It is somewhat questionable, whether this man _would_ be the best judge of the wants of his family, Chancellor Kent to the contrary notwithstanding; as also what might be his idea of "gentle restraint," in case the wife had refused "to shift her domicile." As to property, Kent proceeds:-- The general rule is, that the husband becomes entitled, on the marriage, to all the goods and chattels of the wife, and to the rents and profits of her lands; and he becomes liable to pay her debts and perform her contracts. 1. If the wife have an inheritance in land, he takes the rents and profits during their joint lives. He may sue in his own name for an injury to the profits of the land; but, if the husband himself chooses to commit waste, the wife has no redress at common law. 2. If the wife, at the time of her marriage, hath an estate for her life, the husband becomes seized of such an estate, and is entitled to the profits during marriage. 3. The husband also becomes possessed of the chattels real of the wife; and the law gives him power, _without her consent_, to sell, assign, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of, the same as he pleases. Such chattels real are liable to be sold on execution for his debts (vol. ii. p. 133). If he survive his wife, the law gives him her chattels real by survivorship. 4. If debts are due to the wife before marriage, and are recovered by the husband afterward, the money becomes, in most cases, absolutely his own. On the other hand, the husband is,-- 1st, Obliged to provide for his wife out of his fortune, or her own that he has taken into his custody, of what the court calls "necessaries,"--these again, of course, to be dependent on the "_man's notion_"! and,-- 2d, Becomes liable for her frauds and torts during coverture,--the law understanding, as well as a merchant, that it is useless to "sue a broken bench." The _indulgence_ of the law toward the wife, we are then told, is founded on the idea of force exercised by the husband; a presumption only, which may be repelled. What this indulgence is, we may well be puzzled to guess, unless the phrase indicate that she is not to be prosecuted for theft, where _both_ are guilty; and yet, if the presumption that he compelled her to steal be _repelled_, she _may_ be prosecuted, and found guilty. A wife cannot devise her lands by will; nor can she make a testament of chattels, except it be of those which she holds _en autre droit_, without the license of her husband. It is not strictly a will, then, only an appointment, which the husband is bound to allow (vol. ii. p. 170).