5  See  Mr.  Raithby's  note  to  Turner's  case,  1  Vern.  7 ;  Jewson  v.  Moulson,


CH.    XXXVir.]  MARRIED   WOMEN.  777

ruled.^  But,  however  questionable  it  may  be  in  its  origin,  and
however  it  may  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  received  doc-
trine, in  other  analogous  cases  of  assignment  by  the  husband,
it  has  had  no  inconsiderable  weight  of  judicial  authority  in  its
favor.  It  has  even  been  carried  to"  this  extent,  that  the  hus-
band may,  by  his  assignment  of  the  reversionary  interest  in  a
term  of  years,  held  in  trust  for  the  wife,  bind  that  interest,  so
as  to  deprive  her  of  her  Equity  therein ;  although  he  could  not
in  the  same  way,  dispose  of  her  reversionary  interest  in  any
choses  in  action  or  personal  chattels.^  The  sole  ground  of  the
doctrine  seems  to  have  been,  that  the  husband  may  dispose  of
the  wife's  contingent,  reversionary,  legal  interest  in  a  term  for
years,  and  that  there  is  no  difference  in  Equity,  between  the
legal  interests  in,  and  the  trusts  of  a  term  for  years.^  Perhaps
these  latter  cases  would  now  be  deemed  to  be  subject  to  the
same  doubts  and  difficulties,  which  affected  and  overcame  the
authority  of  that  which  has  just  been  considered.*

§  1411.  Secondly.  In  regard  to  the  wife's  Equity  to  a
settlement,  in  cases  where  the  husband  has  made  an  assign-
ment of  her  choses  in  action,  or  other  equitable  interest^  It
has  been  long  settled,  that  the  assignees  in  bankruptcy  or  in-


2  Atk.  R.  417, 420 ;  Sturgis  v.  Champneya,  5  Mylne  &  Cr.  97, 106, 107 ;  Hanson
V.  Keating,  The  Jurist,  1844,  Vol.  8,  p.  949  ;  Macaulay  v.  Phillips,  4  Ves.  19  ;
Franco  v.  Franco,  4  Ves.  528  ;  Clancy  on  Married  Women,  B.  5,  ch.  4,  p.  507,
608 ;  Mr.  Cox's  note  (1)  to  Bosvil  v.  Brander,  1  P.  "Will.  459  ;  Doyly  v.  Perfuli,
1  Ch.  Cas.  225 ;  Atherley  on  Marr.  Sett.  ch.  23,  p.  345  to  348 ;  1  Koper  on
Husb.  and  Wife,  ch.  5,  §  2,  p.  177,  and  note  ;  Id.  178  ;  Post,  §  1413!

1  Sturgis  V.  Champneys,  5  Mylne  &  Craig,  97,  104  to  107  ;  Hanson  v.  Keat-
ing, The  Jurist  for  1844,  Vol.  8,  p.  949  ;  Id.  466 ;  Ante,  §  1408.
