case hale versus van BERCHEM ux and coal e contra Nov agreement since the  statute of fraud c be not to be part parole and part in write yet a deposit  for performance of a write agreement though there be no write declare such  deposit to be a security be not within the purview of the statute van Berchem  upon the marriage of his wife in by article in write in consideration of six  thousand pound mention to have be by he receive as a Vernon chancery case  portion with his wife covenant that if he and his wife live seven year in  three month afterward to lie out ten thousand pound in a purchase and settle  it on himself for life and his wife for her jointure c and if he die before a  settlement be make to leave her ten thousand pound and confess a judgement to  brown and coal for performance of covenant one thousand five hundred pound of  the wife portion be lie out in the purchase of a annuity of one hundred pound  per and in the exchequer in the name of coal and he give a declaration of  trust to van Berchem that his name be use in trust for he his executor and  administrator the plaintiff hale be prevail upon to lend van Berchem one  thousand pound his assignment of the annuity and deposit the tally and order  with he and the wife attempt to take out execution against the husband in the  name of the trustee before the time be lapse for make the purchase brown one  of the trustee be prevail upon to acknowledge satisfaction on the judgement  hale bill be to compel coal to assign the trust for secure his one thousand  pound and the cross bill be that the wife may have the benefit of the one  hundred pound per and and that brown may be charge with a breach of trust and  compel to stand in the place of van Berchem and make good the marriage  agreement she insist that the annuity purchase in coal name in trust be to  remain as a pledge until the marriageagreement be perform and that the tally  and order be deposit in coal hand for that purpose but that her husband  persuade her to take they out of his hand on pretence they be not safe there  and she have so do he afterward take they out of her cabinet and deliver they  to hale Vernon chancery case for Mr hale it be insist that whatever private  agreement may be between van Berchem and his wife as he have not hear of it so  it can not bind he be only by parole and void by the statute of fraud and per  jury and as no part of the agreement in write but inconsistent with it vide  Gascoigne v Thwing all ante Vol mumma v mumma ante p and case cite in note  there respective the whole six thousand pound be thereby recite to have be pay  to van Berchem and also inconsistent with the declaration of trust give by  coal and even before the statute of fraud and perjury it be never allow that  any thing of a parole agreement shall be add or tack to a agreement in write  for that will render write of little effect and reduce all thing to  uncertainty so before the statute of fraud a will in write not supply by  parole proof per holt chief justice caryi v bertie ante vide countess of  Rutland case   Rep Kaimes v nightley skin yet the Lord chancellor dismiss Mr  hale bill with cost the interest of the plaintiff Sarah van Berchem in the  annuity tally be precedent to the interest of the defendant hate therein  whether the debt pretend to be due to he from the say Henry van Berchem be  just or not for that it appear the say hale have notice of such her interest  and do not original lend his money on security of the say annuity not continue  the same on such security but that such security be intrude on he by the say  Henry van Berchem r l and decree the one hundred pound per and to tie wife van  Berchem the husband be break say although parole agreement be bind by the  statute and agreement be not to be part parole and part in write yet a deposit  or collateral security for the performance of the write agreement be not  within the purview of the statute and the defendant who be marry in her  infancy and her trustee who have make a improvident agreement in write do well  afterward upon recollection to get that deposit for the performance of the  agreement and as to brown who have unadvised be persuade to acknowledge  satisfaction on the judgement he have some colour for so do because a to know  facias have be bring in his name without his privity and execution take out  before the agreement be break or the time lapse for make the purchase and it  also appear by the time the to know facias be sue out that execution can not  have be have before such time as van Berchem fail and become a bankrupt and he  have no land that can be affect with the judgement Vernons chancery case by  this answer brown confess that after acknowledge satisfaction van Berchem the  husband execute and deliver to he a bind of indemnity in pound penalty r l  therefore only condemned he in cost and to answer damage in case the wife  shall think it worth her while to bring a quantum injure by the acknowledge  satisfaction on the judgement but withal declare that if he have do it design  and corrupt as for a reward c he shall have be decree to stand in the place of  van Berchem and to have make good the marriageagreement Nothing in the decree  as against brown in the register book as to the quantum injure appear it be  that he the say defendant brown do procure the satisfaction acknowledge on the  say judgement to be vacate and the judgement to be set up again in the same  condition it be at the time of acknowledge such satisfaction and if the say  defendant brown shall not procure the say satisfaction to be vacate then it be  order and decree that he do give a new judgement against himself defeazanced  for the performance of the say marriagearticle and it be further order that  the say defendant brown do pay unto the plaintiff Sarah her cost at law and of  these suit to be tax by the master so far as the same relate to he the say  brown Reg lib b fol enter van Berchem v van Berchem note the defendant hale  have take the good of defendant van Berchem the husband in execution on  account of his say debt and as to this the decree declare that as to the  judgement give by the say Henry van Berchem for performance of the say  marriagearticle and on which the say defendant brown have acknowledge  satisfaction the same ought in equity to be look upon as subsist so far as to  let the plaintiff Sarah van Berchem in to have a account from the defendant  hale of the good so by he take in execution as aforesaid and the master be to  see what be real lend to the say Henry van Berchem by the say defendant hate  and what the say master shall certify the say defendant hale to be a real  creditor for he be to receive a satisfaction for the same out of the say good  so by he take in execution and the remainder of the say good or the value  thereof if any be to go and be pay to the plaintiff Sarah towards satisfaction  of her marriagearticle Vernon chancery case er p