
    AUGUST TERM, 1861.
    TATHAM v. WILSON.
    Where a husband and wife brought suit in a court of equity for the distribution of a fund limited to thorn and others by deed, as joint owners, and after an interlocutory decree for an account, but before the account was taken, the husband died, it was held that the wife, surviving, was entitled to the fund.
    This cause was removed from Macon county.
    After the hearing of the cause at a former term of the Court, and a decree for an account against the defendants, who had the fund in their possession, it was referred to Mr. Dodge, the cleric of this Court, to report the names of the children of E'aehel Wilson, and the amount of the severaljsharos to which each was entitled.
    The clerk reported at large, and there was no exception taken to his report, except one, filed by W. L. love, the administrator of William Tatham. In the report* the clerfc states that William Tatham intermarried with Isabella* on© of the children of Rachel Wilson, and joined with his wife and others in bringing the suit for the proceeds of the property, limited to them after the death ©f Rachel Wilson, and that a decree was passed declaring-the plaintiffs entitled to. an account of the fund, and' that, after-ward's, the-said William Tath-am died, and Mr. Love administered and became a party to-thesuit, and the question was made before the commissioner, whether the share of said fund belonging- originally to Isabella, the wife of said William, enured to. his representative, or whether she is entitled to the same.
    The commissioner reported that Isabella Tatham, the wife, was entitled to the share aforesaid, and on this ground, the administrator excepts.
    The cans© being-set down for argument, it was argued at this term by
    
      Henry and Shipp, for Love, the administrator, and
    
      Gaither and N. W. Woodfin, for Mrs. Tatha.m..
   PearsoN, C. J.

The exception is over-ruled. It is clearly settled, that where a husband dies, after an interlocutory decree for an account, the wife surviving, becomes entitled to the amount that may be recovered by the final decree; indeed, the wife, surviving, is entitled, although the husband should not die until after final decree; for he does not actually reduce the chose into possession by a judgment or final decree ; that can only be done by execution or payment to. the husband, and the legal effect given to a judgment or decree, is to give the husband the benefit of taking, by survivorship, in case of the wife’s death ; Nanny v. Martin,, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 68; McCauley v. Phillips, 4 Ves. Jun’r. 15.

Per Curiam, Decree according to report..  