HUSBAND AND WIFE 1983

as between husband and wife. How husband might settle money upon his wife.
Bayne v. State, use of Edelen, 62 Md. 104. See also Farmers' Bank v. Jenkins, 65
Md. 248; Hinkle v. Wilson, 53 Md. 292; Sabel v. Slingluff, 52 Md. 132; Oswald v.
Hoover, 43 Md. 368.

A transfer from the husband to wife held to be a fraud as against creditors, and
that the wife was not bona fide engaged in business, so as to be protected by sec. 7
of Code of 1888. Manning v. Carruthers, 83 Md. 7.

Quaere, as to whether a transfer of certain notes to the wife was not void under
this section. Case remanded that this question might be determined. Luckemeyer
v. Seltz, 61 Md. 325.

No acquisition of property passing to the wife from the husband after coverture
is valid if the same has been made in prejudice of the rights of the latter's subsisting
creditors, and a deed by the husband to the wife for a simulated consideration will be
treated as a fraud upon his creditors. Conveyance held void. Reismeyer v. Norwood,
117 Md. 333.

Voluntary conveyances from a husband to his wife are void as against existing
creditors. Necessary parties. Sudler v. Sudler, 121 Md. 59.

Wife's property protected from husband's debts.

Where property held by husband and wife as tenants by the entireties is mortgaged
by the husband, the purchaser of husband's interests is not entitled to possession as
against wife. Such property cannot be subjected to the husband's debts. McCubbin v.
Stanford, 85 Md. 390.

A claim for damages for personal injuries is not "property." The words "in any
other manner," construed. Samarzevosky v. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co., 88 Md. 480.
(See sec. 5.)

Where a suit is against a husband and wife jointly for the wife's tort, art. 45, sec. 1,
of Code of 1860 (relative to the wife's property not being liable for the husband's
debts), did not prevent the wife's separate estate from being levied on. Brown v.
Kemper, 27 Md. 673.

For a case involving a merger as affected by spirit and intent of act of 1853, ch. 245,
secs. 1 and 2 (protecting the wife's property from husband's debts), see Clark v.
Tennison, 33 Md. 90.

For cases involving effect of acts of 1841, ch. 161, 1842, ch. 293, and 1853, ch. 245,
in connection with the constitutional provision to effect that the legislature should
pass laws protecting wife's property from husband's debts, see Clark v. Wootton, 63
Md. 116; Schindel v. Schindel, 12 Md. 313.

For cases involving act of 1842, ch. 293, sec. 1 (enabling married women to become
seized of property), see also Mutual Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Md. 47; Bridges v. McKenna,
14 Md. 266; Logan v. McGill, 8 Md. 469.

The wife's real estate acquired before 1853, is exempted during her life from execution
for husband's debts. The same rule holds when the real estate is converted, save
affected by the husband's curtesy. Art. 45, sec. 1, of Code of 1860, was intended mainly
as a revision or embodiment of pre-existing statutes. Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 350.
And see Smith v. McAtee, 27 Md. 436; Taggart v. Boldin, 10 Md. 116; Logan v.
McGill, 8 Md. 469.

Act of 1853, ch. 245, did not impair or alter the marital rights of husband in his
wife's property, but placed it beyond reach of his creditors. Masterman v. Masterman,
129 Md. 171.

At common law, wife's personal property acquired during coverture, including
choses in action, vested in husband and was liable for his debts. If notes and bonds
were not reduced into possession by the husband during coverture, they passed to
wife's administrator under act of 1798, ch. 101. Crane v. Gough, 4 Md. 328; Peacock
v. Pembroke, 4 Md. 282. See also Hubbard v. Barcus, 38 Md. 180; State v. Krebs, 6
H. & J. 31; Wylie v. Basil, 4 Md. Ch. 329.

For cases arising under art. 45, secs. 1 and 2, of Code of 1860, relative to the pro-
tection of wife's separate property from husband's debts, see Clark v. Wootton, 63
Md. 117; Armstrong v. Kerns, 61 Md. 366; Willis v. Jones, 57 Md. 366; Frostburg
Bldg. Assn. v. Hamill, 55 Md. 315; Frazier v. White, 49 Md. 7; Keller v. Keller, 45
Md. 276; Willis v. Jones, 42 Md. 423; Hill v. Hill, 38 Md. 184; Hubbard v. Barcus,
38 Md. 180; Schull v. Murray, 32 Md. 16; Krone v. Linville, 31 Md. 145; Buchanan
v. Turner, 26 Md. 6; Weems v. Weems, 19 Md. 344; Unger v. Price, 9 Md. 557.

Limitations.

This section applied to bar suit brought nine years after last conveyance to husband
and wife. Davis v. Harris, 170 Md. 610.

The rules previously pertaining to coparceners now apply to entireties, except that
neither can by separate action defeat the survivorship. Schilbach v. Schilbach, 171
Md. 405.

Act of 1892, ch. 267 (prescribing a period of limitations), cannot be construed
retroactively, as in that case it would be unconstitutional. Where a creditor sues
within three years from the adoption of said act, he is not barred as to conveyances
executed prior to act. Manning v. Carruthers, 83 Md. 7.