The wife’s choses in action, or evidences of money or property due to her, such as notes, bonds, contracts or the like, belonged to the husband if he reduced them to possession during her life, and they could be taken for his debts.  He might bequeath them by will, but if he died without a will they descended to his heirs.  If he failed to reduce them to possession while the wife lived, after his death they would revert to her heirs.  If she outlived her husband they belonged to her.  After the husband’s death the wife took one-third of his personal estate if there were children, and one-half if there were no children.

[Sidenote:  Real property of wife.]

[Sidenote:  Curtesy.]

[Sidenote:  Dower.]

The husband was entitled to the control, use and enjoyment, together with the rents and profits of his wife’s real estate during the marriage, and if a living child were born, he had, after the wife’s death, a life estate in such property and might retain possession of it while he lived.  This was known as the husband’s title by curtsy.  The wife took a dower, or life estate in one-third of the husband’s lands after his death, whether there were children or not.  This estate of dower was forfeited should the husband be found guilty of treason, but his interest in her lands was not disturbed by the treason of the wife.  His life interest in her real estate attached to trust estates, but she could claim no interest in trust estates of her husband.  If the wife owned leases of land they could be sold or assigned by the husband during marriage.  If he survived his wife they belonged to him, if she survived him, they belonged to her, provided he had not disposed of them while living.

[Sidenote:  Descent of property.]

Personal property descended to males and females in equal shares, but the oldest son was entitled to the whole of his father’s real property.

[Sidenote:  Unity of person in criminal law.]

The unity of husband and wife was not so strongly affirmed by the common law when it dealt with their relation to criminal matters.  When a wife committed an offense against the state she possessed a separate and distinct life and personalty, for the purposes of punishment.  It is true that she was still inferior and this distinction was recognized and emphasized by the difference in the penalties imposed for the commission of the same crimes, these penalties being in inverse ratio to the importance of the criminal.

[Sidenote:  Theft, burglary, etc.]

[Sidenote:  Presumption of innocence.]

If a wife committed theft, burglary or other offenses in the company or presence of her husband, the law presumed that she acted under compulsion and held her not guilty, but this presumption did not extend to cases of murder or treason, and it might always be overcome by proof that she acted independently.  The exception in cases of murder or treason, we are informed, was not alone because of the magnitude of the crimes, but rather on account of “the husband having broken through the most sacred tie of social community by rebellion against the state, had no right to that obedience from a wife which he himself, as a subject, had forgotten to pay.”