c Inter THEOPHILUM come suffolk plaintiff ri greenvill Mil baronettum mar ux  he defendant June car S c Nels Charles Rep Lord keeper justice Hutton Whitlock  the defendant the lady greenvill while sole have a decree against the earl of  Suffolk the plaintiff for pound per annum against which decree the earl pray  to be relieve in respect of a deed of assignment of the benefit of that decree  make by her ladyship before marriage to one Cutford in pursuance of a verbal  agreement between the say sir Richard and the say lady before their marriage  that the say lady shall have the sole power and disposal of the say pound per  annum after coverture the plaintiff suggest that the say lady and the say c  have release to the plaintiff the plaintiff not have the say deed of  assignment to produce and allege the defendant have get it the defendant deny  it whereupon it be order that the defendant and c shall be examine upon  interrogatory to discover the deed or a copy thereof freeman and accord they  be examine but the matter be not at all clear nor what be the content of the  deed more than at the former hear the court declare they have mature consider  of the point in question and do agree that there be not at the last hear nor  now sufficient matter or proof ante c b p and note to bar the defendant sir  Richard of the benefit of the decree or to relieve the plaintiff for that the  arrear of the pound per annum decree to my lady be in its own nature a choose  in action can by law be assign over wherefore the assignment to c though prove  have be void in law and be so ought not to be maintain in a court of equity no  consideration appear to support the same which shall make it better in equity  than at law and for sir Richard verbal agreement in consideration of marriage  to be have it be no good consideration be in subversion of the ground of law  and the that sect of the stat of fraud car c have since express provide that  no action shall be bring whereby to charge any person upon any agreement make  in consideration of marriage unless some memorandum or note thereof shall be  in write and sign by the party to be charge and see Randall v Morgan Ves and  of the right of marriage and not sufficient in a court of equity to ground a  decree but it have be otherwise if such power have be settle in a legal course  as by conveyance execute choose in action may be transfer over by letter of  attorney but have that be in this case by the intermarriage the authority have  be revoke anon salk per cur that all promise agreement and covenant make by  sir Richard to his lady before marriage be extinguish by the marriage verbal  agreement only must be here understand see however next case have c s  authority continue in strength after the marriage he can not release in his  own name as here a executor can sell in his own name and therefore c remain  concern therein as before in regard c only testify the content of the deed  this one by one testis be not sufficient to ground a decree cook v Clayworth  Ves savage v Brocksop ibidem tool v Medlicott ball and Beatrice Reg lib a fol  the court declare itself by no mean satisfy touch the say deed what be the  true content thereof nor how the same can be of any validity but the say  transaction remain in the same darkness as it do before the examination upon  the say interrogatory and therefore the Lord keeper and the judge assist  declare that they have several consider mature of the point in question and  now confer together do find themselves to concur in one uniform opinion that  there be neither sufficient matter nor sufficient proof to bar the defendant  sir Richard greenvill of the execution of the say decree or to relieve the  plaintiff upon his bill for that the arrearage of the pound per annum decree  unto lady greenvill be in its ownnature a choose en action have the assignment  thereof by lady greenvill be prove it ought not to be maintain against the  rule of law in a court of equity no consideration appear to support the same  for the say sir Richard greenvill verbal agreement in consideration of the say  marriage be in subversion of the ground of law and the right of marriage this  court be clear of opinion that unless the say agreement have be so settle by a  legal assurance as that it may be good in law it be not fit for a court of  equity to give any such power to a feme covert as the lady greenvill will  pretend to have and whereas thing in action though they be not proper  assignable in law be sometime turn over by letter of attorney the Lord keeper  and the judge assistant declare that even if it have be so in this case yet  present by the marriage between sir Richard and his lady such letter of  attorney will have determine and they also declare that all covenant promise  and agreement which the say sir Richard before the intermarriage make to lady  greenvill touch the disposal of her estate be by the say marriage extinguish  and also that if there be a effectual letter of attorney make to Cutford and  the same have continuance yet can he not by force thereof make any release in  his own name as the release now produce be so that the say release be void in  law the say Cutford remain a party interest and therefore ought not on his own  oath especial be a single witness to be admit as a fit person to prove the  content of the say deed and moreover the Lord keeper and the judge who assist  hold it very dangerous to admit that the content and the sufficiency of deed  shall be prove by testimony of witness therefore it be decree that the say sir  Richard greenvill be at liberty to prosecute the execution of the say former  decree unto which the plaintiff by his consent in open court at a former hear  submit in case he produce not the say assignment or make good proof thereof  which he have not do for the plaintiff especial because of difference between  he and the defendant he be less credible and because it be dangerous to admit  any one to swear the content of a deed but the witness to swear only to the  execute of the deed the bill be dismiss and sir Richard at liberty to  prosecute the decree against the earl of Suffolk freeman er p