
    JOHN ROBBINS v. GEORGE D. ABRAHAMS AND HIS WIFE, AND JAMES BURROWS, TRUSTEE FOR THE WIFE.
    1. A husband bought real estate, and directed the deed therefor to be made to another, in trust for his wife and her heirs, so that the same should not be subject to his control or debts; and on the further trust to convey the same to such person or persons, for such uses, and subject to such provisions, limitations, and agreements as the wife, by writing under seal, or by will, should give, limit, or appoint. The trustee and the wife, afterwards, executed a mortgage of the lands to secure a debt due from the husband, and the mortgage was duly acknowledged by the wife. Held, that the mortgage was good.
    2. The deposition of the husband, offered on the part of the defendant, was held to be inadmissible.
    George I). Abrahams, at different periods after his marriage with Phebe, his wife, bought three several tracts of land, and the deeds therefor were, by his directions, made to James Burrows, conveying the lands to the said Burrows in trust for the use and benefit of Phebe Abrahams, wife of the said George D. Abrahams, and her right heirs forever, so that the same should not be, in any manner, subject or liable to the control, debts, or liabilities of her said husband or any future husband ; and on the further trust to convey the same to the use of such person or persons, for such uses and estates, and subject to such provisos, limitations and agreements as the said Phebe, notwithstanding her said coverture, or any future coverture, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings to be by her sealed and delivered, or by her will duly executed, should give, limit, and appoint. One of the said deeds was executed in May, 1830; another, in April, 1831; and the other in May, 1831.
    On the 1st of May, 1839, George 1). Abrahams executed to Isaac Ivins a bond of that date, conditioned for the payment of two thousand dollars, with interest, in one year; and on the same day, James Burrows, as trustee of Pliebe Abrahams, and the said Phebe Abrahams, executed a mortgage of the said lands to Ivins, bearing even date with the said bond, securing the amount of the said bond.
    
      On the 1st of April, 1844, the said bond and mortgage were assigned by Ivins to John Robbins, the complainant. The bill was filed for the foreclosure of the said mortgage.
    The mortgage was acknowledged by Mrs. Abrahams, in the usual form of acknowledgment by married women. There was a dwelling-house on one of the tracts, which was occupied by Abrahams and his family, and Abrahams also had the possession of the other lots.
    Answers were put, in by Burrows and Phebe Abrahams, she answering separately from her husband, by leave of the court for that purpose first, obtained ; (see ante p. ,16 ;) and testimony was taken. The defendant, George D. Abrahams, was sworn on the part of the defendants, and his testimony was objected to as incompetent.
    
      H. W. Green, for the complainant.
    He cited Gresley’s Eq. Evid. 245; 2 Stark. Evid. 400; 1. Burr. 424; 4 Term Rep. 678; 7 John. Ch. Rep. 34, 229, 238; 1 Green’s Ch. 131; 2 Vesey 560; 5 John. Ch. 480; 14 Vesey 542; 5 Ibid. 445; 6 Ibid. 376; 4 Kent’s Com, 344, 345; 1 Sugden on Powers 508; 3 John. Chan. 134, 144; 15 Vesey 596.
    
      P. D. Vroom, for defendants.
    He cited 3 John. Ch. 550, 113; 1 Ves., Jr., 189, and note; 3 Dessaus. 417; 2 Ves., Jr., 497, 498; 2 Ves., Sr., 663.
   The Chancellor.

The principal grounds of defence are, 1st. That, under the terms of the trust in the several deeds to Burrows, the wife could not, by any mode of direction or appointment, authorize the trustee to execute a mortgage of the lands to secure the payment of a debt of the husband. 2d. That, if she could authorize such a conveyance by the mode of direction or appointment specified in the deeds, her joining in the execution of the mortgage, without a previous deed'of direction or appointment, is not sufficient.

I cannot regard this case as standing oh the same ground as an ante-nuptial settlement, or as a conveyance by one person in trust for the wife of another. If I could, I should feel bound to meet the inquiry, whether some of the doctrines which seem to have been held elsewhere, as to the extent of the wife’s right of alienation or appointment, and the mode of appointment, have ever been sanctioned in this state. But in the case before me, I am willing to take the broadest grounds that have been taken in England and in New York, sustaining conveyances by a wife, or by a trustee with her consent. I do not desire to be understood as now assenting that a husband can, at this day, in New Jersey, purchase property and direct a conveyance thereof to be made to a trustee for the use of his wife, and by that means placing it beyond the reach of subsequent creditors.

The deposition of George D. Abrahams, the husband, was objected to. I think it was incompetent.

Decree for the complainant.  