6  Tyler  v.  Lake,  2  Russ.  &  Mylne,  183.
"!  Blaeklow  v.  Laws,  2  Hare,  R.  49.
8  This  doctrine  is  maintained  expressly  in  the  authorities.  But  there  are  cer-
tainly antecedent  dicta  or  opinions  the  other  way.  See  Lumb  v._  Milnes,  5  Ves,
520 ;  Hartley  v.  Hurle,  5  Ves.  545  ;  Adamson  v.  Armitage,  Cooper,  Eq.  R.
283 ;  S.  C.  19  Ves.  516  ;  Ex  parte  Ray,,  1  Madd.  R.  199.    But  these  opinions


CH.    XXXVII.]  MARRIED   WOMEN.  74'9

ried  woman  for  life,  "  to  pay  the  same  to  her  and  her  assigns,"
will  not  exclude  the  marital  rigiits  of  the  husband.'

§  1384.  A  distinction  was  formerly  taken  between  the  case  of
a  gift  or  bequest  to  a  married  woman,  and  the  case  of  a  gift
or  bequest  to  an  unmarried  woman  generally,  and  not  in  the
contemplation  of  an  immediate  marriage,  or  as  a  provision  for
that  event.  For,  it  was  said,  that  if  a  gift  or  bequest  should
be  made  to  an  unmarried  woman,  to  be  at  her  own  disposal,  or
for  her  sole  and  separate  use,  or  independent  of  her  husband,
the  title  would  vest  absolutely  in  her,  as  owner ;  and  the  prop-
erty would  not,  upon  her  subsequent  marria,ge,  be  held  by  her
in  any  other  manner  than  her  other  absolute  property ;  but  it
would  be  subject  to  the  marital  rights  of  her  husband.^     This


seem  to  have  proceeded,  in  a  good  measure,  upon  a  misunderstanding  of  the
case  of  Johnes  v.  Lookhart,  now  correctly  reported  in  3  Bro.  Ch.  R.  383,  Mr.
Belt'a  note,  where  the  doctrine  of  the  text  is  explicitly  supported.  The  case  of
Brown  v.  Clark,  (3  Ves.  166,)  shows  how  nicely  language  is  sometimes  inter-
preted to  sustain  the  marital  rights  of  the  husband.
