case partridge versus powlet upon the master special report October see in re  Wilks child v Bulmer Ch Caldwell v fellow lr Eq SC ante vol SC post a actual  alienation only can sever a jointtenancy a declaration of one of the party  that it shall be sever be not sufficient mrs Sarah ware previous to her  marriage with Mr partridge be entitle to a moiety of personal estate amount to  pound with her sister mrs powlet in joint atkins er p tenancy be the estate of  their sister mary ware decease by the marriage settlement the real estate only  be convey for what relate to her personal estate depend mere upon a recital in  the deed which be nothing more than that she shall enjoy the pound to her  separate use and a covenant on the part of the husband that she shall enjoy it  quiet c then come these word for want of issue of her own body it shall go to  the next of kin of her own family it do not appear from the register book how  this settlement be frame but see the case cite more full ante vol the single  question be whether the jointtenancy between mrs Sarah ware who be dead and  her sister mrs powlet in the estate of mary ware be sever in the whole or in  part atkins Lord chancellor this be not a severance for first here be no  agreement for this purpose second if no agreement then there must be a actual  alienation to make it amount to a severance see Ireland v rittle ante vol the  declaration of one of the party that it shall be sever be not sufficient  unless it amount to a actual agreement and here be nothing in the  marriagesettlement which amount to a alienation either in law or equity for  the real intention be to preserve the right of the wife as it be so that her  property may not be alter by the interposition of the husband and for any  thing that appear to the contrary it may likewise be intend to preserve the  right she may have of survivorship upon mrs powlet die before her there be  beside another reason the other jointtenant be no party to the deed the only  thing that can give the least colour to the supposition of jointtenancy be  these word in the marriageagreement for want of issue of her own body then it  shall go to the next of kin of her own family but I do not think they be  sufficient to make the issue of her body purchaser or to give they a right to  come into this court as purchaser to have the agreement carry into execution  in their favour if it have I shall have incline to Chink it a severance but  notwithstanding these word it still leaves it at large and absolute at the  wife disposal a jointtenancy be undoubted no favourite Rigden v vallier Ves  post vol S c of a court of equity though otherwise at law but in the present  case here be no pretence of a alienation either in law or equity moyse for  gyles vern per cur the plaintiff husband and defendant have enjoy a church  lease in moieties under a agreement there shall be no benefit of survivorship  upon the last renewal the lease be take in both their name and no express  agreement against survivorship the plaintiff husband be sick by deed assign  his moiety of the lease to his wife and by his will devise it to her the grant  to the wife be void and the devise will not sever the jointtenancy moyse v  gyles transference of ownership rei prfertur law accrescend be a maxim in  equity but then it must appear to be a actual alienation and not from  inference and implication only without any express declaration of the party