case OGLANDER versus baston April in court Lord chancellor Eq can ab pl S c a  sum of money award to the husband which he be entitle to in right of his wife  will go to his executor and will not survive to his wife the plaintiff be  entitle to the surplus of the personal estate of I S as residuary legatee and  a difference arise between the plaintiff husband and the executor touch the  quantum of this residuum it be refer to arbitration and a award be make that  the executor of I S shall pay pound to the plaintiff husband but before any  thing further be do the husband die and this bill be now bring by the wife  against the executor of her husband and also against the executor of S and the  sole question be who have the right to this pound whether the executor of the  husband or whether it shall survive to the wife Lord chancellor the award be a  sort of judgement and the arbitrator have award that the pound shall be pay to  the husband that have change the property and vest it in the husband the case  of Norden and levet sir Thomas Jones Rep be cite where the husband have a term  in right of his wife and only take a covenant for further assurance and it be  adjudge that alter the property on the other side it be say that if the  husband grant a rentcharge out of a lease which he have in the right of his  wife that do not change the property but if the husband make a demise of the  term itself though but for a fortnight that will alter the property per cur if  there be a bonddebt due to the wife the husband may sue alone without join his  wife but in case the wife be join in the action and judgement be recover the  judgement will survive to the wife but not be join the interest do vest by the  judgement in the husband and will go to his executor to know facias by baron  and feme upon a judgement recover by the feme while sole and after execution  award the feme die it survive to the husband woodier v Gresham salk vide anon  Com Rep say vide bind v simmons atk where say by Lord Hardwicke Chan that if  at law husband have recover a judgement for debt of the wife I e debt  accrueing before the marriage and where the action shall survive to the wife  she must be join in the action Frosdick v sterling Mod and have die before  execution the wife will have be entitle and not the husband executor so where  wife entitle to mortgage in fee and husband after marriage assign his interest  in the mortgage to trustee and article with they to call in the money and lie  it out adjudge that it survive to the wife notwithstanding the article Burnett  v Kinnaston post vol as to the act whereby husband may alter the property of  wife in her choose in action vide squib v win p wms and case cite there Lord  Carteret v Paschal p wms Bates v Dandy atk Hawkins v obyn ibidem see also  Hornsby v lee mad Nash v Nash mad Purdew v Jackson Russell and case there cite  bill bring by husband and wife and husband die pen the suit property not alter  and survive to wife anon atk coppin v p wms Qure yet if in that case the  reversion do not remain in the wife vide Inst b Syms case cro Elizabeth though  if the husband make a lease of part reserve rend and die the executor of the  husband shall have the rend Inst ub sup and where debt accrue after marriage  action may be maintain in his own name alone Hilliard ux v Hambridge Alleyn  Blackburn ux v greaves Le v Philliskirk v Pluckwell m S et vide Howell v main  Le v so where on a judgement obtain by baron and feme the baron alone sue a  cognizant fac he have judgement cite by Powell just ibidem contra clerk v Lord  to draw close arg Ch can Eq can ab pl et vide Holloway v Lightbourn in Chan  pasch Geo two Willy v Thomas in the exchequer mich Geo two if the dictum in  the principal case be intend to apply to a bind give Vernon chancery case er p  to the wife dumb sola its authority seem doubtful see selwyn Ni Pri title  baron and feme div Macneilage v Holloway b a Garforth v Bradley ves and case  cite in not there so as to the benefit of a decree nanney v Martin Ch can but  in general where the husband settle his estate on his wife in consideration of  her fortune the wife portion though choose in action and though there be no  particular agreement be consider as purchase by the husband and shall go to  his executor Meredith v Wynn Eq can ab pl but if the settlement be only in  consideration of her then portion or fortune without reference to what come  afterward if that after fortune consist of choose in action and the husband do  not reduce they into possession they will survive to the wife in equity as  well as by the rule of law Garforth v Bradley ub sup so a settlement must  express or clear import to be a purchase of all the wife property packer v  Windham pre Ch and accord to the modern case it be establish that the  settlement to be the purchase of the wife fortune must either express to be in  consideration thereof or the content of that settlement must plain import it  Druce v denison Ves