In a number of states, curtesy has been expressly abolished by statute,85 and occasionally the husband is given, in place of curtesy, an estate similar to the widow's dower estate.86

The statutes giving married women control of their property, the married womens' property acts, so called, have usually been construed as not abolishing the husband's right of curtesy upon the wife's death,87 though not infrequently, by reason of a provision giving a married woman the right to dispose of her property by conveyance or by will, the husband's curtesy exists only in such property as is not so disposed of by her.88

Vt. 280, 44 Am. Dec. 335; Brown v. Bockover, 84 Va. 424, 4 S. E. 745.

83. Walker's Case.. 3 Coke, 23b; McLeod v. Dial, 63 Ark. 10, 37 S. W. 306; Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226; Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page, (Ky. L. Rep.) 125 S. W. 170; Learnel v Ogden, 80 Miss. 769, 32 So. 278; Ware v. Ware, 6 N. J. Eq. 117; In re Steele 19 N. J. Eq. 120; Bates v. Shrae-der, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 260; Mc-Cullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. 438.

84. 1 Roper, Husb. & Wife 35. Post Sec. 263.

85. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3300(G); 1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 286.

86. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 3202(D), 3301 (F); 1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 286; Jackson v. Jackson, 144 111. 274, 36 Am. St. Rep. 427 ,33 N. E. 51; Gaffney v. Peeler, 21 S. C. 55. The term "dower" as sometimes by statute given to the husband statutory estate. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec.Sec. 3202(D), 3301(F); 2 Dembitz, Land Titles, 836.

87. Neely v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175. 58 Am. Rep. 752, 1 S. W. 66; Uhler v. Adams, 1 App. D. C. 392; Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. 97, 84 Am. Dec. 142; McCaskill v. McCormac, 99 N. C. 548, 6 S. E. 423; Johnson v. Simpson, 4C Okla. 413, 139 Pac. 129; Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 629, 46 Am. Rep. 740; Alderson's Admr. v. Alderson, 46 W. Va. 242; Kingsley v Smith, 14 Wis. 360.

88. Neely v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175, 58 Am. Rep. 752, 1 S. W. 66; Smith v. Smith, 21 Dist. Col. 289;

Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776; Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. 204; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280: Warren v. Wernet, 14 Wis. 360.

The statutes giving a married woman the power to dispose of her property by conveyance or by will, or withdrawing such property from his control and liability for his debts, have not infrequently been regarded as destroying curtesy initiate, as distinct from curtesy consummate.89 Occasionally a statute of such a character has been said not to destroy the curtesy initiate but merely to change it into a contingent interest, a mere possibility.90 So regarded, it bears an obvious resemblance to dower inchoate, in that it matures into an estate only upon the death of the consort whose property it was.91

IV. Homestead Rights.