¶1The record of recovery against the husband-was not evidence against the wife’s separate estate that the items composing the account were for articles of comfort and support of the household, &c. Nor did such recovery preclude proof that the account had been paid in whole or in part.—McMillan v. Hurt, 35 Ala. 665, and other authorities cited by appellant.
¶2A change of investment of the wife’s estate, between the purchase and the motion to condemn such substituted estate for a debt for which the separate estate is liable, is no defense to the motion.
¶3Reversed and remanded.