case JEWSON versus Moulson et e con October see like v Beresford Ves jun SC  cite post Lord Hardwicke be of opinion not to allow the defendant a creditor  of Vobes to receive his wife fortune without make some provision for her and  recommend it to he to give her and her child some part of the principal of her  fortune on the that of December Lord Hardwicke decree in consequence of a  agreement between the party that a moiety of mrs Vobes fortune shall be place  out for her separate use during her life and after her death to be pay to her  child in equal share the question in both these cause arise from the will of  Joseph burr who at the time of make it bad five child he thereby direct two  freehold house to be sell and his whole estate to be turn into money and after  his debt and legacy be pay the residue of the money be give to the plaintiff  and other his executor in trust for the benefit of his four son and his  daughter Jenny to be divide equal between they and if any or either of they  die before the age of twentyone their share to go to the survivor harry burr  one of the son die after the father and before twentyone and consequent his  share go over to the survivor in August Mr Vobe who keep a tavern marry the  daughter but make no provision for her by way of settlement in march Mr Vobe  be just indebt to the defendant Moulson a wine merchant enter into a bind for  the payment of it and about three week after make a assignment to Moulson of  all the share which in the right of his wife he be entitle unto in her father  personal estate afterward he make a second assignment of his wife say share to  trustee for the benefit of all his creditor in general during all these  transaction Jenny Vobe the wife of Vobe and daughter of burr the testator be  under age the executor have do no act to settle or make any division of the  father personal estate mrs Vobe have two child to maintain as her husband be a  bankrupt her share under the will amount to about pound and Mr Moulsons debt  to above pound the question be whether the wife who be total unprovide for  shall not have a maintenance secure to her out of her share of her father  personal estate before it be apply in atkins payment of the defendant Mr  Moulson and the rest of the creditor of Mr Vobe the husband Mr Chute for the  defendant Mr Moulson cite Tudor versus Samyne vern Mr brown of the same side  allow it to be a establish rule of this court that a husband shall not meddle  with the wife fortune unless he will in the first place make some provision  for her but the case of a creditor he say be very different who have pay a  full consideration for the assignment and therefore it will be hard to make he  stand in the place of the husband he cite mile versus William p W but rely  chief on the case of Bates versus Dandy July before Lord Hardwicke see p Mr  attorney general for the wife submit two thing first the general rule of a  court of equity that if a husband be oblige to come here for a wife fortune he  shall first make a provision for her before he shall be allow to meddle with  it what say he be the ground of this rule but that it be natural justice and  equity the wife shall have some provision second this right run along with the  thing itself and whoever come in under the husband must take it only as he  will have do and the true reason for the court be interposition be the wife be  unprovide for No harm or injustice be do because no body can take a assignment  of the wife fortune but he must do it with his eye open and therefore it be  his own fault if he will lend upon such a security there be beside a strong  circumstance in this case for at the time the wife share atkins er p be assign  it be not a vest interest as she can take only upon the contingency of her  live to be twentyone there be also a strong argument to be draw from the  general inconvenience for if the defendant Mr Moulson shall prevail it will  put it in the power of a husband to evadeathe rule of the court for by assign  the wife effect he get her fortune in his power which he can not have upon a  application to chancery without make a provision for her first atkins the  chancellor direct the cause to stand over to look into the case and on October  the that it come on again the attorney general for mrs Vobe then cite the case  of Watson versus Mascal march before sir Joseph Jekyll where he decree a  provision to a wife out of her fortune against the assignee of a bankrupt he  likewise mention p W jacobson all versus William and p W Richmond ux versus  Talleur Mr Chute for the defendant Mr Moulson cite p W Bosvill versus Brander  the cause stand over again till November when the chancellor give judgement  Lord chancellor here be two bill bring the first by the executor of Mr burr to  be discharge of their trust upon pay and assign over Jenny Vobes share of her  father personal estate and that they may be indemnified in so do the second  bill be bring by Mr Moulson who claim a right to Jenny Vobes share of burr  personal estate under the assignment from her husband as against the husband  the equity be extreme plain and likewise against the assignee who claim under  the second assignment therefore the principal question in the cause arise out  of the defence make by the wife of Vobe two point have be insist on for her  first that the husband can come into this court for the fortune of the wife  without make a provision for her in the first place second that there be a  equity attach to the thing itself and therefore the assignee of the husband  take it subject to the same equity Terrell v hope post and from hence arise  the great doubt as to the first it be a equity ground upon natural justice and  be that kind of parental care which this court exercise for atkins the benefit  of orphan and as the father will not have marry his daughter without insist  upon some provision so this court who stand in loco parent will not do it  milner v Colmer p W Adam v pierce p W brown v Elton p W Harrison v buckle  stram winch v page bunb Middlecome v Marlow post but it seem this equity do  not extend to the child of the marriage after the wife death Scrgiven v tapley  Amb this court will not suffer the husband to take the wife portion though the  ecclesiastical court who have a concurrent jurisdiction with this in regard to  portion arise out of personal estate have give their consent that the husband  shall have it until he have agree to make a reasonable provision for the wife  and in many instance have grant injunction to stay the proceed in the  ecclesiastical court vide anon ante vol in tothill transaction in the high  court of chancery in the case of Tanfield contra davenport car I Lord keeper  Coventry take notice of this rule which show it be not a doctrine new take up  as have be suppose but though this be so yet if the husband can come at the  chattel of the wife without the aid of this court or of a court have a  concurrent jurisdiction I do not know any instance where this court have  interfere milner v Colmer p W Fitzer v Fitzer post attorney general v whorwood  Ves Dimmock v Atkinson bro Charles Rep as if the wife debtor will pay her debt  to the husband so likewise where there be a bind debt to the wife dumb sola  and the husband recover it at law I do not know that this court have ever  grant a injunction for his sue at law be very proper and therefore this court  leaves it to its natural course without meddle with a legal question though if  a bill be bring in favour of a wife for a injunction to stay execution upon  the judgement at law I do not know atkins er p whether this court will not  grant it but as that point be not now before I I will not determine it if one  look into the case upon this head it be difficult to reconcile they though  indeed one thing be clear through they all that if the husband make a  voluntary assignment of the wife portion the volunteer must stand in the place  of the husband see Bates v Dandy ante there be the same equity too in regard  to executor and administrator and the same as to assignee of bankrupt for it  be the law that cast it upon they vide vern burnet versus kinaston and vern  tailor versus Wheeler and jacobson all versus William p W Bosvill v Brander p  W ex part Coysegame ante vol grey v Kentish ante vol Worrall v Marlar and  Bushnam v pell Cox p W Middlecombe v Marlow post Terrel v hope post Paul v  birch post in the case of Shudall v Jekyll post Mr Shudall before he have  receive the legacy of pound leave to his wife die leave the plaintiff his  widow a infant who insist that the legacy do not belong to the executor of Mr  Shudall but survive to her for as Mr Shudall have make no provision for her  and as the court will not have decree the legacy to he without his make a  settlement upon her so his executor can not be in a better situation than  himself his lordship decree the legacy to the plaintiff Reg lib b fol there be  a particular train in the report of the last case and it look as if Lord  Cowper rest his opinion chief upon the commissioner of bankrupt assign a  possibility which he think they can not do but he be certain wrong in point of  law for that not only the latter statute relate to bankrupt mention the word  possibility but also because the Elizabeth c sect empower the commissioner to  assign all that the bankrupt may depart with and beside the James c atkins  enact that the statute relate to bankrupt shall be construe in the most  beneficial manner for creditor vide Higden versus Williamson at the roll mich  and affirm by Lord chancellor king in mich S p wms in that case it be  determine that a contingent interest or possibility in a bankrupt be  assignable by the commissioner thus a devise be to such of the child of a as  shall be live at her death a have issue b who become a bankrupt get his  certificate allow after which a die this contingent interest be liable to the  bankruptcy for as much as the son in the mother lifetime may have release it  and in equity it be very well know that a possibility may be both release and  assign the next case be Watson versus Maschal march before sir Joseph Jekyll  who decree exact upon the same reason as in the case of jacobson versus  William yet where the wife trust of a term have be assign by the husband for a  valuable consideration there the determination have be contrary and the rule  have be that the assignee shall not make a provision for the wife before he  can be entitle Tudor versus Samyne vern Charles Rep sir Edward turner case  vern Pitt v hunt vern Bates v Dandy ante contra hard there be some dispute at  the bar how non allocatur at the end of this case be to be apply whether to  the whole case or the word immediate precede but from what I have mention  before out of Tothill it be applicable only to the last precede word the next  case be Walters versus sander Eq Cas Abr the next be Bosvil versus Brander wms  b the next be Bates versus Dandy July ante S c in these case you observe the  particular contract of the husband for a valuable consideration have get the  better of the wife equity to have a provision the ground of sir Edward turner  case vern be this that as the husband at law can dispose of a term for year so  may he dispose of the trust of a term because the same rule of property must  prevail in e uity as well as at law but videathe case of Pitt versus hunt vern  where Lord chancellor Nottingham express great r Ize at this resolution now I  apply the reason of these case to the present as to the last of the assignment  it do not differ from the atkins case of assignment of bankrupt for it be the  case of a fail man and exact under the same reason as a assignment of a  bankrupt effect for his creditor in general for here he assign all his right  title c and therefore be exact upon the same foot as to the first assignment  to the defendant Mr Moulson to be sure that be different from the other and  likewise differ in several circumstance from all the case cite in the first  place here be a mix fund arise out of real as well as personal estate for  though the father indeed by his will direct the estate to be sell and turn  into money yet all the child together when they come of age may have say to  the trustee of the will let we take the real estate as it be notwithstanding  the testator direct it to be sell beside the wife be a infant when she marry  and likewise during all these transaction and consequent a particular object  of the care of this court beside too this be not a assignment of a term for  year or a specific thing but a assignment at once of all her fortune and which  the husband can not reduce into possession without the assistance of this  court neither have there be any division in the world make or even a account  take of the testator estate which can bind the party atkins er p the trustee  themselves though Willing to have join with the husband can not have bind the  wife as she be a infant and as there be likewise a clause of survivorship in  the will and therefore there be no possibility of come at the fortune without  the aid of this court for this reason the defendant Mr Moulson must be presume  to have know all the circumstance of this security and what the rule of equity  be in regard to provision to be make for a wife out of her fortune in the  present case I lie a very great weight upon its be a assignment of the whole  portion and if I shall allow this practice to prevail it will trip up all the  care and caution of this court with regard to infant for a husband then will  have nothing to do but to take up money of a three person and though neither  he nor the lender know exact at the time what the fortune be yet he may assign  it over and so defeat the care of the court entire atkins consider too the  particular circumstance of this case the husband be in debt before he marry  run away with this young woman clandestine without the consent of any of her  relation with a view very possible to prevent his be arrest to this it may be  object that if I decree a provision for the wife people will not venture to  lend their money which will be a great detriment to the publicin general and  to trade in particular to which I answer that though this court shall not  ratify and legitimate such assignment yet there will be person enough find to  risk their money upon such security therefore I be of opinion not to allow the  creditor to receive the whole fortune of the wife without make some provision  for her vide prior v hill bro Charles Rep and I will recommend this method to  the defendant Mr Moulson that he shall come into term to give the wife and  child some part of the principal of her fortune and then he will have a  immediate benefit from the residue Lord Hardwicke order it to stand till the  first day of cause after the term and say perhaps before that time the party  when they see the inclination of the court will acquiesce if they do not they  can have no benefit for a long time as the interest of her fortune can be  apply only to the several demand December the that the cause of Jewson versus  Moulson stand again in the paper when it appear that it be agree between the  party that the neat sum which shall remain after the deduction of cost shall  be divide into equal moieties and one moiety thereof be to be pay by Jewson to  Moulson towards satisfaction of his debt and the remain moiety be to be retain  by Jewson to be dispose of for the separate use and provision of Jenny Vobe  and the child she already have or may have in such manner as the court shall  direct and thereupon Lord Hardwicke order and decree that the agreement be  perform and give full direction for place out and secure Jenny Vobes moiety  for her separate use during her life and after her death for the payment of it  to her child in equal share Reg lib a atkins er p