Assent  of  or  Notice  to  Husband.^     Of  course  there  can  Not  void  if  bus-  •
be  no  presumption  of  fraud  where  the  husband  assents  to  '""*"**™'si
the  disposition  or  settlement  by  the  wife,  or  is  cognizant  of
it.    In  Hunt  v.  3Iatthews  (1  Ver.  408,  see  n.  (1),  ed.  Eaith.),
the  husband  expressly  assented  to  the  settlement,  and  was
hold  bound  by  it.     So  he  would  be  even  though  he  were  an  —though  an  in-
infant.     Slocombe  v.  Glubb,  2  B.  C.  C.  545;  Strathmore  v.  '""*!
Bowes,  1  Ves.  jun.  28.     And  upon  this  principle  the  decision
in  St.  George  v.  Wake  (1  M.  &  K.  610)  seems  to  rest.     In  or  is  presumed  to
.that  case  the  husband  sought  to  set  aside  a  settlement  made  Ja™  knowledge
by  his  wife  before  marriage,  and  did  not  by  his  bill  allege
ignoiance  of  it.     The  court  presumed  that  he  had  notice  of


314


Husband  and  Wife.
Notice  to  hus-
banct.
Acquiescence  by
liusbaud.
Settlement  im-
proper.
it,  and  therefore  that  he  had  no  equity  for  relief.  For  if
the  husband  has  notice  that  his  wife  intends  to  make  a
settlement  before  the  marriage  it  will  be  difficult  for  him
afterwards  to  impeach  it.  Ashton  v.  M'Dougall,  5  Bea.
56;  see  Wrigley  v.  Swainson,  3  De  G-.  &  S.  458.  But  he
must  be  correctly  informed  as  to  the  nature  of  the  settlement,
and  it  must  be  understood  by  the  lady  herself.  Griggs  v.
Staplee,  2  De  G.  &  Sm.  572;  Prideaiix  v.  Lonsdale,  1  D.,  J.
&  S.  433.
