Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/51

 36 ���FJSDEBAL REPORTER. ���son, 2 N. B. E. 570; Re Poleman, 5 Biss. 526; McFarland v. Good' man, 6 Biss. 111; Re Hinkle, 2 Sawy. 305; Re Hmit, 5 N, B. E. 493; Re Vogler, 8 N. B. E. 132; Re Smnett, 4 Sawy. 250. �It also finds support in the cases construing statutes of this and other states for the benefit of married women or' their families. Cooper V. Maddox, 2 Sneed, 135; Lyon v. Knott, 26 Miss. 548; Rahb V. Griffin,Ia. 579 ; Stewwrt v. Ross, 54 Miss. 776; Hatfield y. Sncden, 54 N. Y. 280; Re Winne, 1 Lans. 508; S. 0. 2 Lans. 21; Tlio7npson V. Green, 4 Ohio St. 216, 232; Plumb v. Sawi/er, 21 Conn, 351 ; Silsby r. Bullock, 10 Allen, 94; Staples v. Brown, 13 Allen. 64; Walsh t. Young, 110 Mass. 396, 399. �Upon consideration of these authorities it will be found to be a gen- erai principle that, whether the settlement is made by statute, deed, will, or contract, the husband's marital rights are not interfered tvith further than the terms of the settlement go, and that what remains to him can be subjected by his creditors as if the settlement had not been made; and it is as well settled as it is possible to be that the circumstance that the wife is to receive the rents or profits or to enjoy the estate during her life, or that the husband is forbidden to convey it except with her consent, or that she may alone or jointly with him convey it or defeat the husband's estate by appointment by will or otherwise, will not, nor will any of them combined, alter the construc- tion so as to afifect or defeat his marital rights, nor the estate of his assignee or purchaser, except strictly accordihg to the terms of the settlement. If an estate remains to him after her death as the re- siduum of what he would have had but for the settlement, his creditors may subject it, and it passes by his deed subject to be defeated if she survive^ or dies without exercising her powers of alienation. �Finally, there is an unreported case in this court, in Re Stack, a bankrupt, (June, 1879,) in which the circuit judge, sitting for the dis- trict judge, who was incompetent, upon the same principle decided in favor of the assignee. The wife of the bankrupt, under a deed from him, held land to her "sole and separa te use and benefit, free from the debts, liabilities, and control of her present or any future husband, with power to sell, by joint deed with her husband, for rein- vestment on same trusts, and if she should die in the life-time of her husband then to revert to him in fee-simple." The estate of her husband was not mentioned in the schedules of the bankrupt, as in this case, he deeming it secure from the operation of the bankrupt law, and the wife died pending the proceedings in bankruptcy, as here, whereupon the assignee filed a petition, like that in this case, ��� �