Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/52

 IN EE m'kenna. 3'7 �and the court compelled the bankrupt to surrender the iand to the assignee. Under this deed the wife had all the protection she would have had under this statute, and a larger estate than she -would have had if she had inherited the Iand or held it by an ordinary con- veyance. Besides, the Iand it self was, at the date of the petition in bankruptcy, under the protection of this statxtte, both as to th§ inter- est of the wife and that of the husband. And, as to his interest, the only difference I can see is that there he had a reversionary estate in fee-simple, contingent upon his surviving his wife, but liable to be defeated also by their joint deed, (leating out the reinvestment clause,)'while here the bankrupt had a life estate, subject to the same contingencies. It was ruled that this estate was vested at the time of the bankruptcy, and did not vest at the death of the wife, and was, therefore, fiot subsequently acquired property. Purthermore, the rul- ing must have been the same in that case if Stack had had no contin- gent reversionary interest under the deed, and it had appeared there was issue of the marriage, for he was, in that event, a tenant by curtesy, notwithstanding this was a separate estate, and would haVe held the Iand for his life, unlesB it may be the words "free from the debts, liabilities, or control oi anj future husband" should be construed to entirely eut off his (Stack's) curtesy. I do not see any difference in principle between that case and this, because if Stack had under that deed such an interest as passed to his assignee during the life of his wife, subject to her rights under the deed and this statute, I do not see why the bankrupt here did not have, by the common laW re^u- lating the tenancy by the curtesy, such an interest in his life estate as passed, subject to the rights of his wife and his own under the statute. ■ �The objection, in this view of the case, that the children of the wife are not parties to this prdceeding, is not tenable. The assignee only claims the life estate of the bankrapt, and in this the children have no interest. �Motion overruled. ��� �