- 941
resented only a small proportion of the dowry, but could still be
considerable if the dowry were large enough.6.2.4.3 The husband was subject to certain restrictions on alienat-
ing dowry property, especially as far as his creditors were concerned.^118
The husband had no right to sell dowry property without his wife’s
consent, but in practice this was easily circumvented, for example,
by proxy contracts. The husband is sometimes said to have sold
dowry slaves “at the wish” of his wife, but there are also instances
of the wife canceling the contract at a later point.^119 The husband
might sell or pledge items of the dowry jointly with the wife (YOS
17 322; Cyr. 332). He could also give the wife specific items to
replace assets drawn upon (CT 55 126; Cyr. 332, and see 6.2.5.1
below). In Nbk. 265, faced with a complaint that creditors were reduc-
ing the dowry, the husband assigns his wife “all his property in town
and country.” In a remarkable judgment, the court transfers the last
of an insolvent husband’s assets to his wife by way of restoration of
her dowry, ordering her to provide him with maintenance instead.^120
Both dowry and maintenance are declared beyond the reach of his
creditors, which may have been the point of this unique arrangement.6.2.4.4 The husband and his family had no right to inherit the
dowry, which was reserved for the children of the marriage, daugh-
ters and sons alike. No clear principles for division of the dowry
among them can be deduced from either the laws or the documents
of practice. It would appear that there was a certain flexibility—on
the one hand, sons divide a mother’s estate; on the other, mothers
provide their daughters with generous portions even though there
are male heirs. It could also happen that a mother changed her
mind and withdrew a portion that she had previously allocated (VAS
5 45/46 = NRV 20). The preferential treatment of a particular child
was legitimate, if that child alone had fulfilled the duty of mainte-
nance. The dowry could not, however, be assigned to an outsider
as long as the children were alive. If the wife died childless, the
dowry reverted to her paternal family (NBL 10).(^118) Dalley Edinburgh 69:39f. shows that the creditors did not have automatic recourse
to the wife’s dowry in order to satisfy debts owed by the husband (see below).
(^119) Waerzeggers, “Records.. .,” 194–96.
(^120) Dalley Edinburgh 69. See Ries, “Mitgiftprozeß.. .” Joannès (“Textes judici-
aires.. .,” 234–37) interprets the order as restoring to the husband sums expended
by him on his wife’s maintenance.
westbrook_f26_911-974 8/27/03 1:36 PM Page 941