580 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

queathed to the wife of the bankrupt for life; and it was claimed
by the assignees of her husband; the court made a reference to
receive proposals from the husband for a settlement on his wife,
and he proposed that the whole should be settled on her, which
was ordered accordingly. It was said that there was a want of
form in calling for proposals from the bankrupt husband; because
he, of course, would propose that the whole should be given to
his wife, rather than any part to his assignees, and that the as-
signees must have consented to the arrangement, (n) And it is
sufficient that such consent of the husband be expressed in any
clear and distinct form, either before or after the institution of the
suit. As where the husband, upon whose consent the quantum
depended, had, in a letter to a third person, expressed a desire
that the whole might be settled, it was held to be an honest, con-
scientious, and absolute appropriation of the whole fortune, and a
settlement of the whole was decreed accordingly, (o)

From all which it appears to be well established that the hus-
band, or his assignees, who stand in his place, may consent that
the whole fortune shall be settled on the wife, and that if such
consent be freely and deliberately given in any form, the court will
hold the husband's interest bound by it, upon the ground that such
agreement, without at all conflicting with the sacred principles and
policy of the marriage contract, comes in aid of the equity which
gives her a provision out of her own fortune, when she is not
maintained by her husband; and also in aid of 'the wife's equity,'
which are now admitted, on all hands, to be wholesome and useful
modifications of the rigid rules of the common law, and because
such consent merely reduces to certainty that, as to which the
court had the power to exercise a just and liberal discretion.

In this case the agreement of the 29th of August, 1823, be-
tween Lewis Helms and Anna his wife, so far as it declares the
marriage contract to be dissolved, must be regarded as a nullity.
But it is now well settled, that agreements of this description may
be entirely void as to part, and valid as to the rest. If a husband
and wife enter into articles of agreement to separate, and that she
shall have a separate maintenance, the agreement to live apart is
void; but the stipulation to pay a 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

(n) Beresford v. Hobson, 1 Mad. Rep. 363.—(o) Grosvener v. Lane, 2 Atk.180.