case FURSOR versus penton eoden die master of the roll in court husband  covenant with his intend wife that she shall have power to dispose pound of  her estate whether this covenant be discharge by the marriage the case be a  man before marriage covenant with his intend wife that she shall have Vernon  chancery case power to dispose of pound of her estate notwithstanding the  intermarriage the husband now bring his bill against the defendant in who see  hand the pound be set forth that if there be any such agreement with his wife  the same be discharge by the intermarriage for the defendant it be insist that  he be concern only as a trustee but offer it to the court that though the  covenant be improvident take in the name of the wife whereas it ought to have  be in the name of trustee and though it shall be admit that the marriage in  strictness of law have discharge the covenant yet a court of equity will never  suffer a trust to be so defeat and the court incline to dismiss the bill but  then the plaintiff counsel allege that the wife be consent that the money  shall be pay to the husband the court adjourn the cause till next term when  the plaintiff may bring his wife into court to be examine such a covenant seem  good in equity Harvey v Harvey p wms gage v Acton salk Mod Com Rep Acton v  pierce all post vol where bind give to the wife by the husband before marriage  though extinguish at law by the marriage yet good in equity and see wright v  Cadogan Eden Prebble v Boghurst swan so a bind from feme sole to her intend  husband cannel v buckle p wms vide however the distinction take between bind  and covenant or promise in such case by holt chief justice gage v Acton ub sup  the former be extinguish by the marriage the latter not vide as to settlement  durnford v lane bro Ch Rep William v William ibidem so marriage with a legatee  be no revocation Ewbank v Hallowell bro Ch Rep in the argue of this case the  case of smith ux v Stafford in hob foe be cite where accord to the book a  promise by the husband to the wife before marriage to leave her pound at his  death be discharge by the intermarriage but note the case of clarke and  Thompson Cr James fol be direct contrary and there the case of smith and  Stafford be cite and three judge be of opinion that the promise be not  discharge by the intermarriage and only my Lord Hobart of the contrary opinion  but neither of those case come up to this case for here it be that the wife  though marry may dispose of pound there it be that the husband at his death  will leave his wife worth pound and the reason of the case in Cr James be that  it be not a duty during the coverture and therefore can not be release in deed  or in law gage v Acton common Rep