornton's Ex'rs v. Krepps, 37 Pa. St. 391; Weller v. Weller, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 588; Harvey v. Brisbin, 143 N. Y. 151, 38 N. E. 108. But see Mcmasters v. Negley, 152 Pa. St. 303, 25 Atl. 641.

51 Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet 503; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Young v. Langbein, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 151; Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 228; tate may be so limited to the wife that the husband will not have curtesy."

Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St 149; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St 86; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 2G; Pierce v. Hakes, 23 Pa. St 231; Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 641; Norman's Ex'x v. Cunningham, 5 Grat (Va.) 63; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall. 7 R. 1. 383; Robie v. Chapman, 59 N. H 41; Nightingale v. Hid-den, 7 R I. 115; Sentill v. Robeson, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 510; Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Carson v. Fuhs, 131 Pa. St 25G, 18 Atl, 1017; Gil-more v. Burch, 7 Or. 374; Ogden v. Ogden, 60 Ark. 70, 28 S. W. 796 Receipt by the wife of the rents and profits is a sufficient seisin. Hearle v. Green-bank, 3 Atk. 717; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179; Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Taylor v. Smith. 54 Miss. 50; Sentill v. Robeson, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 510. So the husband may have curtesy in the proceeds of sale of the wife's land, Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts (Pa.) 113; Houghton v. Hapgood, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 154; Forbes v. Smith, 5 Ired. Eq. (N. C) 369; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508; Williams' Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 186; and in money directed to be laid out in land, Sweetapple v. Bin-don, 2 Vern. 536; Dodson v. Hay, 3 Brown, Ch. 404; Cunningham v. Moody, 1 Ves. Sr. 174; Watts v. Ball, 1 P. Wms. 108; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Wms. 229; Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603. By the weight of authority there is curtesy in estates held by the wife to her separate use. Winkler v. Winkler's Ex'rs, 18 W. Va. 455; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R, L 383; Nightingale v. Hidden, Id. 115; Sentill v. Robeson, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 510; Garter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710; Chapman v. Price, 83 Va. 392, 11 S. E. 879; Rau-tenbusch v. Donaldson (Ky.) 18 S. W. 53G; Nicrosi v. Phillippi, 91 Ala. 299, 8 South. 561; Mctigue v. Mctigue, 116 Mo. 138, 22 S. W. 501 Contra, Cochran v. O'hern, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 95; Luntz v. Greve,102 Ind. 173, 26 N. E. 128. And see Hutchings' Adm'r v. Bank (Va.) 17 S. E. 477. But there is no curtesy when the wife holds the bare legal title. Chew v. Commissioners, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160; Welch's Heirs v. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 431. Nor has the husband of a mortgagee curtesy, unless the mortgage has been foreclosed. Chaplin v. Chaplin, 7 Vin. Abr. 156, pl 23.

52 Pool v. Blakie, 53 111. 495; Stokes v. Mckibbin, 13 Pa. St. 267; Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710; Cochran v. O'hern, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 95; Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St 361; Chapman v. Price, 83 Va. 392, 11 S. E. 879; Clark v. Clark, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 582; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597; Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. 689; Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St 86; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 29L But see Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St 149; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115. If the husband conveys land to the wife, he has no curtesy in it Sayers v. Wall, 26 Grat (Va.) 374; Leake v. Benson, 29 Grat (Va.) 153; Irvine v. Greever, 32 Grat (Va.) 411; Dagger v. Dugger, 84 Va. 130, 4 S. E. 171. Contra, Frazer v. Hightower, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 94; Cushing v. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. 399.

§ 46)