¶1 The object of this action is to charge the statutory separate real estate of the feme defendant by reason of an undertaking in the nature of an executory contract executed by her with the written consent of her husband. The writing expressly charges the separate estate, and this would undoubtedly be good as to her statutory separate personal estate, even without any “beneficial consideration.” Flaum v Wallace, 103 N. C., 296.
¶2*359 But, as the complaint alleges that the feme defendant has only real estate, the case falls within the decision of Farthing v. Shields, ante, 289, in which it is held that even where there is a beneficial consideration and an express charge, a married woman cannot bind her statutory separate real estate by any undertaking in the nature of a contract without privy examination. This ruling renders it unnecessary for us to discuss the several views presented by the plaintiff’s counsel in his very able and elaborate brief.
¶3 Reversed.