c draper case S c Eq can ab term for year in trust for a feme covert post case  S p vide post case draper wife be possess of a brewhouse in Wandsworth for a  term of year before her marriage with draper mortgage it to one turner for  security of pound and afterward a day or two before her marriage with draper  with his privity as appear by his be a witness to the deed make a assignment  of her interest to trustee in trust for herself for life and then for her son  by a former husband after this she marry draper and draper after marriage pay  oft the mortgage money and take a assignment from the mortgagee and then  surrender his lease to the reversioner and take a new lease for the same term  and die the question be whether or no the husband in this case have power to  dispose of the interest of the wife in this term for year it be settle with  the husband privity as aforesaid and it be hold clear per curian and admit by  both party that if a feme covert with the privity of the husband before  marriage do convey a term for year in trust for herself that be clear out of  the husband power sir Edward turner case vern see hunt v Pitt post c p Bates v  Dandy atk sander v page Ch Rep see however also roll ab f and he can neither  dispose of nor release the interest of the wife and if the feme shall join in  the grant it will not mend the case but the court seem to incline that if a  feme do secret without the knowledge of her husband before marriage convey a  term for year in trust for herself that this shall be in the power of the  husband so as he may either grant or release the interest of the wife Post c p  Carleton v Dorset vern Howard v Hooker Eq can ab a doubt be express in the  judgement in Macaulay v Phillips Ves whether a trust of a term of year of land  be or be not the single exception to the rule that a assignment by the husband  even for valuable consideration of the wife equitable interest will not bar  her right to a provision thereout as against such assignee in the  attorneygeneral v sand Hardr g b hale lie the law down broad that if a feme  covert have a trust for year her husband can dispose of it as he may of a term  not in trust but his doctrine where the husband be not a party to the trust be  overrule by Bates v Dandy atk Jewson v Moulson ibidem tuder v Samyne vern  Mitford v Mitford Ves and see the early case of bullock v knight Ch can the  case of the countess of Strathmore v bow Cox Ch can bear upon the inference of  fraud as deducible from the secrecy of the conveyance but see the ground of  that decision state by Lord Rosslyn c in ball v Montgomery Ves jun and here  though the estate in law be whole in the mortgagee and the feme convey nothing  but a equity in trust yet when the mortgagee assign over to the husband the  husband have it under the same equity as I the mortgagee have matthews v  Walwyn Ves norrish v martial mad Reg lib a fol the court declare itself full  satisfy that in regard there appear to have be a assignment make before  marriage in trust for the and be just in his place and no act of the husband  can bar the trustee for the feme and her child of their equity and it be  decree that this new lease shall be assign over to the feme or her trustee pay  to the executor of the husband the mortgage money freeman er p plaintiff and  her child by her first husband the term so assign do belong to the say  plaintiff and the same ought to be enjoy accord to the say trust and to be  redeem for her benefit and that the rend of the mortgage premise receive by  the plaintiff husband in his lifetime ought to be apply to discharge the  mortgage upon the say premise and that the renew lease of the say premise  shall be reconvey and reassure to the plaintiff discharge of all encumbrance  do by the defendant or those under who they claim and if it shall appear on  take the account that the profit of the say mortgage premise receive by the  defendant or their testator exceed in amount the sum due for principal and  interest upon the say mortgage then the defendant be to stand charge therewith  and be to pay the same so far as they have asset of the say testator