33 & 34 Vict. c. 93, s. 10. As to insurance of a husband for wife. of it to be so effected, shall enure accordingly, and the contract in such policy shall be as valid as if made with an unmarried woman. A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed upon the face of it to be for the benefit. benefit of his of his wife or of his wife and children, or any of them, shall enure and be deemed a trust for the benefit of his wife for her separate use, and of his children, or any of them, according to the interest so expressed, and shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains, be subject to the control of the husband or to his creditors, or form part of his estate. When the sum secured by the policy becomes payable, or at any time previously, a trustee thereof may be appointed by the Court of Chancery in England or in Ireland according as the policy of insurance was effected in England or in Ireland, or in England by the judge of the county court of the district, or in Ireland by the chairman of the civil bill court of the division of the county in which the insurance office is situated, and the receipt of such trustee shall be a good discharge to the office. If it shall be proved that the policy was effected and premiums paid by the husband with intent to defraud his creditors, they shall be entitled to receive out of the sum secured an amount equal to the premiums so paid. Old law. Cases under this section. Before this act it was held that a wife had an insurable interest in the life of her husband, but that a husband had not such an interest in the life of his wife (Reed v. Royal Exchange Co., Peake's Add. Cases, 70). As to policies effected since 1st January, 1883, see the further provisions of sect. 11 of M. W. P. Act, 1882 (post, p. 352). The following cases have been decided under the above section: Where the husband after the passing of this act substituted for a policy he already had a policy expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, the latter policy was held within this section (Iolt v. Everall, 2 Ch. Div. 266). On an application under this section to appoint trustees there is no jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties (Re Adams, 23 Ch. D. 525; but see Re Mellor, 6 Ch. D. 127). A policy for the benefit of wife and children is an executed, not an executory, trust (Ib.). Where a policy was expressed to be for the benefit of wife and children, it was said that the policy should be read in connection with this section, and should be construed as giving the wife a life interest, with remainder to the children (Re Adams, sup.). It has since been held that under a policy so worded the wife and children took as joint tenants (Re Seyton, Seyton v. Satterthwaite, 34 Ch. D. 511; Re Davies, 1892, 1 Ch. 90). Where the trust in the policy was for the wife and children as the husband should appoint, but no appointment was made, the wife and children took in equal shares (Re Edwards, 41 L. T. 434). When the husband became of unsound mind, trustees were appointed and authorized to surrender the policy for a fully paid one of less amount (Schultze v. Schultze, 56 L. T. 231). A single trustee will not be appointed (Ib.; Re Howson, 1885, W. N. 213). As to a policy effected by a husband for the benefit of his wife who was subsequently convicted of murdering him, see Cleaver v. Mutual Association (1892, 1 Q. B. 147). In the case of policies effected under this act, sect. 11 of the M. W. P. Act, 1882, does not apply, and on the death of the husband a trustee must be appointed under this section; the petition being entitled under the Act of 1870 only (Re Adams, 23 Ch. D. 525; Re Turnbull, Turnbull v. Turnbull, 1897, 2 Ch. 415; Re Kuyper, 1899, 1 Ch. 38; see contra, Re Soutar, 26 Ch. D. 236). The 33 & 34 Vict. application may be made by petition (Re Atkinson, 13 R. 285). [Sect. 11 contained provisions as to a married woman suing. See noir the M. W. P. Act, 1882, s. 1, sub-s. (2), and note, p. 344, post.] c. 93, s. 10. on his wife's 12. A husband shall not, by reason of any marriage which Husband not shall take place after this act has come into operation, be liable to be liable, for the debts of his wife contracted before marriage, but the contracts wife shall be liable to be sued for, and any property belonging before to her for her separate use shall be liable to satisfy, such debts marriage. as if she had continued unmarried. According to the old law a husband was liable at law for the debts Old law. of his wife contracted before marriage (2 Bright, Husband and Wife, 2). And in equity her separate property was liable to satisfy such debts (Biscoe v. Kennedy, 1 Bro. C. C. 17, n.; Chubb v. Stretch, 9 Eq. 555). Having regard to sects. 22 and 13 of the M. W. P. Act, 1882, this section Cases under and the decisions thereunder remain of importance with respect to women this section. married before the last-mentioned act. Under this section such a married woman's separate property was made liable at law to satisfy debts contracted by her before marriage. The section extends to property settled to her separate use without power of anticipation (Sanger v. Sanger, 11 Eq. 470; London Bank v. Bogle, 7 Ch. D. 773; Re Hedgely, Small v. Hedgely, 34 Ch. D. 379; Axford v. Reid, 22 Q. B. Div. 548). An order under the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 5, may be made upon such a married woman (Dillon v. Cunningham, L. R. 8 Ex. 23). As to her arrest in execution for a debt contracted dum sola, see Nagle v. O'Donnell (I. R. 7 C. L. 79). A judgment may also be given against a married woman under R. S. C. Ord. 14, r. 1, without proof of the existence of separate estate (Downe v. Fletcher, 21 Q. B. D. 11). But this section does not make her liable to the bankruptcy law (Re Grissell, 12 Ch. Div. 484; Ex p. Holland, Re Heneage, 9 Ch. 307; see Day v. Freunel, 35 L. T. 551; R. v. Robinson, L. R. 1 C. C. 80). Where a woman joined with a surety in making a promissory note which fell due and on which judgment was recovered before her marriage, the surety who had paid the full amount after her marriage could not recover against the husband (Conlon v. Moore, I. R. 9 C. L. 190). As to the liability of the husband in the case of marriages from 1874 to 1882, see M. W. P. Act, 1874 (post, p. 340). And in the case of marriages after 1882, see M. W. P. Act, 1882, s. 14 (post, p. 354). [Sects. 13 and 14 rendered a married woman liable for the maintenance of her husband and children. See now sects. 20 and 21 of the M. W. P. Act, 1882, post, p. 358.] 15. This act shall come into operation at the time of the Commencepassing of this act. 16. This act shall not extend to Scotland. ment of act. Act not to extend to Scotland. 17. This act may be cited as the Married Women's Property Short title. Act, 1870. This act was intended to protect married women in the enjoyment of the rights of property, and has not by a side wind given them political or municipal rights (R. v. Harrald, L. R. 7 Q. B. 361). 22 (2); c. 50, s. 1. V. THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870, 37 & 38 VICT. c. 50. An Act to amend the Married Women's Property Act (1870). [30th July, 1874.] 37 & 88 Vict. WHEREAS it is not just that the property which a woman has at the time of her marriage should pass to her husband, and that he should not be liable for her debts contracted before marriage, and the law as to the recovery of such debts requires amendment: Husband and wife may be jointly sued for her debts before marriage. Extent to which husband liable. If husband Be it enacted as follows: 1. So much of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, as enacts that a husband shall not be liable for the debts of his wife contracted before marriage is repealed so far as respects marriages which shall take place after the passing of this act, and a husband and wife married after the passing of this act may be jointly sued for any such debt. 2. The husband shall, in such action and in any action brought for damages sustained by reason of any tort committed by the wife before marriage or by reason of the breach of any contract made by the wife before marriage, be liable for the debt or damages respectively to the extent only of the assets hereinafter specified; and in addition to any other plea or pleas may plead that he is not liable to pay the debt or damages in respect of any such assets as hereinafter specified; or, confessing his liability to some amount, that he is not liable beyond what he so confesses; and if no such plea is pleaded the husband shall be deemed to have confessed his liability so far as assets are concerned. The liability of the husband under this act ceases on the death of his wife (Bell v. Stocker, 10 Q. B. D. 129). An Englishman marrying a native of Jersey, where a husband is liable for his wife's antenuptial debts, is protected in England by this act (De Greuchy v. Wills, 4 C. P. D. 363). Notwithstanding this act a husband is, under sect. 78 of the Companies Act, 1862, liable as a contributory in his own right on shares registered in the name of his wife, though acquired by her before her marriage (Ex p. Hatcher, 12 Ch. D. 284). See the cases collected, Buckley, 8th ed., 246. Under this section it is sufficient to allege in the statement of claim that the husband is liable for the debts, without alleging that he has received assets from his wife (Matthews v. Whittle, 13 Ch. D. 811). 3. If it is not found in such action that the husband is liable without assets in respect of any such assets, he shall have judgment for his judgment for costs of defence, whatever the result of the action may be against he shall have costs. the wife. Creditors were allowed to add to their debt and recover against the wife costs which they had to pay to the husband under this section 37 & 38 Vict. 4. When a husband and wife are sued jointly, if by confes- Joint and sion or otherwise it appears that the husband is liable for the separate debt or damages recovered, or any part thereof, the judgment against husjudgment to the extent of the amount for which the husband is liable shall band and wife be a joint judgment against the husband and wife, and as to the for debt. residue, if any, of such debt or damages, the judgment shall be a separate judgment against the wife. 5. The assets in respect of and to the extent of which the Assets for husband shall in any such action be liable are as follows: which hus (1.) The value of the personal estate in possession of the wife band liable. which shall have vested in the husband: (2.) The value of the choses in action of the wife which the husband shall have reduced into possession, or which with reasonable diligence he might have reduced into possession: (3.) The value of the chattels real of the wife which shall (4.) The value of the rents and profits of the real estate of (6.) The value of any property, real or personal, which the Provided that when the husband after marriage pays any debt of his wife or has a judgment bonâ fide recovered against him in any such action as is in this act mentioned, then to the extent of such payment or judgment the husband shall not in any subsequent action be liable. 6. This act shall not extend to Scotland. Extent of act. 7. This act may be cited as the Married Women's Property Short title. Act (1870) Amendment Act, 1874. 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1. Married woman to be capable of holding property and of contracting as a feme sole. Sub-sect. (1). VI. THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1882. 45 & 46 VICT. c. 75. An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the Property Be it enacted as follows: 1. (1.) A married woman shall, in accordance with the provisions of this act, be capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing by will or otherwise, of any real or personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were a feme sole, without the intervention of any trustee (e). (2.) A married woman shall be capable of entering into and rendering herself liable in respect of and to the extent of her separate property on any contract, and of suing and being sued, either in contract or in tort, or otherwise, in all respects as if she were a feme sole, and her husband need not be joined with her as plaintiff or defendant, or be made a party to any action or other legal proceeding brought by or taken against her; and any damages or costs recovered by her in any such action or proceeding shall be her separate property; and any damages or costs recovered against her in any such action or proceeding shall be payable out of her separate property, and not otherwise (f). (3.) Every contract entered into by a married woman shall be deemed to be a contract entered into by her with respect to and to bind her separate property, unless the contrary be shown (g).. (4.) Every contract entered into by a married woman with respect to and to bind her separate property shall bind not only the separate property which she is possessed of or entitled to at the date of the contract, but also all separate property which she may thereafter acquire (g). (5.) Every married woman carrying on a trade separately from her husband shall, in respect of her separate property, be subject to the bankruptcy laws in the same way as if she were a feme sole (h). (e) Sub-sect. (1) is to be construed along with sects. 2 and 5 (Re Cuno, Mansfield v. Mansfield, 43 Ch. Div. 12). Accordingly, in the case of a woman married before 1883, sub-sect. (1) applies only to property acquired since 1882 (ib.; sect. 5, post; Re Harris, 28 Ch. D. 171). Similarly, it has been held to apply only to what is done by the married woman during coverture in relation to property of which during coverture she is possessed (Re Price, Stafford v. Stafford, 28 Ch. D. 712). A gift or conveyance to a married woman and her husband since the act creates a joint tenancy, not a tenancy by entireties as before the act, the share of the wife being for her separate use (Re Jupp, Jupp v. Buckwell, 39 Ch. D. 148; Thornley v. Thornley, 1893, 2 Ch. 229). But the capacity of a married woman is only altered as between herself and her husband; so in the case of a gift to a husband and wife and a third person, the construc |