75S rËDBBAL BEPOBtËR. �assume that his right to collect his wife's money was abso- lute, whether she consented or not. Hence, a paroi promise based upon such & consent would not be-for a valuable con- Bideration. �But Mr. Hollister's marital rights in his wife's land and slaves were very different from that which he had in her money or personalty. Under the act of 1846 the slaves of a wife were, in effect, held in the same manner as her real estate, and neither her land nor slaves could be sold without her consent. It is true that the act of 1846 was somewhat changed by the Revised Statutes which beeame the law July 1, 1852, but that part of the law which required the wife's consent to the sale of her slaves remained unchanged. The proceeds of the wife's slaves sold after July 1, 1852, would be the husband's, "unless otherwise expressly provided in the conveyances or the obligation of the purchaser;" but the hus- band could only sell the wife's slaves in the same mode as her land, which could only be done by her uniting in the con- veyance. 2 Eev. St. c. 47, § 2, p. 9. �When Mr. HoUister made his paroi promise in considera- tion of Mrs. Hollister's consent to the sale of two of her slaves, and her interest in the homestead of her father, it was made upon a valuable consideration, — to the extent, at least, of the proceeds of the slaves which Mr. HoUister was enabled to collect. Mrs. HoUister was giving and Mr. Hol- lister receiving more than his marital rights entitled him to, and to that extent this paroi agreement is based upon a va,l- uable consideration. 1 Bishop on Married Women, §§ 721-2. The purchase money received by the bankrupt for the two slaves was $1,100, and for her interest in the homestead was $1,000. The interest on this from say Janaury 1, 1854, to January 1, 1874, would be $2,520. This, added to the princi- pal debt, would make $4,620. The time of these sales was, at least as to one of them, sometime before January 1, 1854, so that the proceeds of these sales, with interest, would not be far from $5,000. This would be a valuable consideration to sustain one of these conveyances. The record does not disclose any difference in the value of ����
