HUBTADO. 342 HUSBAND AND WIPE. (1663), a pastoral comedy. Consult the study by Vasconcellos (Halle. 1«83). HURTADO DE MENDOZA, dft mftn-do'tha, Garcia, Marquis of Cailete (15351609). A JSpanish soMiir and adiniiiistratiir. born at Cucn- ca. He fouf^lit in Italy and tierniany, hut by 1557 was Governor of Chile, where he took part in the local wars. Three years afterwards he was back in Spain, whose battles he foufiht in Portugal, but he returned to South America as Viceroy of Peru in 1590. He' sent out expeditions which resulted in the discoverj' of the Marquesas Islands, called after him; but he resi',iied his post in 1590. HURTES, hoor'ter. Kkieukuii Emamel von ( 17x7 l^t^-"" ) . . Sh i>s historiojjra|>lii'r. He was burn ill .S luiU'liausin, and cduculed there and at Gijttinjien. He was pastor at I{ej.'j;in),'cn (1808), and at Lohningen. and in 1835 was made dean and aniistes of the Keforned synod. After the publication of his (leachichte I'apsI Innocem' 111. und seiner Zcitiienosavn (1834-42) he be- came a Roman Catholic (1844). At about the same time he published Die Befein- dung der kalholiachen Kirchc in dcr tichiceir seit /N-.'/ (1842-43)). and Gchurt and Wiedergeburl (1845), an apolojjia for his con- version. In 184(> lie setlh-il at V'ieima, and was made historio(.T»plior to the Emperor of Austria. I'nder the liberal rule of Pillersdorf he resigned this position, but was reappointed in 1851. His other liistorical works include: (leschichte den oslijolhixphen Kiinigs TItendorich (1807); Denk- triirdigkeiten aus devi lel^len Decciinium dea IS. Jdhrhiindert.i (1840): I'hilipp J.anq, Kammcr- diincr Itudulfs II. (1851) ; Ziir Gcschichte. Wal- Irnstcins (1855): and Wnllrnxtrins lirr Ictxte Lcbrtisjnhre (1802). Consult Hurter (his son), frinlrich run Hurler und aeine Zeit (Gratz, l«7il77). • HUSBAND AND WIPE. A man and wom- an married tn each other. The mo<les of con- tract inp marriage, with the accompanying cere- monies, and the impediments to marriage will be more properly described under the head of Marriage (q.v. ), and the mode of dissolving the marriage has been already described under DivoRrE (q.v.). The effects of marriage upon the right.s of the parties and upon their property will here be described. The effect of marriage at common law may be viewed under two heads: first, as regards the persons and the personal rights of the married persons, and. secondly, as regards their property. ( 1 ) .'Vs TO THK Person. By marriage at eonmion law the husband became legally bound to sup- port the wife in a monner consistent with his re- sources and social position. He also became bound to pay all debts contracted by her before the marriage, and when sued with the wife be- came responsible for her torts •■omniitted either before or during the coverture. In all other re- spects he remained in precisely the same position as before marriage. Independently of his wife he could sue and be sued, enter into contracts, and hind himself as fully after as before mar- riage, and he could even make a will and be- queath all his property to strangers regardless of the wife. Aa regards the person and personal rights of the wife, however, there was a material difference. Her person is said to be merged in that of her husband, and for many purposes they were treated as one person in the eye of the law. The wife could neither sue nor be sued indepen- dently of the husband. Her c-ontracts were void even when made with her husband. Even the per- sonal projHTty she had before marriage became her husl)and's absolutely, and he could dispose of it at will. She had no power to make a will of real estate, and her will disposing of personal property owned by her before her marriage could be eircclivc only wlun autlu>ri/x>d or consented to by the husband at her death. As the husband, however, was bound to support the wife, she had authority in law without his consent to pledge bis cri'dil for necessaries supplied by third per- sons. This obligation, being iinpo.sed by law. was not properly a contract, but a quasi-contract (q.v.). Necessaries are any articles of |K'rsonal use. as food or wearing a|)parel. which arc suited to the rank and position in life of the husband, and with which the wife is not provided. There- fore, if goods were ordere<l by the wife which were not necessary, the husband was under no legal liability to pay for them unless he ex- jiressly or impliedly ratified his wife's act in ])urchasing them. Thus he could not keep the goods ami refuse payment. If. for example, he saw his wife wearing an expensive dresH which he knew he did not himself order or pay for, and did not at once repudiate the purchase and return the goods, he would be held to hiive con- sented anly enough, only circuitous means of enforcing tliis duty. The wife, for example, could not sue the husband herself, but having an im- plied authority to order necessaries, the trades- n*n so supplying them could sue the husband for the price. The wife also might impose liability on the husband by contract for articles not neces- saries by virtue of an implied auth<irity as age<it of the husband to purchase such articles; thus, a husband might be liable to pay for articles such as he had regularly permitted his wife to pur- chase on his credit l>efore, although he knew noth- ing of the particular purchase in question. See .gf.nt. The husband, being entire master of his own actions, has the power to decide where to live, and the duty of the wife is to live with him in the .same house. So long, then, as the husband and wife continue to live together, the donucileof the wife is determined by the domicile of the hus- band. If she cca>es to live with her husband she may then amuire an independent domicile. If the wife lives apart from the husband without just cause he is not bound to support her even with necessaries. If, however, she separates from him for just eau.se. the liability of the husbond for necessaries continues. There are. at common law, several just causes for her living apart from her hu'iband. If the husband, for exainjilc. treats her with what is deemed cruelty in the eye of the law. as keeping a mistress in the house, or starv- ing her. or assaulting her. she is entitled to leave him. and can order necessaries at his expense from any tradesman willing to supply her. There are, however, many degrees of cruelty and ill usage for which the wife has practically no remedy, and of which the law can take no cognizance. The statement frequently found in the early treatises that the husband lias at common law the right to reasonably chastise the wife was prob<ibly without authority, and certainly has no support
