
    Boyleston v. Farrior.
    
      Bill in Equity by Wife, for Cancellation of Conveyance.
    
    1. Conveyance of wife’s propaiy, for husband's debt; equitable relief against. A married woman can not, either directly or indirectly, by mortgage or absolute deed, convey property belonging to her statutory separate estate, in consideration of the debt of her husband ; and having executed such conveyance, she may come into equity to have it set aside and cancelled, without averment or proof of fraud, duress, or improvidence in the transaction.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Barbour.
    Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham.
    The bill in this case was filed on the 8th January, 1878, by Mrs. Victoria Boyleston, the wife of Joseph C. Boyleston, against William'M. Farrior, D. W. McRee, and her said husband ; and sought, principally, the cancellation of a deed, by which her husband conveyed to said Farrior atract of land, which the complainant claimed under a deed of gift from her father, Franklin Auglin, as belonging to her statutory separate estate. The deed of gift was made an exhibit to the bill, and was dated the 22d December, 1855. It conveyed the land, in consideration of natural love and affection, to the grantor’s daughter, Victoria Auglin, and reserved to himself “ the use and profit ” of the property during his life. The bill alleged that the complainant and said J. C. Boyleston were married on the 31st December, 1870 ; that on the'21st February, 1872, her husband, being indebted to said W. M. Farrior, executed to him a mortgage on said tract of land, reciting therein that it was given to secure the debt of himself and. his wife; that the complainant’s name was also signed to said mortgage “ by one Thomas W. Auglin, who styled himself as her guardian,” but it was signed without her authority or knowledge ; that on the 21sf December, 1873, in payment of said indebtedness, with usurious interest included, and $300 additional paid to the complainant herself, amounting in all to $1,492, her husband sold and conveyed a portion of the land to said Farrior, “ and executed and delivered to him a deed thereto signed by himself and complainant;” that this transaction was intended by her husband and Farrior as a settlement and payment of the mortgage debt, and the $300 paid to her was only the difference between the estimated amount of the debt and the value of the land; that Farrior afterwards sold the land to D. W. McB.ee, and placed Mm in possession ; that McB.ee bought with knowledge of complainant’s rights, and never paid the purchase-money; and that Farrior had filed a bill against him to enforce his vendor’s lien. The bill prayed a decree declaring the conveyance to Farrior null and void, and offered to restore the $300 which the complainant had received ; or that she have a decree for the balance of the consideration, $1,192, which constituted the debt of her husband, and a lien on the land for its payment; and for general relief. The chancellor dismissed the bill, for want of equity ; and his decree is here assigned as error.
    J. M. White, J. M. Bueord, H. B. Shorter, and J. Mc-Kleroy, for appellant.
    D. M. Sears, and J. D. Boquemore, contra.
    
   BBICKELL, C. J.

It is settled by former decisions, which we are unwilling to disturb, that a married woman can not, directly or indirectly, whether by mortgage or absolute deed, convey her statutory separate estate as a security for, or in consideration of the debt of her husband.' — Weil v. Pope, 53 Ala. 585; Williams v. Bass, 57 Ala. 487. These authorities also indicate that, at her instance', a court of equity will intervene, and rescind a conveyance founded upon such consideration, though there may not be fraud or duress, and no averment or evidence of improvidence in the transaction. There was, consequently, error in sustaining the motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity. Let the decree be reversed, and the cause remanded.  