CONN VS. CONN. 217

There is, however, a very decided opinion expressed by the
learned judge, who delivered the opinion of this court, in rier-
nan vs. Poor and wife, that the contract by which the separate
estate of a married woman is attempted to be charged, must be
shown to be within the limits of her jus disponendi, and it is
not very clearly seen how this can be done, unless it be also
shown that she is contracting for the direct purpose of charging
such separate estate.

The case of Gray vs. Cook, 12 G. & J., 236, relates particu-
larly and exclusively to the degree of the proof, which it is ne-
cessary to produce, of the intention of the wife to pledge her
separate estate. There is certainly nothing in that case from
which it can be fairly inferred, that the contract of afeme covert
will be enforced against her separate estate, unless it is shown
that she intended to charge it.

It would seem, therefore, in this case, that before these parties
can succeed in their application to have the proceeds of the
land which has been sold under the decree of this court, (or
that portion of it to which Mrs. Hall, is entitled,) charged with
the payment of their claims, they must show, first, that her in-
terest in the land was part of her trust estate; and, secondly,
that she designed to charge it with such payment.

This land was purchased by, and conveyed to Mrs. Hal],
during her coverture; notwithstanding which the conveyance
is good, there being no act declaring the dissent of the hus-
band, nor a waiver or disagreement thereto by the wife, after
his death. 2 Kenfs Comm., 150, lecture 28.

The property embraced in the marriage settlement was per-
sonal, merely; and for that reason, as well as because the set-
tlement was executed long prior to the deeds conveying the land
to her, the settlement could not comprehend the latter. Upon
the face of the instruments, therefore, the property, the proceeds
of which are sought to be affected by these proceedings, consti-
tuted no part of the trust estate; and although the marriage
settlement provided for a sale of the property embraced in it,
and a reinvestment of the proceeds in other property or funds,
there is nothing in this case to show such sale and reinvestment,
VOL i.—19