case lord hastings against sir archibald douglas Trinity term car roll a  husband devise the use of all his plate and jewel to his wife during her  widowhood she give security to leave the same to his daughter on her death or  second marriage this be not a condition but a limitation and though the wife  usual wear they ut equipment substantial object Himself yet she can retain  they as her paraphernalia against this devise of the use of they only for the  express declaration of the husband will control the implication which the law  will otherwise have make S C Jones SC I roll Abr more vern p will p will Eq  Cas bring Ch Leon noise Max thatch Com dig Bl Com Bac ab espin dig   light a  note brown c c trover and conversion as administrator of sergeant Davy for  diverse jewel upon not guilty plead the jury find for part not guilty for  other jewel that he be guilty and for sixtyfive great pearl and sixtyfive  small pearl and a diamond chain they find a special verdict that sergeant Davy  be possess of they and be so possess make his will and thereby devise the use  and occupation of all his plate hang and jewel to dame Elionor his wife during  her widowhood she give good security to my daughter Lucy lady Hastings to  deliver and leave the same to my say daughter Lucy at the day of her death or  second marriage which shall first happen that he die possess of those jewel  and that after his death the administration of the good of croak car er p the  say sir John Davy be commit to the plaintiff that the say Elionor the wife of  sir John Davy be the daughter of Lord Audley earl of Castlebaven croak car and  that she in the life of sir John Davy use the say jewel and ut equipment  substantial object Himself usual wear they that afterward the say Elionor  marry with the defendant and that he convert those jewel c and if the court  shall adjudge for the plaintiff they find for the plaintiff and damage l and  if not for the defendant upon this special verdict it be argue at the bar by  Germin for the plaintiff and by calthrop for the defendant and now this term  it be open argue at the bench Berkley and Jones justice argue for the  defendant that she be the daughter of a nobleman and permit to use they  frequent ut equipment substantial object Himself and they be convenient for  her degree she shall have they as her paraphernalia and when there be not debt  to be pay as it do not appear there be any she shall have they against the  executor or administrator of her husband and that the husband can dispose of  they from his wife by his will but instant by his death the possession of they  be in the wife custody the property be vest in her and the husband can give  they away and that be of necessity and for conveniency in the law for it be  not reasonable the husband shall leave her naked of those jewel which she  usual do wear and be fit accord to her call to wear and it appear by Linwood  that the wife against her husband will have such a interest in good which be  her paraphernalia that her husband have nothing to do with they but she may  make a will of they in her husband lifetime and may dispose of they in vita  martiti reluctant husband but they say this be not Allowable in our law that  she shall dispose of they in her husband lifetime but when the husband do not  dispose of they they be instant vest in the wife and although the husband may  make a gift of they in his lifetime yet he can make a will of they to dispose  c and compare it to the case where a wife have a term and take husband he may  give and dispose thereof in his lifetime but be can dispose of it by his will  as in the case of Bransby v Grantham and the case of Bracebridge Plowd and in  the case Henry executor the king may give the jewel of his crown by letter  patent but be can by his testament dispose of they a Berkley justice say that  this permission of the wife to wear they usual be as a gift of they to her by  her husband and compare it to the case of Henry pl where one take my son and  clothes he or my wife and clothes her it be as it be a gift of the say apparel  to they and as by the custom of London and in some place in Wales as Jones say  the wife shall have the moiety of the good whereof her husband die possess yet  her husband in his lifetime may give all the good but by his will be can  prejudice her concern her part wherefore he conclude that she shall have they  notwithstanding the will croak car Jones justice say that by the civil law as  the condition to tie her from marriage so the limitation to have these jewel  during her widowhood be void because she be absolute possess of they whereupon  they conclude that judgement ought to be give for the defendant but Richardson  chief justice and myself argue to the contrary and that this be a good will  and that she may not take they but accord to the will halt if the husband have  not make a will but have leave they to the disposition of the law and the  question have be betwixt the executor or administrator and the wife where  there be not any debt or legacy to be pay or where there be asset to pay all  debt and legacy beside those jewel there peradventure the law will allow her  to take and enjoy they as her paraphernalia but where the husband have make a  will and limit how she shall have they she ought to take they as the husband  appoint and his will be as good and as well to be perform as his gift in his  lifetime and that it be not like the case of Henry pl for there it be a good  gift to the son and to the wife by the ravisher and the husband may well  assent to they so be the case of h pl and Henry pl that good dedicate to the  service of a chapel or church be a good gift to the warden of they in law but  this permission by the a wood Inst cro Elizabeth croak car er p husband for  the wife to wear they can be a gift of they in deed nor in law for the husband  can give aught to the wife they be both but one person ill law and as to the  objection that although a husband may dispose of they by act three his life  yet he can by his will it be answer true it be that a man who have a thing  real in another right as a term although he may give yet he can devise it as  in Bracebridges case a so where a executor make a gift of good which he have  as executor it be a good gift but a devise of they be not good because he have  they in auter law but of all chattel personal although the wife have they  before marriage the absolute property by the marriage be vest in the husband  and he may give they in his life or dispose of they by his will so of those  good which be ternled paraphernalia the absolute property be in the husband  and therefore he may well devise they and to the case that the husband may by  gift of all his good good fide prevent his wife that she shall not have any  part of they notwithstanding the custom in London Wales and elsewhere yet by  his will if be devise they it shall not frustrate what she ought to have by  the custom they agree to be good law for custom be another law and instant by  the death of the husband fix the interest in the wife but the good which she  claim as paraphernalia be not give to the wife but those which be of necessity  and convenience for her and when the husband leaves her what be for her  necessity videlicet necessary apparel he may well make a disposition of the  residue by his will and for that purpose be cite Henry pl a wife for her  quarantine may have her live de common but she may not take any thing unless  for necessity and where the civil law say that she may croak car make a will  in the life of her husband of her paraphernalia yet the commonlaw whereby we  be to be guide be express contrary to it that she may not make a will of any  good but with her husband assent and then it be as his own gift but of a  obligation or thing in action a wife may make executor by assent of her  husband and may make her husband her executor as appear by the book Henry pl  Henry pl Edward devise Edward wonder pl and the interest and possession and  property of such good as be call paraphernalia be in the husband and he may  devise they to his wife and that she shall take they by the devise appear  Henry pl where be devise to his wife her apparel and she justify the take of  they by the devise and delivery of the executor Henry pl that she ought to  take only her necessary apparel Elizabeth dyer Edward pl Henry pl pl that the  property and possession of those good be in the husband and she may not make a  will of they without her husband assent and a case be cite in the exchequer in  Trinity term Elizabeth betwixt the Lord treasurer and other executor of  viscount bindon against mary viscountess bindon a in a action of trover and  conversion of jewel of the value of l she plead to all beside such jewel which  be a chain and bracelet not exceed the value of l not guilty and as to they  she plead that she be the wife of viscount bindon at the time of his death and  she usual wear those jewel as ornament of her body and aver that the executor  have asset to satisfy his funeral and all his debt and legacy beside those  jewel and issue be take that they have not asset to satisfy all the debt and  legacy beside those good b so thereby it be to be observe that jewel of l for  a viscountess be not Allowable for paraphernalia and it be answer although  here in this case the defendant be the daughter of a ancient baron of this  realm and of a earl in Ireland yet be marry to sergeant Davy she ought to have  they as his wife and there be not any necessity she shall have a chain of  diamond and the say sixtyfive great pearl and the sixtyfive small pearl which  be thing hang lose and be not in any chain or bracelet and they be not for any  necessity for ornament or for cover but wherever way data the husband have  express dispose of they by his will she may not against his will take they  without the assent of the administrator and without delivery and not of her  own head detain they without enter a Plowd a Leon b that this case be not true  report here and that there be no judgement enter on the roll vide ms it is  pleasing foe ad finem L C B Parker ms croak car er p security and where it be  allege that in the civil law a condition to restrain a second marriage be not  allow this be no condition but a limitation only and it be reasonable she  shall take accord and it be allege that this be not any devise of those jewel  but only the use and occupation c of the plate hang and jewel during her  widowhood and no absolute gift of they as be in the case of the grail d and in  Weldens case e and they conclude that it be a good disposition by the will and  a declaration croak car of his intent and take away that which otherwise she  may claim by the law and his express declaration control any imply gift as be  pretend and forasmuch as she have not perform it the limitation be determine  and neither she nor her husband can have they wherefore they conclude for the  plaintiff see Com dig