536 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.—2 BLAND.

misconduct of their father as against their legal guardian.
Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Sep. 1; Lyons v. Blenkin, 4
Cond. Chan. Rep. 115; Jones v. Stockett, ante, 529; Corrie's Case,
ante, 503. Yet even a Court of common law will not go so far as
to hold nature ia contempt, and snatch helpless, puling infancy
from the bosom of an affectionate mother, and place it in the
coarse hands of the father. The mother is the softest and safest
nurse of infancy, and with her it will be left in opposition to this
general right of the father. Prather v. Prather, 4 Desau. 33.

The common law vests a right in the wife to be endowed after
her husband's death out of all the lands of which he was seized
during the coverture, unless she has a jointure legally settled apon
her in lieu of dower; and her title to all lands held in her own
right remains unimpaired by the marriage. But the incapacity
with which she is covered by the marriage leaves her no means, at
the common law, of dealing with the title she holds in her own
right, or with her vested right to dower or jointure, either for her
own, or her husband's benefit, during the coverture; except by the
formulary of a suit called a fine, and a private examination by the
Court itself. In lieu of this fine our law has directly restored her
capacity to contract by means of a simple prescribed form concern-
ing her vested right of dower, or her jointure, as well as respect-
ing her own lands of which her husband is entitled to the rents
and profits only during coverture, or which he may have acquired
a vested right to hold as tenant by the courtesy. Hannah K.
Chase's Case, 1 Bland, 229. The wife may take and hold property
of any description to her sole and separate use, independently of
her husband, which she may be empowered to alienate, encumber,
give, or devise in any manner at her pleasure. And if she re-
linquishes her dower, or jointure, or sells, disposes of, or encumbers
564 her lands held in her own right, * or her separate property
for the purpose of paying his debts or of otherwise forward-
ing his views; or she becomes his surety, as she may in respect to
her separate property, a Court of equity will order her to be re-
imbursed out of her husband's property if any shall remain alter
his creditors have been satisfied. Huntington v. Huntington, 2
Vern. 437; Peacock v. Lee, 2 Vern. 604; Tate v. Austin, 1 P. Will.
264; Bagot v. Oughton, 1 P. Will. 347; Quarles v. Lacey, 4 Mun. 258;
Gosden v. Tucker, 6 Mun. I.

These and other instances which might be cited clearly shew,
that a wife, during coverture, is not altogether so destitute of a
capacity to contract respecting her property as is indicated by the
general terms of the rule of the common law; but, that a husband
and wife may, in particular situations, treat together effectually, if
they treat upon fair and reasonable terms. Hobbs v. Hull, 1 Cox,
445; Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 140.