ART. 16] DIVORCE. 387

is decreed, the court passing the same shall have full power to
award to the wife such property or estate as she had when mar-
ried, or the value of the same, or of such part thereof as may
have been sold or converted by the husband, having regard to
the circumstances of the husband at the time of the divorce, or
such part of any such property as the court may deem reason-
able; and shall also have power to order and direct who shall
have the guardianship and custody of the children, and be
charged with their support and maintenance, and may at any
time thereafter annul, vary or modify such order in relation to
the children.

Wallingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 H. & J. 485. Crane v. Meginnis, 1 G. &
J. 463. Helms v. Franciscus, 2 Bl. 544. Brown v. Brown, 2 Md. Ch. 321.
Daiger v Daiger, 2 Md. Ch. 341. Coles v. Coles, 2 Md. Ch. 351. Bayly v.
Bayly, 2 Md. Ch. 333. Tayman v. Tayman, 2 Md. Ch. 399. Bowie v. Bowie,
3 Md. Ch. 54. Jamison v. Jamison, 4 Md. Ch'. 289. Ricketts v Ricketts, 4
Gill, 105. Wiles v. Wiles, 3 Md. 1. Feigley v. Feigley, 7 Md. 563. Lippy
v. Masenheimer, 9 Md. 310. Schindel v. Schindel, 12 Md. 294 Levering v.
Levering, 16 Md. 213. Harding v. Harding, 22 Md. 337. Krone v. Linville,
31 Md. 138. Lynch v. Lynch, 33 Md. 328. Keerl v. Keerl, 34 Md. 21.
Hokamp v. Hagaman, 36 Md. 511. Hill v. Hill, 49 Md. 450 Childs v.
Childs, 49 Md. 509. Hoshall v. Hoshall, 51 Md. 72. McCurley v. MeCurley,
60 Md. 185. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 65 Md. 104. Shutt v. Shutt, 71 Md. 193.
Rohrback v. Rohrback, 75 Md. 317. Ridgely v. Ridgely, 79 Md. 305. Freeny
v. Freeny, 80 Md. 406. Chappell v. Chappell, 86 Md. 532. Goodhues v.
Goodhues, 90 Md. 292. Schwab v. Schwab, 93 Md. 382 Gill v. Gill, 93
Md. 652.

1888, art. 16, sec. 38. 1860, art. 16, sec. 27. 1841, ch. 262, sec. 5.
1843, ch. 287. 1886, ch. 10.

38. No person shall be entitled to make application for a
divorce, where the causes for divorce occurred out of this State,
unless the party plaintiff or defendant shall have resided within
this State for two years next preceding such application.
Ibid. sec. 39. 1860, art. 16, sec. 28. 1842, ch. 198, sec. 1.

39. When a bill prays for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, the
fact that the parties have been divorced a mensa et thoro shall
not be taken to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court over
the subject.

Ibid. sec. 40. 1860, art. 16, sec. 29. 1842, ch. 198, sec. 2.

40. The admission of a respondent, of the facts charged in
a bill for a divorce, who consents to the application, shall not be
taken of itself as conclusive proof of the facts charged, as the
ground of the application.
Fisher v. Fisher, 95 Md. 319.