JONES AND WHITE VS. BROWN. 195

guage of the Court of Appeals, "abandoned them forever."
Upon examining the settlement in Ward and Thompson, it will
be found, that the husband agreed that, all the property men-
tioned in it should "be under and subject to the exclusive, and
entire management and control of the said Ann W. Menger,
(the intended wife,) her heirs, executors, administrators or as-
signs" "and the said Ann W. Mengers her heirs, executors, ad-
ministrators orassigns, to receive and enjoy the rents, issues and
profits thereof," without the interference in any manner of the
said Robert Thompson" (the intended husband.) By the ex-
press terms, therefore, of that deed, there could be no doubt, that
the husband not only meant to surrender his marital rights dur-
ing the coverture, but that he intended to surrender them to
the heirs and representatives of the wife, as well as to the wife
herself. And it was upon this express ground, that the Court of
Appeals based their decision against him, and in favor of her
representatives.

It is true, there are in the deed now under consideration,
some provisions, which do look to a continuance of the trust
beyond the life of the wife; but these provisions have regard
merely to the change of investments, and do not in any way
alter the uses to which the investments shall be held. The
words being, "that the new securities, &c.; shall go and remain
upon the same trusts and for the same intents and purposes, as
the original stocks," &c.;—and these original stocks, as we have
seen, were, during the coverture, to be taken and made in the
names of the trustees, or the survivor of them, and with all the
estate of the wife, to be subject to her appointment by will, or
deed, executed in the presence of two witnesses.

This provision in the deed is certainly not very intelligible,
and not easily reconcilable with other portions of the instrument,
and cannot, therefore, have the effect, of destroying that fixed
and stable right of the husband, which Chancellor Kent says,
can only be divested by an express provision.

[No appeal was taken from this decision.]