case squib versus win see in re Lambert estate Ch d smart v Tranter Ch d Lord  chancellor Cowper feme covert possess of choose in action die her husband  administer and make a voluntary assignment this be a alteration of the  property so if the husband have survive and then have die without alter it or  so much as administer to his wife Mr harbour have four daughter videlicet the  countess of Kingston lady Aiscough grace hatcher and lady win and after have  give some legacy devise his real and personal estate equal among his four  daughter and die the countess of Kingston die intestate and the Lord Orford  administer to her and Mr hatcher the husband of one of the daughter assign  over all that share of the personal estate which come to his wife by the death  of the countess and which consist of choose in action unto Mr Richard snow  grace hatcher afterward die and Mr hatcher have marry again die intestate and  his second wife peer William er p have administer to he and have also gain  administration in the spiritual court to grace hatcher de good non administer  by her husband peer William the question be who have a right to mrs grace  hatchers share of the countess of kingston personal estate it be insist for  the survive daughter of Mr harbour that mrs hatchers share of lady kingston  personal estate be but a choose in action and that though a right to a three  part of it vest in grace hatcher yet the husband assignment of it be only  voluntary be not to be regard in equity by if the assignment have be for a  valuable consideration that a voluntary assignment by Mr hatcher will not have  bind mrs hatcher if she have survive and by the same reason shall not bind her  representative now she be dead nay that this assignment to snow by the husband  walk worse than voluntary it be fraudulent and say to be so by his second wife  who now make a title to it and therefore such a assignment as she herself who  will take advantage of it call fraudulent ought not to prevail wherefore if  the assignment be out of the case the husband hatcher upon the death of his  wife have not as husband and survive his wife the least right vest in he to  any of his wife choose in action but must take out administration to his wife  and after he shall have do so the letter of administration will give he  nothing but only a power of alter the property which power if not make use of  it then will be as if he have never have it peer William that the statute of  distribution will not better the husband title in this case since the clause  in the statute of fraud car cap sect which say that the statute of  distribution shall not affect the husband right to his wife personal estate  exempt he from distribute only in case where he have a interest vest in he  which here he have not so that it be the same case as if the statute of  distribution have never be make or as if this case have happen before that  statute consequent after the husband death without alter the property then the  choose in action of the wife not administer by the husband do fall within the  statute of distribution and become divisible among the next of kin of grace  the intestate the wife of hatcher neither be it material that the defendant  the second wife of hatcher have gain administration de good non c of grace the  first wife for still she be but a hand to receive the money subject to  distribution accord to the statute Lord chancellor the husband title at law to  the personal estate of the wife be favour even a term which be a chattel real  shall go to the husband survive his wife Inst b b and as to all the personal  good they be his by the intermarriage though the husband administer to the  wife be liable to pay her debt yet he be entitle to the surplus which will go  to his representative and as to this assignment notwithstanding it be  voluntary I can but think it do bind the property for there may be time spend  and delay use before the husband can recover this personal estate in equity  but the delay of suit ought not to turn to his prejudice peer William and with  respect to the clause in the statute of fraud the exception do not confine it  to the life of the husband or to the circumstance of his have reduce any part  of the wife personal estate into possession but provide that no part of her  estate shall be distributable among her relation after her death so that it  seem reasonable the assignment shall be take to alter the property beside that  it be the very ground of the difference that choose in action be assignable in  equity though not at law and this matter seem to have be decide by the  spiritual court in favour of the husband and his representative by that court  be grant administration de good non of grace hatcher to the next of kin of the  husband wherefore decree the benefit of grace hatchers share of her decease  sister personal estate to the administratrix of hatcher the husband see the  case of cart and Rees in Michaelmas term Jupiter Nov where this strong case  happen videlicet a wife die possess of choose in action and the husband  survive and die without take out letter of administration to his wife after  which the next of kin of the wife administer to her and Lord Parker hold that  the administrator to the wife be but a trustee for the executor of the husband  so Humphrey v Bullen atk and see watt v watt Ves the right to peer William er  p the wife choose in action be by the statute of distribution vest in the  husband as next of kin to the wife and whereas there be a proviso in car say  that the statute of distribution shall not extend to the estate of feme covert  that die intestate but that their husband may have administration of their  personal estate as before the make the act peer William his lordship say this  clause be make in favour of the husband and not to his prejudice so that it be  intend by the parliament that the husband shall be within the statute of  distribution so as to take the wife choose in action as to his benefit but  shall not be within the same as to his prejudice and that this be not a now  point but have be settle and upon very good reason for be the construction to  be otherwise the husband of the wife intestate will be in a worse case than  the next of kin though ever so remote which be not the intent of the statute  and there Mr Vernon cite this case of lady Aiscough wherein he say Lord  cowpers opinion be the same with Lord Parker videlicet that the wife choose in  action do vest in the husband by the statute of distribution so that since  this resolution the right of administration follow include the right to the  estate and ought in case of the husband death after the wife to be grant to  the next of kin to the husband in the same manner as it be grant to a  residuary legatee vide Bacon v Bryant vin ab pl Humphrey v Bullen ib pl Elliot  v collier atk ves will bouchier v tailor hark law tract bro p c and Edward bro  p c Reg lib b foe it appear by the master report in this cause that Mr hatcher  take out letter of administration to his wife grace and some time after her  death assign all his right title and interest to and in his say late wife  share of Mr harbour or lady kingston personal estate to snow in consideration  of pound of which sum pound S d be actual pay by snow to or for the use of Mr  hatcher jane hatcher the second wife have administer as state in the case  impeach this assignment to snow for fraud and after some time they come to a  agreement that snow shall waive all benefit of the assignment upon be repay  the pound S d actual pay by he to Mr hatcher which be do the assignment be  deliver up and cancel his lordship be of opinion that as the spiritual court  have grant to jane hatcher letter of administration to the say grace hatcher  as to the say three part of the say lady kingston personal estate  unadministered by the say Mr hatcher his lordship be also of opinion that the  say defendant jane have a right to the say three part of the say lady kingston  personal estate and do therefore order that the say lady kingston personal  estate be divide and pay accord nothing in the say act shall be construe to  extend to the estate of femes covert that shall die intestate but that their  husband may demand and have administration of their right credit and other  personal estate and recover and enjoy the same as they may have do before the  make of the say act vide earl of thomond v earl of Suffolk post hear v  Stamford post Vol III that be that although the assignment from hatcher to  snow be void as between they yet still it shall be sufficient to alter the  property as between the husband and wife the order of the court for payment of  the wife legacy to the husband in her right vest it in the husband though he  die before payment and the wife be defeat of her right by survivorship Heygate  v Annesley bro c c see Macaulay v Philips Ves but it seem settle that although  a husband may assign his wife choose in action yet it must be for a valuable  consideration and that beyond the consideration such assignment will not bind  the wife survive Bates v Dandy atk Jewson v Moulson ib Saddington v kinsman I  bro c c a assignment by husband for a valuable consideration of a reversionary  interest of the wife even though the wife join in it do not bind her survive  Hornsby v lee mad and see Cordell v Acton cite mad as to the equity to which  such property be subject in the hand of a assignee vide the next case jacobson  v William peer William er p