BAERETT V. FAILING. 475 �of descents, declaring that whenever any person shall die in- testate, and seized of real property, it shall descend to certain persons ; or that of dower, which declares that the widow of every deceased person shall be entitled to dower in the inher- itance of her husband; and cite Harding et ux, v. Alden, 9 Me. 140; De Godey v. Qodey, 39 Cal. 157, 161 ; Whetstone v. Coffey, 48. Tex. 269. �In Texas and California the civil law is so far in force that property acquired during the marriage, otherwise than by gift, devise, or descent, is common property ; that is, it belongs to the matrimonial community, the husband and wife, equally, subject to the right of management on the part of the hus- band during coverture. The cases cited from these states only decide that when a decree of divorce is declared, and no disposition is made of the community property, the wife may assert her right to her interest in it in another suit bef ore an- other court of the same state ; and this, although the statute of the latter state provided that, in case of the dissolution of the marriage by the deeree of the court, "the common prop- erty shall be equally divided between the parties, and the court granting the decree shall make such order for the divis- ion of the common property." But the question whether a decree of divorce obtained in another state — a foreign decree — cornes within the operation of this section 495, so as to afîect the title to lands in this state, these cases do not de- cide. �The case in 9 Maine goes further, and holds that under the law of that state, which provided generally that when a divorce was decreed for the adultery of the husband the wife should be entitled to dower the same as if he were dead, a wife divorced in Khode Island for the adultery of the husband, eommitted in North Carolina, was entitled to dower in his lands in Maine. The contest in the case was principally as to the validity of the Ehode Island divorce, and, assuming that to have been valid, her right to dower was aUowed without much consideration, the court being apparently controUed by the fact that the provision was general, "and not limited to divorces decreed within the state." ����
