HELMS v. PEANCISCUS.—2 BLAND. 553

shall have a separate maintenance; the agreement to live apart is
void; but the stipulation to pay separate maintenance is legal, and
may be enforced; and in many situations, husband and wife may
treat together, provided they treat fairly. Here the subject; of
* this treaty between the parties was fair and honest, and
whatever might Lave been the sufferings of Lewis Helms 581
during his imprisonment for debt in the jail of Baltimore County,
or however that suffering might have been brought upon him,
there is not the slightest proof that he was, as has been alleged,
under any duress, apprehension of harm, or mistake as to the na-
ture and object of the agreement of the 29th of August, 1823, at
the time it was signed by him. That instrument, on his part, was
his unconstrained voluntary act, done with a full knowledge of all
the facts, and of all his legal rights. By which writing he says,
that he " doth bind himself to renounce all the claim he has against
his wife A. G. M. Helms, as well as the claim he might have against
the estate of her deceased brother Garsten Newhaus." Now the
only sound and sensible construction that can be given to this
agreement, compatibly with the full existence of the marriage con-
tract, which the parties themselves cannot dissolve, is, that the
husband has thereby consented, that his wife's whole fortune shall
be settled upon her, to the use of herself, exclusively of her hus-
band as fully as may be, in all respects whatever. It is in this
light that I view this agreement. I take it as an explicit consent
given by him, that his wife's whole fortune may be settled upon
her, and I shall decree accordingly.

But the plaintiff Anna had one son, an;illegitimate child, born
before her marriage with Lewis Helms. Can he be allowed to
benefit by the proposed settlement? This is the next point to be
considered.

It is a general rule, that in making provision for the wife, the
Court extends it, to the children of the marriage; and, in many
cases, it is extended to the children of the wife by that or any
other marriage. And although the wife may, at any time after
her share has been ascertained. Jernegan v. Baxter, ti Mad. 32,
come into Court and relinquish her right, founded oa what is called
"the wife's equity," yet subject to her release, her children acquire
a vested interest in the provision, directed to be made, i'roin the
date of the order,- so that if she dies after that period, without re-
leasing it to her husband, they may, notwithstanding, come in and
have the settlement perfected for their benefit. Murray v. Eli-
bank, 10 Ves. 90; S. C. 13 Ves. 5; Lloyd v. Williams, 1 Mad. Rep.
449; Fenner v. Taylor, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 453. In a settlement di-
rected to be made upon a *ward of the Court, where the
husband has been guilty of any fraud or gross misconduct, 582
the fortune is always confined to the wife and her children by that
or any other marriage; and even where there was strong reason to