The  usufructuary  right  of  the  husband  during  the  cover-
ture, it  is  believed,  was  not  an  incident  of  an  estate  by  the
entirety,  but  was  a  part  of  his  common  law  marital  right.  He
took  the  rents  and  profits  of  land  held  in  the  entirety  upon
the  ^me  right  that  he  took  the  rents  and  profits  of  other  land
owned  by  the  wife  solely.  This  being  so,  an  interesting  ques-
tion has  arisen  as  to  the  effect  of  the  married  woman's  acts  on

"A  purchaser  upon  an  execution  sale  of  the  husband's  Interest  has
no  claim  which  can  be  asserted  against  the  wife  after  his  death.
Simpson  vs.  Pearson,  31  Ind.,  1.
"Miller  vs.  Miller,  9  Abb.,  Pr.  N.  S.,  444.
"Hlles  vs  Fisher,  144  N.  ?.,  306;  30  L.  R.  A.,  305.
"Hlles  vs.  Fisher,  144  N.  Y.,  306;  30  L.  R.  A.,  305.
Pray  vs.  Stebblns,  141  Mass.,  219.
348  JOINT  ESTATES.
the  husband's  common  law  rights  in  estates  by  entireties  dur-
ing coverture.
Married  woman's  acts,  since  they  give  the  wife  control  of
her  own  property,  impliedly  abolish  the  husband's  common
law  marital  rights  to  the  rents  and  profits  of  his  wife's  land.
The  courts  differ  as  to  the  effect  of  these  acts  upon  estates
by  the  entireties.
