MARRIAGE
it, and the remainder of such balance is then divided between the spouses. The wife cannot claim repay- ment until aU post-nuptial creditors have been fully satisfied.^ The effect of a clause excluding community both of goods and of profit and loss ^ is that the spouses are not hable to creditors for each other's debts, ante- or post- nuptial.' On dissolution of the marriage each of them is credited with what he or she brought into the marriage, plus subsequent acquisitions from all sources whatever. Lastly, by the exclusion of community of goods and of profit and loss and of the marital power (class 4, supra) a wife is, as regards her property, in the same position as if the marriage had not taken place.* She may contract, and, according to modern practice, sue and be sued in her own name. If the husband has afienated her property without her consent she may vindicate it from the ahenee.^ But if notwithstanding the ante-nuptial contract ^ Voet, 24. 3. 21. But she may resume such of her property as exists in specie on the dissolution of the marriage, subject to the obliga- tion of satisfying creditors pro semisse. Neostad. de pact, antenupt. Obs. 9, note A ; and the husband is not entitled to deduct expenses, Van Leeuwen, 4. 24. 13. " Kersteman says (Woordenboek, sub voo. Huwelyhsche Voorwaarde p. 195) that an ante-nuptial' pact of this character must be registered, ' Except that the wife is liable even solvio matrimonio to creditors pro semisse in respect of debts for household expenses (Voet, 23. 4. 52 Van Leeuwen, 4. 24. 3 ; Neostad. de pact, antenupt., Obs. 9, note (d)) with a right of regressus against the husband. V. d. K. Dictat. ad Gr. 2. 11. 17.
- Sometimes this is expressed. So in Ruperti's Trustees v. Ruperli
(1885) 4 S. C. 22, the wiie reserved to herself free control over her property ' as fully and effectually as if no marriage had taken- place '. Held, that she had no tacit hypothec upon her husband's insolvent estate for money lent by her to her husband before his insolvency. ^ Voet, 23. 4. 21 and 23. 5. 7 ; Groen. de leg. ahr. ad Inst. 2. 8. pr. The effect is the same if the power of alienation is expressly taken away, or if the husband has been judicially interdicted. Gr. 1. 5. 24. Van Leeuwen, however (4. 24. 4), says that except in the case mentioned by Grotius, the alienation of the wife's property by the husband, notwith- standing the stipulation to the contrary, will hold good as regards third parties, saving to the wife an action against the husband or his heirs. Van der Keessel {Th. 97-8) lays down the same rule as regards the aliena- tion of movables or of bonds to bearer, but not as regards immovables. If Van Leeuwen is right, no ante-nuptial pact can exclude the husband's power of administration and of alienation, so far as concerns third (b) exclu- sion of com- munity of goods and of profit and loss ; (c) exclu- sion of com- munity of goods, and of profit and loss and also of the marital power of adminis-
tration.