The husband's common-law interest in his wife's real property and chattels real, as well as in her personal chattels, has been abrogated or greatly diminished by what are known as the "married women's property arts." Property thus held by the wife, freed either wholly or in part from any claim or control by the husband, is known as the wife's "statutory separate estate."23 The wife's property acquired by her before marriage is, it seems in all the states, her "statutory separate property,"24 while in most of the states property acquired by her after marriage, by devise, descent, purchase, or otherwise, is likewise withdrawn by statute from the husband's control.25 This statutory separate property is not liable for the husband's debts,26 and, as is in effect stated in its definition, the husband's rights of control and disposition thereover are either wholly or partially ex138; Richardson v. Stodder, 100 Mass. 528.

22. Taylor v. Meads, 4 De Gex, J. & S. 597; Wells v. Bransford, 28 Ala. 200, 212; Pool v. Blakie, 53 111. 495; Schull v. Murray, 32 Md. 9; Cutter v. Butler, 25 N. H. 343, 351, 57 Am. Dec. 330.

23. Stewart, Husband & Wife. Sec.Sec. 150, 233, 243; Vreeland v. Schoonmaker, 16, N. J. Eq. 517.

24. 1 Stimson, Am. St. Law, Sec. 6420.

25. 1 Stimson, Am. St. Law, Sec. 6422.

26. 1 Stimson, Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 6410, 6420; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, (2nd Ed.) 427; Aldridge v. Muirhead, 101 U. S. 397, 25 L. Ed.

1013; Rudd v. Peters, 41 Ark. 177; Dean v. Bailey, 50 111. 481, 99 Am. Dec. 533; Wheeler v. Jennings, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 476; Wasem v. Raben, 45 Ind. App. 221, 90 N. E. 636; Bridges v. Mc-Kenna, 14 Md. 258; Stratton v. Bailey, 80 Me. 345, 14 Atl. 739; Buckley v. Wells, 33 N. Y. 518; Hunters Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 194; Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 290, 51 Am. Dec. 769; Chilton v. Hannah (W. Va.), 60 S. E. 87; Martin v. Remington, 100 Wis. 540, 69 Am. St. Rep. 941, 76 N. W. 614.

Occasionally a statute has excluded the liability of the wile's property for the husband's debts without affecting his common-law

Real Property.

[Sec. 207 eluded.27 The husband has, however, such a right of possession as is incidental to his right to live with his wife, since these statutes do not affect the family relations.28

The power of the wife to dispose of such separate estate is usually determined by the provisions of the statute by which it is created. Her statutory separate real property she cannot, perhaps in the majority of states, dispose of by conveyance without the joinder, or at least the written consent, of her husband, though in some states the statute clearly gives her power so to do.29 rights thereto. See Weems v. Weems, 19 Md. 334; Johnson v. Chapman, 35 Conn. 550.

27. Perry v. Mechanic's Mut-Ins. Co., 11 Fed. 485; Sampley v. Watson, 43 Ala. 377; Cheuvete v. Mason, 4 G. Greene Iowa) 231; Hach v. Hill (Mo.), 14 S. W. 739; Mygatt v. Coe, 152 N. Y. 457, 57 Am. St. Rep. 521, 46 N. E. 949; Wells v. Batts, 112 N. C. 283, 34 Am. St. Rep. 506, 17 S. E. 417; Levi v. Earl, 30 Ohio St. 147.

28. Stewart, Husband & Wife, Sec. 233; Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58; Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106, 12 Am. Rep. 302; Bledsoe v. Simms, 53 Mo. 305; Reagle v. Reagle, 179 Pa. St. 89. See Mygatt v. Coe, 152 N. Y. 457, 57 Am. St. Rep. 521, 46 N. E. 949.

29. Schouler, Domestic Relations, Sec.Sec. 123, 150. That his joinder is necessary, see Jackson Lumber Co. v. Bass, 181 Ala. 169, 61 So. 271; Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58; Cook v. Walling, 117 Ind. 9, 2 L. R. A. 769, 10 Am. St. Rep. 17, 19 N. E. 532; Simpson v. Smith, 142 Ky. 608, 134 S. W. 1166; Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. 287; Wicker v. Durr, 225 Pa. 305, 74 Atl. 64; Austin v. Brown, 37 W. Va. 634, 17 S. E. 207.

This his joinder is unnecessary, see Roberts v. Wilcoxen, 36 Ark. 355; Brown v. Kimbrough, 55 Ga. 41; Lawler v. Byrne, 252 111. 144, 96 N. E. 892; Simms v. Hervey, 19 Iowa, 273; Springer v. Berry, 47 Me. 330; Libby v. Chase, 117 Mass. 105; Farr v. Sherman, 11 Mich. 33; Evans v. Morris, 234 Mo. 177, 136 S. W. 408; Robinson v. Queen, 87 Tenn. 445, 3 L. R. A. 214, 10 Am. St. Rep. 690, 11 S. W. 38.

Under a statute giving the wife the same rights and powers over her separate property as if unmarried, she has been held to have the right to dispose of it alone, Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray (Mass.) 447; while a different effect has been given to a statute merely authorizing her to hold and enjoy her property as if unmarried, Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58; Nay-lor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. 287; Moore v. Cornell, 68 Pa. St. 320.

A fuller discussion of these various statutes and of their construction by the courts must be sought in treatises dealing with the property rights of husband and wife, and, owing to the very great divergencies between the different statutes, an accurate knowledge of the law in this regard in any state can he obtained only by a study of the local statutes, and the decisions thereunder.

II. Dower