1. At the time the schedule was filed and recorded, Susan Long was the wife of Frank Long, the latter being then in life and an inmate of the lunatic asylum. But the schedule did not disclose on its face that she was the wife of anybody; on the contrary, it represented that she was the head of a family, and she claimed the exemption in no other character. If she had claimed as wife and disclosed that the.property (as it really did) belonged to Frank Long, her husband, and that he refused to seek the benefit of the law, she would have been within the scheme of the Code, §2041. Perhaps, as he was insane and confined in the asylum, this fact, had it been set forth, would have been the legal equivalent of a refusal on his part. I think it would. The schedule nowhere directly affirms to whom the property belongs, but the fair inference from it would be that she was a widow or otherwise single, and that the property was her own. Surely, such a schedule is no notice to Frank Long’s creditors, or to the public who might deal with him, that his property was to be tied up. What the schedule- indicates is, that she was putting her own property under shelter, against her creditors. There is no suggestion in it that Frank Long or his creditors had, or might have, any concern with what she was doing. As against his creditors, therefore, the schedule and the record of it are without any force or effect whatever. The schedule was filed and recorded on February 5, 1878. On the 4th of March following, the ordinary passed an order which describes Susan as the wife of Frank Long, but that order is no part of the schedule and cannot be looked to in aid of it. Even if it could be, it stops short of showing that the property was dealt with as Frank Long’s. The order is set out in the reporter’s statement.
3. A part of the object of the bill seems to be to patch up and repair errors and mistakes in the phraseology of the schedule we have been considering, or to hover under the friendly wing of equity as a refuge against their consequences. But what necessity is there to resort to equity to secure the exemptions allowed by §2040 of the Code in the ease of an insolvent estate ? Section 2049 provides for the case, and the widow, while a wife, having failed to assert her right in a proper manner, can now assert it as widow by simply returning a proper schedule to the ordinary and having it recorded. This will hold off the administrator as to claims which do not for some reason override the exemption right, so long as the right has continuance. When the right has terminated, administration will then take its due course as to all claims outstanding.
4. The repeal of sections of the Code 2047 and 2048,
Judgment reversed.