Husband

A man who has a wife ; a man legally bound in wedlock to a wife. "Husband and wife" describes persons connected by the marriage tie, and the relation signifies those mutual rights and obligations which flow from the marriage contract.* At common la u:, husband and wife are one person in law, and he is that person; that is, the legal existence of the woman is suspended or at least incorporated into that of the husband, under whose protection she performs everything. Hence, he cannot grant her anything, nor contract with her; but she can be hjs agent, and take a bequest from him. He must provide her with necessaries, or she can contract for them on bis credit. He pays her ante-nuptial debts; such of her personalty as is in her possession, or as he reduces to possession, is his; likewise, the profits of her lands. Her estate is liable for his debts. She is sued and sues with him, unless he is civilly dead. They cannot give evidence for or against each other. He may chastise her moderately. Either one may have security of the peace against the other. For any crime, committed in his presence, except treason and murder, she is presumed to act by his coercion. The injuries to his rights are abduction, adultery, and beating.* By the common law, her money and earnings belonged to him absolutely. The idea was that as he was bound to support the wife and the family, he was entitled to whatever she possessed or acquired. Such property then being absolutely his own, was subject to his disposal without regard to the necessities of the family, and might be taken in execution by his creditors.' As, at common law, the personal property of the wife ' 4 Bl. Com, 293-94; 1 Steph. Hist. Cr. Law Eng. 187. ' 1 Bl. Com. 116; 3 id.

34, 161, 353; 4 id. 245, 294, 332, 411. s 4 Bl. Com. 02, 376. People V. Hovey, 5 Barb. 118 (1849). See Hardy v. Smith, 136 Mass. 333 (1884). * 1 Bl. Cora. 442; 3 id. 433; 3 id. 139; 4 id.

28; Bank of passed to the husband upon marriage, she was deprived of this means of supporting her children, and all legal duties growing out of the marriage were imposed upon him... Even where the wife possesses separate property, it has been held, independently of statutory obligation, that she is not compelled to support the children of the marriage. See Earnings, Separate. * She is always imder his power. Hence, the disabilities and safeguards the law places around her. He is liable for her frauds, torts, and breaches of trust. He, she, or both, may have a remedy for an injury to her person or reputation, — the right of action in herself alone being given by statute. Unless the existing claims of creditors are thereby impaired, his settlement of property upon her is valid. And he may now make the transfer directly to her, instead of through a third person.* An ante-nuptial settlement upon her is valid, if the consideration is legal, and she is not a participant in a fraud intended upon creditors.* See Settle, 4. A gift between them is invalid as against creditors.' She is now the owner of hor separate estate, as if a feme sole, in most of the States, the common-law rule having been greatly relaxed.' But if she allows her money to go into his business, and be mixed with his property, and he uses it for purposes of credit, the property all becomes his and he cannot convey it back in fraud of creditors.

See Separate, 3.

And her separate estate may be held for improvements which she permits him, being insolvent, to make toit. Either may act as agent for the other, with or without compensation; and the husband's creditors, where he so uses his skill without an agreement for remuneration, are not thereby defrauded. J" He has an action for enticing her away, even as against a parent. Proof of something done tending toGleason v. City of Boston, 144 Mass. 27 (1887).

Trust Co. V. Sedgwick, 97 U. S. 308 (1877); 2 Kent, 149; 4 Saw. 603. ' Shaddock v. Clifton, 22 Wis. 110 (1667): 94 Am. Dec. 591-94 (1888), cases. Jones V. Clifton, 101 U. S. 235 (1879), cases; Clark v. Killian, 103 id. 766 (1880). Prewit V. Wilson, 103 U. S. 24 (1880), cases. Spelman v. Aldrich, 126 Mass. 117 (1879), cases. ' Eadford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. 576, 85 <1878), cases; Vail-i). Vail, 49 Conn. 52 (1881), ca.ses; McCIellan v. Filson, 44 Ohio St. 190 (1886); 20 Am. Law Eev. 366 (1886). 8 Humes v. Scruggs, 94 U. S. 27 (1876), oases.

Her contracts, imder statutes, 19 Am. Law Eev. 359-79 (1885), cases. 23 Cent. L. J. 293 (1886), cases. '1 See generally, wife as husband's agent, 31 Alb. Law J. 206-7 (1835), cases; he as her agent, with compensation, 30 id. 441-45 (1885), oases; without compensation.

King V. Voos, Sup. Ot. Oreg. (1887), cases; 26 Am. Law Eeg. 246, 250-53 (1887), cases: 26 Cent. Law J. 259-62 (1888), cases.

As to his canying on business in her prevent or dissuade her from living with him is necessary.' She may sue a person who naliciously induces him to abandon her, for damages for the loss of support and of his society.' See Consortium. Either person may prove the marriage collaterally. She cannot be compelled to incriminate him. In bigamy, the lawful wife cannot prove the marriage. Neither can testify as to a confidential communication, except by consent. Under enabling statutes, either may testify for or against the other. In suits by or against a stranger, they may contradict each other. In divorce proceedings, their testimony is closely scrutinized.' In the Federal courts she is not a competent witness for or against him in a criminal case, on the score of public policy.* See also Abandon, 2 (1); Abduction; Acknowledgment, 2; Adultery; Bigamy; Coercion; Cohabitation; CoMMCOTOATiON, Privileged, 1; Condonation; Covert; Cruelty, 1; Curtesy; Desertion, 1; Disability; Divorce; Dower; Dowry; Elopement; Entirety; Family; Feme; Heir, 1; Jointure; Kin, Next of; Marriage; Necessaries, 1; Paraphernalia; Pin-money; Quarantine, 1; Eelation, 3; Eelict; Unity, 2; Whipping-post; Widow; Wife; Witness; Woman.