case WILLATS versus cay at the roll Nov pound be charge upon a real estate for  the benefit of plaintiff wife the land so charge afterward vest in plaintiff  and defendant wife whereby the moiety belong to defendant wife become charge  with pound and interest upon a bill bring to have a partition of the estate  and to have the pound and interest raise out of the say moiety belong to the  defendant wife his honour decree a partition and that one moiety shall be  convey to the plaintiff wife in fee c and direct the pound and interest to be  raise by sale or mortgage of the defendant wife moiety and the say plaintiff  mary Willats be present in court and examine and consent and desire that the  say sum of pound and interest may be pay to the plaintiff Thomas her husband  his honour decree the same to be pay to he accord Reg lib b fol see Murray v  Barlee sim a wife may as well dispose of personal estate over which she have a  absolute control as of real by join in a fine with the husband and on her  consent in court her whole fortune of pound be direct to be pay to he though  he appear to be a insolvent person the sum of pound be charge in trust as a  provision for a daughter she marry without the consent of her relation it be  insist upon by the counsel for the trustee that the husband who appear to be a  insolvent person shall find some method of secure the wife money as a  provision for her but as he have neither real or personal estate of his own he  be incapable of do it and therefore it be propose that it shall be refer to a  master to consider of a scheme for secure some provision for the wife as have  be do in case of this nature the wife appear in court and be examine desire  that the whole pound may be pay to the husband without expect any provision  for herself upon which his honour atkins refuse to refer it to a master which  he say be never do unless circumstance of fraud appear or compulsion on the  part of the husband and that a wife may as well disposal of personal esfate  over which she have a absolute control as of real estate by join in a fine  with her husband atkins er p so milner v Colmer p W Lanoy v Athol post Oldham  v Hugh post Hearle v Greenbank post vol parson v don Ves ex part Higham Ves  anon Ves Minet v hide bro Charles Rep Dimmock v Atkinson bro Charles Rep Ellis  v Atkinson ibidem hood v Burlton bro Charles Rep in the case of Newman v  Cartony Reg lib b fol a legacy be give to the wife for her separate use during  her life with remainder to such person and for such use as she shall appoint  by will and in default of appointment to her executor it be order upon her  consent that the legacy shall be pay to her husband but that case have since  be overrule by the subsequent one of socket ux v Wray and another the that  January at the roll the bill in this case pray that the defendant may be  compel that the decree of the court to sell out and transfer pound S d bank  per cent console stand in their joint name in trust for the plaintiff  Catherine socket and may pay the money arise from the sale thereof to the  plaintiff Henry socket upon the marriage of Henry socket with Catherine his  wife a settlement be make bear date the that of February between the plaintiff  of the one part and the defendant of the other part recite inter alian that  the say defendant Wray have place out and invest pound in the joint name of  himself and the defendant Morgan in the purchase of S d per cent console and  that the say stock be then stand in their joint name it be by the say  settlement declare that the say defendant shall stand possess of and interest  in the say stock and the interest dividend and annual proceed thereof upon  trust during the natural life of the plaintiff Catherine when and as the same  shall become due to receive and pay over the interest dividend and annual  proceed of the say sum of pound S ld and every part thereof into the proper  hand of the plaintiff Catherine socket to and for her sole absolute peculiar  and separate use and benefit or to such person or person as she by any note or  note instrument or instrument write or write to be by her sign notwithstanding  her present coverture shall direct or appoint and after the decease of the say  Catherine socket upon further trust to transfer and pay over the say sum of S  ld and every part thereof unto such person or person at such time and time in  such part share and proportion in such sort manner and form and subject to  such power proviso condition restriction and limitation as the say Catherine  whether sole or covert and notwithstanding her present coverture shall at any  time or time by her will in write or by any write purport to be a will give  direct and appoint and in default of appointment and as to so much and such  part as shall not be so appoint upon trust to transfer assign and pay over the  same unto the executor or administrator of the plaintiff Catherine to and for  their own use and benefit and to and for no other use and benefit and the  settlement further provide that it may be lawful for the defendant by the  express consent and direction of the plaintiff Catherine testify in write  under her hand and seal notwithstanding her coverture but not otherwise to  sell and dispose of the say stock or any part thereof and with the like  consent and direction of the plaintiff Catherine testify in write under her  hand to place and lie out the money arise from such sale or sale in the public  stock or fund or upon government or real security at interest and the same  shall continue in the name of the defendant and shall be subject to and upon  such trust and agreement as well with respect to the interest dividend and  annual proceed as to the capital stock as be therein declare touch the say sum  of pound S d per cent console the plaintiff be in want of money apply to the  trustee to sell the stock and pay the money to they which the trustee refuse  as think they have not authority by the settlement to pay the wife more than  the interest the plaintiff Catherine by the bill state her desire to have the  stock sell and the money pay to her husband and be ready to give her consent  in court to have it so apply the master of the roll take time to consider and  this day give judgement to the follow effect the question be whether it be  competent to the wife to waive the benefit of appoint this fund by will if  that be any benefit and give it away in her lifetime the case cite be Pybus v  smith Ellis v Atkinson and Newman v Cartony the last case be exact in point  with the present but after consider the matter I own that I can give my assent  to that case it be bring before the court by consent of all party therefore it  be perhaps not very much consider the case of Pybus v smith and Ellis v  Atkinson differ from this because they have the word deed or will from the  case of Hulme v tenant bro I extract this principle that a marry woman in  equity be capable of be make in respect of her property a feme sole but not as  to her person in bro Lord Thurlow think that if upon settle property to the  separate use of the wife the party be desirous to restrain her from part with  it they may insert a clause to that effect now the meaning of the present  settlement appear to I to be that the W if e shall have the interest for life  with liberty to dispose of the principal by a instrument that shall continue  revocable to the time of her death the leave out the word deed be as strong to  show that she shall appoint by will only as if there have be a express clause  this be very beneficial to a wife because she may survive the husband and then  she will be entitle to dispose of the fund in her lifetime I subscribe to the  case of Norton v Turville p W it be say for the plaintiff suppose this power  have be give to a feme sole or to a man can they not have dispose of it in  their lifetime I think they may and if they have enter into a bind it will be  asset in the hand of their representative but there be no contract that will  bind a marry woman but in respect to her separate property in this case if she  have enter into a bind I think it will not affect it in the hand of her  executor or administrator a marry woman have no power but what the will or  settlement give her this settlement give her a power to dispose of the  property by will only if she survive her husband it may be a very different  case as I be of opinion the wife can only dispose of this stock by will this  bill must be dismiss atkins er p