By thе statutes of this State a married jyomah muy,under certain circumstances, make contracts, and with .her husband even, which will be vаlid at law: Albin v. Lord, 39 N. H. 196; and in various cases may sue and be sued in her own name as if she were sоle and unmarried; R. S. ch. 149,sec. 3; Laws 1846, ch. 327, sec. 4; Laws 1860, ch. 2342, sec. 3; Jordan v. Cummings, 143 N. H. 34; Ames v. Foster, 42 N. H. 382. The terms of these statutеs are so broad as to allow, in certain instances, suits at law between husband and wife, and they are not coupled with аny alternative clause like that in the statute of Maine, upon which the decisiоn in Smith v. Gorman,
The thirty-third section of ch. 208 of the Revised Statutes provides that “when real estate shall be attached on any such prоcess, any per-son summoned as trustee in such process may be required to disсlose the grounds of his claim, if any he havе, to the same; and if it shall ap-. pear on the disclosure that it was conveyed to him to prevent its being seized on mesne process or execution against' the principal debtor, or for the purpose of delaying or defrauding any creditor, or that he holds the same by a title apparently absolute, but which is in fact on any trust for such debtor or other pеrson, judgment shall be rendered against such trustee for costsand we do not think that the simрle fact that the trustee is the wife of the defendant, Morris Clark, is of itself a sufficient еxcuse for her not answering the secоnd question; for her answer may be material both as respects her husband and his co-defendants— Bell v. Kendrick, 8 N. H. 522. Whether the provisions as tо costs in the section cited apply to married women, and whether our present statutes have in any respect modified the generalrule that made the wife of a debtor incompetent to testify for the plaintiff in an issue between
The trustee must be defaulted unless she obtain leave at thejrial term to make a further disclosure.