case Blois and martin executor of the viscount hereford versus owner  viscountess hereford all June Eq can ab pl S c a marry b who have a estate in  land and a fortune in money they be both infant a act of parliament be obtain  for settle a jointure on the wife in bar of dower provide that the jointure  shall cease if the wife when of age do not settle her land but nothing say as  to the personal estate part of the fortune be a mortgage for pound take in a  trustee name the wife when she come of age settle her own land and afterward  the husband die decree the mortgage to the executor of a and that it shall not  survive to his wife as a choose in action when a man make a settlement  equivalent to his wife portion it shall be intend that he be to have the  portion though there be no particular agreement for that purpose on the  marriage of the late Lord viscount Hereford with the defendant one of the  daughter and coheir of Mr narbonne on the treaty of marriage they be both  infant there be a act of parliament procure for settle a jointure in bar of  dower provide if she when of age do not settle her land part of the jointure  to cease but nothing say as to the personal estate but upon the treaty of  marriage inquiry be make what be the portion of fortune of Mr narbonne and a  particular give in of what her personal estate amount unto and inter alian  mention make of the mortgage for pound pound r l take in the lady Bacon name  the lady Bacon be dead and have make her three daughter executrixs their  husband give a declaration of trust that half belong to the lady hare and the  other half to the Lord viscount Hereford the marriage be have and a settlement  make by the defendant after she come of age of her land pursuant to the  marriageagreement Vernon chancery case the Lord viscount Hereford die have  make the plaintiff his executor the question be whether this money shall go to  the plaintiff executor of the Lord viscount Hereford or as a choose in action  shall survive to the wife Lord keeper I lie no stress upon the declaration of  trust lie that out of the case the law of this court will presume a promise  and in all case where a settlement equivalent it shall be intend the husband  be to have the portion the wife shall not have her jointure and fortune both  and the rather in this case because a trust and the husband can not come at it  so as to alter the property without the assistance of this court and the  defendant be condemned in cost No cost give on either side Reg lib a fol vide  Lister v Lister ante p howman v corie ante p and case in not there respective  now the counsel cite the precedent of Cleland and Cleland pre Ch where a  jointure settle in consideration of pound portion whereas the wife have more  in her brother hand the husband die the wife survive decree at the poll and  confirm upon a appeal that the pound shall survive to the wife burnet and  kinaston ante p a mortgage in fee to the wife the husband by article agree to  settle it on his wife for life and the wife die the husband afterward die Mr  kinaston the brother get administration de good non to his sister and decree  for he although the husband have do what lie in his power to alter the  property of it Vernon chancery case Ruddiard versus nearn a jointure make in  consideration of pound pay down and of pound which the wife have in the  chamber of London the husband die and the wife survive decree to the wife the  husband have do nothing to reduce it into possession pre Ch Freem S g nomin  Rudyard v Neirin ux note the editor in note d to Lord Carteret v Paschal p wms  say it be to be observe that in all case where a husband make a settlement of  his own estate on his wife in consideration of her fortune the wife portion  though consist of choose en action and though there be no particular agreement  for that purpose be look on as purchase by he and will go to his executor and  cite on that point Cleland v Cleland pre Ch the principal case ub sup and  packer v Windham pre Ch but it be apprehend that the doctrine be lie down much  too general in that note and that choose en action though there be a  settlement shall not pass to the husband as purchaser unless there be a  special agreement except so far as the settlement be equivalent to the portion  and this be the case in Cleland v Cleland for though so decree at the roll the  Lord chancellor be of opinion that though there be a settlement as it be not  in consideration of the whole portion and equivalent to it that such a  agreement ought to be prove and direct accord in the principal case ub sup the  word of the Lord keeper express be that in all case where a settlement be  equivalent it shall be intend the husband be to have the portion and in packer  v Windham there be a assignment by the husband and the rule be establish that  to make the husband a purchaser of the whole the settlement must either  express or clear import to be so per grant master of the roll in judgement car  v tailor Ves et vide Mitford v Mitford Ves Vernon chancery case er p