[Sidenote:  Wife’s power to contract.]

The wife had no power to contract a legal debt nor to bind herself by any kind of an agreement, neither could she make her husband liable for any debt or contract, except for necessaries.  These, the husband was under obligation to provide, and in contracting for them, the law assumed that the wife was acting as his agent.

[Sidenote:  Release of dower.]

She might release her right of dower in lands of her husband, but only when examined separately she acknowledged that the conveyance or release was not secured by his influence or coercion.

[Sidenote:  Wife’s earnings.]

Her earnings though acquired by her individual labor and in a business separate and apart from her husband belonged to him, and he could collect them by action.  This was the law though husband and wife were living apart.  They could be subjected to the payment of his debts, by his creditors, and if he died without a will they descended to his heirs as other personal property.  They were not considered the property of the wife, even in equity, without a clear, express, irrevocable gift, or some distinct affirmative act of the husband, divesting himself of them and setting them apart for her separate use.

[Sidenote:  Power of conveyance and devise.]

A wife had no power to convey her real property, nor could she devise her personal property by will, without the consent of her husband.

[Sidenote:  Domicile.]

The husband had the legal right to establish his home or domicile in any part of the world where “his interests, his tastes, his convenience, or possibly, his caprice might suggest,” and it was the wife’s duty to follow him.  If she refused to accompany him, no matter upon what ground she based her refusal, she was guilty of desertion.  A promise by the husband before marriage as to the establishment of the place of residence of the family, created a moral obligation only and was a mere nullity in law.  Whenever there was a difference of opinion between husband and wife in regard to the location of the common home, the will of the wife had to yield to that of the husband.  This law of domicile was based upon the grounds of the “identity of the husband and wife, the subjection of the wife to the husband, and the duty of the wife to make her home with her husband.”

[Sidenote:  Witness.]

Neither husband nor wife was competent as a witness to testify either for or against the other in civil or criminal cases.

[Sidenote:  Husband entitled to society of wife.]

The husband was entitled to the society and services of his wife and he might bring an action for damages against anyone who harbored her, or persuaded or enticed her to leave him or live separate from him.  If injuries were wrongfully inflicted upon her, two actions might be brought against the party responsible for the wrong, one by husband and wife for the personal injury to the wife, and one by the husband for loss of the wife’s services.  In either case, the amount recovered belonged to the husband.