•

JONES r. JONES. 459

of the wife, (but certainly without her privy examination or express
assent,) all the law which regulates personal property belonging to
the wife. As land, her husband could have only a limited and
qualified right to and enjoyment of it; she could not be deprived
of it without her solemn, free, and express consent, which if not
given, it would after her death pass to her heirs; but as personalty,
on being reduced into possession by the husband, it becomes abso-
lutely his property, and may be wasted or disposed of by him
without any control from her.(d) But subject to these principles
in regard to the mutation of the property itself, the Court of Appeals
has distinctly recognised the existence of that right of a feme
covert in regard to her property which her husband may ask a court
of equity to put into his hands, called " the wife's equity ;" and
which can only be secured to her by a court of equity.(e) In rela-
tion to which, it has been laid down, that where a husband comes
into equity to obtain any of his wife's choses in action, the court
will not receive her consent to bar her equity, until after the amount
due to her has been ascertained; for, though she may not think
$500 the proper subject of a settlement, she may think differently
of $5,000.(/)

But although, in general, choses in action are not subject to be
taken in execution, either at law, or in equity; yet this interest,
which has been held to be in the nature of an equitable chose in
action, will be so far considered as parcel of the realty as to be
subject to be intercepted by an order of this court for the benefit
of the creditors of the deceased debtor where his personalty has
been exhausted, or where the heir to whom it has been awarded is
the debtor and is beyond the jurisdiction of the State.(g)

The rules thus laid down upon this subject must however, as
it would seem, be received with some qualification. The six
heirs of an intestate instituted proceedings at law to have the
real estate, which they claimed by descent, divided among
them; on the commissioners having made return of its value,
and that it would not admit of a division without loss; one
of them elected to take the whole, at the valuation. After which,
the elector having failed to pay the valuation, one of the heirs,
who had not been satisfied, brought an ejectment, for his one undi-

(d) Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Will. 245.-(e) The State v. Krebs, 6 H. & J. 37,
(f) Jernegan v. Baxter, 6 Mad. 32.—(g) Baltzell v. Foss, 1 H. & G. 504; McCan-
% v. Goold, 1 Ball & B. 389.