BARON and FEME. 
By marriage, the luifband and wife are one perfon in 
Jaw (i Injl. 112) ; tliat is, the very being or legal exigence 
of the woman is fufpended during the marriage; or at 
Jeaft is incorporated and confolidated into that of herhuf- 
band : under whofe wing, protection, and cover, (he per¬ 
forms every thing ; and is therefore called in our law- 
F pencil a fane-covert (famina viro cooperta) ; is faid to be 
covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her 
Jiufband, her baron, or lord ; and her condition during her 
marriage is called her coverture. Therefore, if an eltate be 
^ranted or conveyed to an luifband and wife, and their 
heirs, they do not take by moieties, as other jointenant.s, 
but the intire eftate is in both. 2 Lev. 39. And, if an 
eftate be granted to an luifband and wife, and another per¬ 
fon, the hulband and wife have but one moiety, and the 
other perfon the other moiety. Litt. 291. A woman may 
be attorney for her hulband ; for that implies no feparation 
from, but is rather a reprefentation of, her lord. Upon 
this principle of an union of perfon in luifband and wife, 
depend almoft all the legal rights, duties, and difabilities, 
that either of them acquire by the marriage. We fhall 
confider the effect of thefe rights, duties, and difabilities, 
in the following order: 
I. Grants and Contracts. —At common law a man 
could neither in poffellion, reverfion, or remainder, limit an 
eftate to his wife ; but, by flat. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10, a man 
may covenant with other perfons to ftand feifed to the life of 
his wife; or make any other conveyance to her ufe, but 
may not covenant with his wife to ftand leifed to her ufe. 
A man may devife lands by will to his wife, becaufe the 
devife doth not take effect till after his death. Co. Liu. 112. 
According to fome books, by cuftom of a particular place, 
as of York, the wife may take by immediate conveyance 
from the hufband. Fitz. Prefcnption 61. And it feems, 
that a donatio caufd mortis by hufband to wife may be good ; 
becaufe that is in the nature of a legacy. 1 P. Wms. 441. 
Where the hufband or wife aft en autre droit, the one may 
make an eftate to the other; as, it the wife has an autho¬ 
rity by vvill to fell, The may fell to her hufband. 1 Injl. 1 12, 
187. If the feme obligee take the obligor to hufband, this 
is a releafe in law. The like law is if there be two femes 
obligees, and the one take the debtor to hufband. 1 Injl. 
364. Cro. Car. 551. 
In the cafe of Smith v. Stafford {Hob. 216), the hufband 
proiwifed the wife, before marriage, that he would leave 
her worth 100I. The marriage took efteft, and the quef- 
tion was, Whether the marriage was a releafe of the pro- 
mi fe ? All the judges but Hobart were of opinion, that, 
as the action could not arife during the marriage, the mar¬ 
riage could not be a releafe of it. This doftrine alfo feems 
to be admitted in the cafe of Gage v. Afton (1 Salk. 325. 
12 Mod. 290) ; the cafe there arofe upon a bond executed 
by the hufband to the wife before marriage, with a condi¬ 
tion, making it void if fhe furvived him, and he left her 
2000I. Two of the judges were of opinion that the debt 
was only fufpended, as it was on a contingency which could 
not by any poffibility happen during the marriage. But 
L. C. J. Holt differed from them ; he admitted, that a co¬ 
venant or promife by the hufband to the wife, to leave her 
1 q much in cafe fire furvives him, is good, becaufe it is 
only a future debt on a contingency, which cannot happen 
during the marriage, and that is precedent to the debt; 
but, that a bond-debt was a prefent debt, and the condi¬ 
tion was not precedent but fubfequent, that made it a pre¬ 
fent duty; and the marriage was confequently a releafe of 
it. The cafe afterwards went into Chancery; the bond was 
there taken to be the agreement of the parties, and relief 
accordingly decreed. iVern. 481. A like decree was made 
in cafe of Carnel v. Bl'ckle. 2 P. Wms. 243. 
A, before marriage with M, agrees with M by deed, in 
writing, that fire, or fuch as fire* fliould appoint, fliould, 
during the coverture, receive and difpofe of the rents of 
her jointure, by a former hufband, as fhe pleafed. It was 
decreed, That this agreement, being with the feme her- 
felf before marriage, was by the marriage extinguiflied. 
743 
Chan. Ca. n. But, where a man before marriage articled 
with the feme to make a fettlement of certain lands, be¬ 
fore the marriage fliould be folemnized; they intermarried 
before the fettlement, and then the baron died : on a bill 
by the widow for an execution of the articles, it was de¬ 
creed, againft the heir at law of the baron, that the arti¬ 
cles fliould be executed. 2 Vent. 343. 
In trials of any fort, hufband and wife are not allowed 
to be evidence for or againft each other; partly becaufe it 
is impoflible their teftimony fliould be indifferent, but prin¬ 
cipally becaufe of the union of perfon; and, therefore, if 
they were admitted to be witneffes for each other, they 
would contradift one maxim of law, “ nemo in propria cau-. 
fd teflis effe debet ;” and, if againft each other, they would 
contradift another maxim, “ nemo teneturJcipfum accuJarcW 
But, where the offence is direftly againft the perfon of the 
wife, this rule has been ufually difpenfed with ; and there¬ 
fore, by flat. 3 Hen. VII. c. 2, in cafe a woman be forci¬ 
bly taken away and married, fhe may be a witnefs againft 
fuch her hufband, in order to convift him of felony. For, 
in this cafe, Ille can with no propriety be reckoned his wife; 
becaufe a main ingredient, her content, was wanting to the 
contrabl: and alfo, there is another maxim of law, that no 
man fhall take advantage of his own wrong; which the 
ravifher here would do, if by forcibly marrying a woman 
he could prevent her from being a witnefs, who is perhaps 
the only witnefs to that very faft. 1 Comm. 443, 4. See 
the recent cafe of Lady Strathmore v. Bowes. 
The hufband cannot be a witnefs againft the wife, nor 
the wife againft the hufoand, to prove the firft marriage 
on an indictment, on flat. 1 Jac.I. c. n, for a fecond mar¬ 
riage. But the fecond wife or hufband may be a witnefs; 
the fecond marriage being void. In Raym. 1, there is an 
opinion, that a hufband and wife may be witneffes againft 
one another in treafon; but the contrary is adjudged. 1 
Brownl. 47. 1 H.P.C. 301. The rule in lord Audley’s 
cafe is denied to be law {Raym. 1) ; and perhaps was ad¬ 
mitted on the particular circumftances of the faCts, which 
were-deteftable in the extreme, the hufband having aflift- 
ed in the rape of his wife. I11 an information againft two, 
one for perjury, and the other for fubornation, in fwearing, 
on the trial of an ejeftment, that a child was fuppofiti- 
tious, the hufband of one of the defendants was admit¬ 
ted to give evidence of the birth, but refufed as to the 
fubornation. Sid. 377. 2 Keb. 403. Mar. 120. And the 
evidence of a wife has been difallovved even againft others, 
where her hufband might be indireCIly in danger. Leach’s 
Hawk. P. C. ii. 607. A hufband and wife may demand 
furety of the peace againft each other, and their evidence 
muff then of neceflity be admitted againft each other. The 
wife of a bankrupt may be examined by the commiffion- 
ers. It feems, that a wife may be evidence to prove a 
fraud on the hufband, particularly if fhe were party there¬ 
to, as in cafe of a marriage-brocage agreement, Sid. 431; 
and in cafes of feduClion. L. E. 55. And, in civil aCtions, 
where the hufband is not concerned in the aftion, but the 
evidence is collateral to difeharge the defendant, by char¬ 
ging the hulband. 1 Stra. 504. 
II. Ac re em ent s before Marriage. —As by marriage 
the hufband and wife become one perfon in law, therefore 
fuch an union works an extinguifhment or revocation of 
feveral acts done by her before the marriage ; and this not 
only for the benefit of the hufband, but likewife of the 
wife, who, if fhe were allowed at her plealure to refeind 
and break through, or confirm, feveral afts, might be fo 
far influenced by her hufband, as to do things greatly to 
her difadvantage. Keilw. 162. Co.Lit. 55. Cro.Car.304.. But, 
in thingswhich would be manifeftly to the prejudice of both 
hulband and wife, the law does not make her acts void ; and 
therefore, if a feme foie makes a leafe a will, or is leffee 
at will, and afterwards marries, the marriage is no deter¬ 
mination of her will, fo as to make the leafe void ; but 
flie herfelf cannot, without the confent of her hufband, 
determine the leafe in either cafe. 5 Co. 10. So, where a 
warrant of attorney was given to confefs a judgment to a 
