Lands which are given to a man and his wife upon condition that if they die without heirs, the land shall revert to the donor or his heir, may not be alienated to defeat this condition. If a man takes land in marriage with a wife, and she dies before him, the land will revert to the donor or his heir, unless the couple has a child, in which case the husband will have the land by the courtesy of the nation for his life before it reverts to the donor or his heir. Young salmon shall not be taken from waters in the spring. The ecclesiastical law had a doctrine for women-covert, i.e. women under the protection or coverture of a husband. It held that chattels of a woman who married vested in her husband, but he could not dispose of them by will. Her jewelry, but not her apparel, could go to his creditors if his assets didn't cover his debts. If she was a merchant when she married, she could still sell her goods in the open market. The husband also had the right to the rents and profits from his wife's real estate, but not the real estate itself, unless by the birth of a child he became tenant for life by courtesy. Only the father, but not the mother had authority over their children. A father had a right to his child's services, and could sue a third party for abducting, enticing away, or injuring the child, just as he could for his servants. A husband was liable for the debts of his wife, even if incurred before the marriage. He was answerable for her torts and trespasses, except for battery. For this reason, he was allowed to chastise her, restrain her liberty for gross misbehavior, and punish her by beating for some misdemeanors. But the courts would protect her from death, serious bodily harm, or his failure to supply her the necessities of life. Promises under oath by married women were not recognized. A conveyance or agreement of a married woman was void. These principles held only if she was under the protection of her husband, i.e. a woman-covert, and not if they lived separately, for instance if he went to sea. If separated, she had a right to alimony from him to maintain herself. A free tenant may alienate his land freely, but if the alienation was for an estate in fee simple [to a man and his heirs], the person acquiring the land would hold of the land's lord and not of the person alienating the land. (This halted the growth of subinfeudation and caused services as well as incidents of aids, relief, escheat, wardship, and marriage to go directly to the Chief Lord. It also advantaged the Crown as overlord, which then acquired more direct tenants.)