Women,  B.  5,  ch.  2,  p.  463,  464  ;  Id.  466  to  470 ;  1  Koper  on  Husb.  and  Wife,
ch.  7,  §  1,  p.  257,  258 ;  Id.  274.  Mr.  Clancy  insists  that  there  is  no  just  ground
upon  which  the  Courts  of  Equity  should  decline  to  interfere  in  cases  where  the
husband  is  seeking  at  law  to  recover  the  wife's  legal  choses  in  action.  His  rea-
soning is  entitled  to  great  consideration  from  its  intrinsic  force,  and  there  are
certainly  authorities  in  his  favor,  although  he  admits  that  the  prevalent  spirit  of
the  cases  is  against  it.  Clancy  on  Marr.  Women,  B.  5,  ch.  2,  p.  466  to  470.
Mr.  Jacob,  in  his  late  edition  of  Roper  on  Husband  and  Wife,  (Vol.  1,  271,  272),
expressly  denies  that  there  is  any  sound  principle  for  making  a  distinction  be-
tween a  trust  term  and  any  other  equitable  chose  in  action  of  the  wife.  It  were
to  be  wished  that  the  principle  could,  as  a  matter  of  general  justice,  be  main-
tained in  Equity.  In  Pierce  v.  Thornley,  (2  Sim.  K.  167,)  the  Vice-Chanoellor
held  a  doctrine  which  seems  to  cover  the  very  case.  "At  law,"  said  he,  "  where
judgment  had  been  recovered  by  the  husband  and  wife,  the  husband  alone
could  levy  execution.  But  a  Court  of  Equity  will  not,  unless  the  wife  consents,
permit  the  husband  to  recover  the  whole  of  his  wife's  choses  in  action,  but  will
require  a  settlement  to  be  made  upon  her."  See  also  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.
