case watts versus thomas at the roll husband after marriage purchase a term to  himself and wife and the survivor and the executor administrator and assign of  such survivor husband assign the term in mortgage proviso to be void on  payment of the money by he or wife or the executor of he or wife proviso that  the husband his executor or administrator shall till default of payment quiet  enjoy husband seven year after contract debt and die decree that this  settlement of the term be after marriage in the power of the husband and the  equity of redemption be reserve to he as well as to his wife and be also in  the case of creditor be asset to pay debt the husband purchase a term for year  to himself and his wife and the survivor and the executor peer William  administrator and assign of such survivor for the residue of the term this  purchase be make after the marriage and the husband be a tradesman and have  occasion for money mortgage the term without the wife join as he may do and  the proviso for redemption be that if the husband and wife or either of they  or their or either of their executor or administrator shall pay or cause to be  pay the mortgagemoney and interest at the day then the mortgage shall be void  and the last proviso be that until default of payment the husband his executor  and administrator shall quiet enjoy the husband seven year after contract debt  and die leave his wife executrix the mortgagemoney unpay the question be  whether the equity of redemption of this term be asset for the payment of the  husband debt or shall go to the wife as survivor by Talbot solicitor general  the proviso be that upon payment whether it be by the husband or the wife or  the executor of the husband or of the wife yet still the mortgage shall in any  of these case be void and if void then all thing must be in their former state  and consequent the wife must have it as survivor by if the proviso have be  that upon payment the mortgagee shall reassign to the husband his executor or  administrator for this indeed have be a total alienation but in the present  case it be but a conditional alienation and so void upon payment of the money  peer William er p peer William master of the roll the settlement of this term  upon the wife be after marriage be a voluntary conveyance and be only a term  for year it be always in the power of the husband to forfeit or alien and the  mortgage be a alienation for though if the mortgagemoney be pay before the day  the mortgage will have be void and consequent all thing will have be in status  quo yet the mortgage be forfeit the equity of redemption always in the husband  power be now become a creature of equity and it be in the case of creditor and  the redemption give as well to the executor of the husband as to the executor  of the wife and the last proviso be that the husband his executor c may enjoy  till default of payment decree the equity of redemption of this term to be  asset say queen for first it be now settle that a voluntary conveyance by a  person not indebt at the time be not within the stat Elizabeth c and be good  against subsequent creditor Lord Townshend v Windham ves Stephens v olive bro  c c lush v Wilkinson Ves kidney v Coussmaker Ves Holloway v Millard mad  Battersbee v Farrington I swan second the wife contingent interest in the term  by survivorship be not in the husband power to alien   Litt b a butler note  and see post note unless the settlement can be treat as void as against  subsequent purchaser by the stat Elizabeth c b light if the case be right  state the estate be not the husband own before the settlement but be original  purchase by he to himself and his wife and the survivor and if so the  settlement be good against subsequent purchaser and even the mortgage can not  have be support if it have be dispute back v Andrew vern lady gorge case cro  car and see Sugden vendor ch sect p Edward but three suppose that the  alienation by the husband be valid still if such alienation do not extend to  the whole interest the wife claim under the settlement and not the subsequent  creditor be entitle to the undisposed interest now here be no alienation of  the whole interest for a mortgage be only a alienation pro tanto rider v wager  ante and do not except for the purpose of the mortgage alter the title to the  estate in equity even where a wife join her husband in mortgage her estate and  the equity of redemption be reserve to the husband Ruscombe v hare dow and see  Clinton v Hooper bro c c Ves jun inn v Jackson Ves Bligh e of Kinnoul v money  swan n Pitt v Pitt turner it seem therefore that the wife in the principal  case be entitle to redeem