How have courts interpreted the meaning of a "marriage contract" where a wife's property is not vesting in the husband by virtue of marriage?

Morgan v. Elam, 12 Tenn. 375, 379 (Tenn. 1833). The "marriage contract" had the effect and intent of preventing the wife's property from vesting in the husband by virtue of the marriage. Id. at 383-84.

Using a trust, a woman was able to stay in possession and control of her property during marriage in contravention of the common law's rules regarding a married woman's property. "A marriage settlement, then, is a conveyance of property upon defined trusts, as a marriage contract is an agreement that it shall be made, enforceable in a court of equity, and its effect to give a different direction to property from that which would result from a marriage without any settlement, or contract for settlement, and looks most usually to the interest of the wife and the issue of the marriage union." Sullivan v. Powers, 6 S.E. 395, 396 (N.C. 1888).