HANNAH K. CHASE*S CASE. 229

their judgment.(w) Upon which a peculiar efficacy is ascribed to
the agreement, so that it is not open to objections which would
be fatal to an agreement of a married woman, authenticated in any
other way: for there is no other form in which a court of common
law can, with the consent of a feme covert, give validity to her
agreement concerning her estate; and there are few cases in which
even a court of equity can, with her consent, enable her to dispose
of her property, real or personal, (x) This solemn and embarrassing
mode, by which alone married women are enabled to dispose of
their rights and interests in real estate may have been, and may
yet be well suited to the circumstances and state of society in
England; but it is obviously unsuited to the state of things in our
country, and much more so formerly, when land titles were so
frequently and informally transferred from one to another as to have
been, for some time, among the most current instruments of
traffic among the colonists ;(y) than now when real estates have
become better settled and more permanently held.

In Pennsylvania, and many of the other colonies, it had become
usual for married women to dispose of their lands or to relinquish
their right of dower by a common deed, or instrument of writing
executed and authenticated as if they had been sole; which con-
veyances were afterwards confirmed, and the custom of making
such deeds, with their consent, taken on a private examination,
was adopted by legislative enactments, (z) In Virginia, where the
mode of conveyance by fine was never- in use, following, as it
would seem, a local custom of Wales, or of London,(a) it had
become usual for married women, in order to effect a valid con-
veyance of their lands, or relinquishment of their dower, to make
an acknowledgment of the deed in a private examination before
the general or county court,(o) which mode of conveyance was
afterwards confirmed and adopted by the colonial legislature.(c)

In Maryland, although it is said, that lands were sometimes con-
veyed by fine passed in the provincial or county court,(d) or by
common recovery ;(e) yet it would seem, that there had been many
instances of conveyances made, in the form of mere common con-
tracts, with intention to bind the .interests of married women as if

(w) 2 Inst 515.—-(x) Richards v. Chambers, 10 Yes. 580; Ritchie v, Broadbent,
2 Jac. & Walk. 456.~(y) Land H. A. 77.—(z) Davey v. Turner, 1 DaL 11; Lloyd 9. *
Taylor, 1 DaL 17; Watson v. Bailey, 1 Binn. 470; Jackson v. Gilchrist, 15 John, 89.
(*z) Dyer, 88$, b. Crai. Dig. tit Dower, c. 4, s. 15.—(d) 1 Virg. Stat 145, note,
(e) 2 Virg. Stat 317.—(d) Hammond's Lessees Brice, 1 H.&McH. 323.—(e) 1766,
ch. 21.