186 FEDERAL REPORTER. �permitted the real estate to remain for a long time in the name of her husband — bas permitted him to exercise appar- ently the sole control over it, and treat it as his own, -with ail the indicia of ownership, for a series of years, thus hold- ing himself eut to the world as the owner of the property, and trading and doing business upon the faith of such ownership — ■whether we ought, on principle, to sustain a conveyance to the ■wife nnder such circumstances ; but, however this may be as an abstract principle, if these cases were within the rule established by the supreme court, it would be the duty of this court to foUow it as one of property in the state. But these , cases now before the court are different from those cited in this: that in each there was a large share of the value of the property, the subject of controversy here, which had been contributed by the husband. In the one case he had pur- chased the property with his own means, and had merely made a gift to his wife many years before the conveyance was made to her; in the other she had advanced the purchaee money out of her own estate, but he had contributed a large share to the value of the property; and in both cases the hus- band had exercised apparent ownership over the property for many years, traded on it and used it as his own, so far as we know, without any action on the part of the wife in hostility thereto. To allow the wife, under such circumstances as these, to retain the property, or even any part of it, as against creditors, would, it seems to me, be inequitable. �It is true that the law discriminates between the property of the husband and that of the wife, and allows the wife pro- tection in her individual property; but we know how frequent it is for them, although there may be separate property in the wife, to consider it as common, and how often the wife allows the husband to treat her property as his own. A court of equity would go very far, even in such a case, to pro- tect a wife in her individual rights; but it is hardly permissi- ble for her to allow her husband for a series of years to treat the property as his own, and to incorporate a part of his own means in it, and then claim the whole of it as against the creditors of the husband. It is possible that, where the ques- ����
