HELMS v. FRANCISCUS. 577

settlements are deemed valid even against the creditors of the
husband, (h)

Here the wife claims the whole of this residuary legacy, to be
settled upon her to her own exclusive use. There can be no doubt
that she must have a provision made for her to take effect imme-
diately; and that upon the two last mentioned grounds of equity.
First, because it is admitted that this legacy was given to her; and
it appears that her husband has treated her ill, has taken up his
residence in another state, and has left her entirely destitute of any
aid from him. And secondly, even supposing no separation 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 pro-
vision; 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, (i)

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

(h) Moor v, Rycault, Free. Cha. 22; Nicholas v. Nicholas, Prec. Cha. 546; Brown
v. Elton, 3 P. Will. 202; Sleech v. Thorington, 2 Ves. 561; Jewson v. Mollison, 3
Atk. 419; Middlecome v. Marlow, 2 Atk. 520; Bond v. Simmons, 3 Atk. 26; Sa-
lisbury v. Newton, 1 Eden, 370; Pryor v. Hill, 4 Bro. C. C. 189; Burdon v. Dean,
2 Ves. jun. 607; Langham v. Nenny, 3 Yes. 469; Macauley, v. Philips, 4 Vei. 15;
Franco v. Franco, 4 Ves. 528; Blount t. Bestland, 5 Ves. 515; Elibank v. Monto-
lieu, 5 Ves. 737; Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Yes. 206; Murray v. Elibank, 10 Yes. 84;
Elworthy v. Wickstead, 1 Jac. & Walk. 69; Elliott v. Cordell, 5 Mad. 150; Beams'
Orders, 464; Decks v. Strutt, 5 T. R. 690.—(t) Vandenanker v. Desbrough, 2 Tern.
96; Adams tr. Pierce, 3 P. Will. 12; Ex parte Coysegame, 1 Atk. 192; Beresford
9. Hobson, 1 Mad. Rep. 363.