case Powell versus hankey and Cox Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl pl the wife  after thedeath of her husband not admit in equity to recover the arrear of her  seprate estate vide post Thomas v Bennet the wife before her marriage by the  consent of her then intend husband convey her real estate to trustee to such  use as she notwithstanding her coverture shall appoint and assign all her  mortgage and bind to her separate use beside which she have pound  exchequerannuities assign by her intend husband to her trustee in trust for  herself for her jointure after the marriage she constant permit her husband to  receive the interest of all these security and bind without make any complaint  either to the debtor that pay the money or to her trustee also the wife  consent to sell pound a year part other land of inheritance for pound which  the husband have receive therewith find a charity for poor widow and give a  bind for it to the wife trustee to be pay to they within three peer William  month after the wife death f r the honest of her executor peer William er p  about ten year after the marriage the husband die and his executor subscribe  the pound exchequerannuities into the SouthSea without the privity of the wife  who be then in the country but she afterward have notice thereof and when the  affair of that company be in their prosperity insist upon have a proportion of  the benefit of that subscription decree by Lord chancellor saint that as to  any part of the principal money due upon any of the mortgage and security the  husband executor ought out of the asset to make that good with interest from  the death of the husband but dly that with regard to any of the interest on  the mortgage and security receive by the husband during the coverture as it be  against common right that the wife shall have a separate property from the  husband they be both in law but as one person so all reasonable intendment and  presumption be to be admit against the wife in this case and forasmuch as she  have for ten year together permit the husband to receive this interest without  make the least objection either to the husband or to the debtor who pay the  money or to her own trustee it shall be therefore intend that she consent to  the husband receipt of this interest that the contrary construction may have  be a hardship upon the husband who probable depend on the wife permit he to  receive this as a gift and on such a presumption may have live in a more  plentiful manner the comfort whereof the wife must have share in and if she  ten peer William or twenty year afterward shall be allow to make her husband a  debtor for all this money which she may do by the same reason as now after his  death to charge his executor this may ruin the husband or in case of his death  prove equal prejudicial to his child and though it have be pretend that the  wife be keep in awe and hinder from make her demand by reason of the husband  passionate temper yet the court observe that this be not prove and though that  be real the case still the wife may have apply and complain to her own trustee  who she must be suppose to have have a confidence in as person who will have  protect her against any resentment of her husband have there be occasion  whereas nothing of this be do dly as to the case of a separate maintenance the  court take notice that the husband maintain the wife bar the wife claim in  respect thereof so if there shall be a provision for the wife separate use for  clothes if the husband find those clothes the wife claim will be thereby bar  that in case of the wife separate maintenance if this be not demand by her she  will be conclude even where she have no other person to demand it of but her  husband which probable she may be afraid to do but that the principal case be  not so strong in regard there the wife may have demand it from her own trustee  neither be it material whether the allowance or maintenancemoney be provide  out of that estate which be original the husband or as in the principal case  out of what be the wife own estate for that in both case the wife not have  demand it for several yearstogether shall be construe a consent from her that  the husband shall receive it and as to this point of the peer William arrear  of separate maintenance not be demand by the wife in his lifetime the case of  judge dorm and the bishop of Salisbury be cite hill as to the four point  videlicet the wife accept this bind for the payment of pound within three  month after her death for the use of her executor the court hold this shall  bind the wife and be a wave of the interest of the pound during her own life  for that it be impossible to misapprehend so plain and express word as be in  the condition of the bind videlicet to be pay within three month after her  death and if she will avoid this bind it be incumbent upon her to prove that  some fraud be make use of in gain her acceptance thereof that this be her  separate estate she must prima fancy be look upon as a feme sole and it be as  if a feme sole have accept such bind which will have bind her also it be a  reasonable thing to suppose that the wife contribute to this charity it be to  widow consequent to her own sex and by this manner of contribute to it what  she give be of very little value it be but out of her life after her husband  which if she have not happen to survive will have amount to nothing at all so  that there be the more reason she shall be bind by this bind with respect to  the other point the court hold the wife to be bind by the sub peer William er  p scription of these exchequerannuities into the Southsea the same be do by  the executor who have the legal estate for the assignment of such annuity upon  the plaintiff marriage have never be register in the exchequer and consequent  be void wherefore this subscription by the executor be to be look upon as of  equal force with a subscription make by guardian which will bind a peer  William infant but then it be do without the consent of the widow the same  shall be make good out of the personal estate of the testator nay and if that  shall prove deficient out of his real estate forasmuch as he have covenant for  himself and his heir to make good these annuity of pound a year to his wife  and this be so order notwithstanding she be represent as have insist afterward  upon receive the imaginary benefit of this subscription for that look rather  like lose discourse than any thing else at least it will be too hard for that  reason to deprive her of the provision which be stipulate for her on her  marriage his lordship admit there be a clause in the act of parliament vide  Geo cap sect for make good all subscription make by trustee executor or  guardian but this be he say for the benefit quiet and security of the SouthSea  company which this decree will not break into on the other hand the executor  themselves offer by their answer to make this good to the wife notwithstanding  that two of the residuary legatee be infant and so can not be bind by the  consent of the executor yet such way of answer by the executor show plain  enough what be the intention of all party touch the subscription of the  annuity videlicet that the wife shall not be deprive of the benefit of her  settlement who do not seem to have have any mean of compel the executor to let  her into the benefit of the subscription of these annuity have there be any  cost order to the widow out of her husband asset Thomas v Bennett post foul v  foul post vol in Lord Townshend v Windham ves and peacock v monk ves the  general rule of the court be say to be that a account of pinmoney shall not be  carry back beyond a year yet under particular circumstance it may be otherwise  as in countess of Warwick v Edward Eq can ab pl Ridout v Lewis I atk see Aston  v Aston I ves smith v Lord Camelford Ves jun squire v dean bro c c park v  white Ves Dalbiac v Dalbiac Ves brodie v Barry v b Allen v Papworth I ves  Grigby v Cox ves peacock v monk ves Hulme v tenant bro c c Pybus v smith bro c  c S c Ves jun Fettiplace v gorge Ves jun Lord Rosslyn be incline to narrow the  rule lie down in the principal case Milnes v busk Ves jun whistler v Newman  Ves more v Huish Ves but the latter case have restore its authority sperling v  Rochfort Ves Wagstaff v smith Ves park v white Ves wit v Dawkins Ves Sturgis v  Corp Ves Essex v Atkins Ves Acton v white sim S but where a feme covert enter  into a contract which in form amount only to a general personal demand her  separate estate will not be charge Hulme v tenant ub sup and dick duke of  Bolton v William Ves jun Jones v Harris Ves power v Bailey ba be Francis v  wigzell mad great v noble mad Aguilar v Aguilar mad unless she have show such  to have be her intention as e gr by give a security either alone or with her  husband Norton v Turvill post Standford v martial atk Bullpin v clarke Ves  great v noble ub sup Stuart v Kirkwall mad as to the process against a feme  covert have a separate estate see note a to Newsome v bowyer post vol as to  the execution against the separate property see nantes v Corrock Ves Hulme v  tenant Francis v wigzell ub sup as to the administration of it after the  decease of the feme covert Norton v Turvill post it be to be observe also that  a feme covert may be restrain by the term of the instrument which give her  separate property from alienate or anticipate it Sockett v Wray bro c c hide v  price Ves Richard v chamber Ves park v white ill Ves Heatley v Thomas Ves  Brandon v Robinson Ves l rise lee v Muggeridge v b Jackson v Hobhouse mere  Worrall v Jacob mere Ritchie v Broadbent I W peer William er p