550 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.—2 BLAND.

had taken place, and that he was living with her in harmony, she
is entitled, upon the ground of " the wife's equity," to a present
provision; because of its having been admitted and shewn that
the legacy is hers, and that he is utterly insolvent. Her claim to
some provision is, therefore; sustained by the clearest proofs and
the most sound and best established principles of equity.

But, in cases of this kind, where, as in this instance, it has
been submitted entirely to the Court, to determine what provision
shall be made, the husband has been almost always invited to make
proposals of terms to be approved or rejected by the Court, as to how
much the wife shall have, and, in determining that, the Court has
exercised a discretion without being tied down to any precise rule.
But it seems now to be the general opinion that the Court will not
of itself give the whole to the wife. Vandenanker v. Desbrough, 2
Vern. 96; Adams v. Pierce, 3 P. Will. 12; Ex parte Coysegame, I
Atk. 192; Bercsford v. Hobson, 1 Mad. Rep. 363.

In England it is considered, that in all cases where an infant,
male or female, has been by any suit brought before the Court of
Chancery for the purpose of having the person or estate of such
infant properly disposed of, such infant thereby becomes, until the
attainment of full age, a ward of the Court, and may be governed
and protected accordingly. Hence, where a female infant, who
had thus become a ward of the Court, was married in contempt of
* its authority; and especially it'it appeared that the hus-
578 band had nothing to settle, and was a beggar, marrying her
for the sake of her fortune, the Court has been in the habit of not
permitting him to touch that fortune, which was his sole object,
and of having the whole settled upon the wife. Butter v. Freeman,
Amb. 302; Wells v. Price. 5 Vex. 398; Ball v. Coutts, 1 Ves. & Bea.
303.

In this instance the plaintiff Anna can, in no sense, be consid-
ered as a ward of this Court, and, therefore, nothing of the nature
of a contempt of the Court can be imputed to her husband. Yet,
those cases, in relation to wards of Court, may be adduced to shew
that the Court, under some peculiar circumstances, allows itself to
take into consideration the sinister views and objects of the bus-
baud in marrying his wife; and if the Court can be satisfied that
he was actuated chiefly or altogether by sordid motives; that he
married the woman merely to come at her fortune,it will interpose
to save the wife from such most grievous of all frauds, and have
her whole fortune settled upon her exclusively. For, in those
cases, there is nothing so very peculiar in being a ward of Court;
it is not so much upon the ground of any species of contempt or
affront to the Court itself; it is the corrupt motives of the husband;
the fraud and delusion practised by him upon frankness and inno-
cence, which affords the strong ground upon which the Court