case viscountess Montacute versus her husband sir george maxwell distinguish  wood v Midgley de g m g Lord chancellor Parker pre Charles pale yellow Chan Eq  can ab pl stram Eq can ab pl a agreement make by the husband before the  marriage without write within the statute of fraud see dundas v Dutens Ves jun  Randall v morgan Ves the plaintiff bring a bill against the defendant her  husband set forth that the defendant before her intermarriage with he do  promise that she shall enjoy all her own estate to her separate use that he  have agree to execute write to that peer William er p purpose and have  instruct counsel to draw such write and that when they be to be marry the  write not be perfect the defendant desire this may not delay the match in  regard his friend be there it may shame he but engage that upon his honour she  shall have the same advantage of the agreement as if it be in write draw in  form by counsel and execute upon which the marriage take effect and afterward  the plaintiff write a letter to the defendant her husband put he in mind of  his promise to which the defendant her husband write her a answer under his  hand express that he be always peer William Willing she shall enjoy her own  fortune as if sole and that it shall be at her command to this bill the  defendant plead the statute of fraud and perjury car c by which all promise in  consideration of marriage unless sign in write by the party be make void and  aver that he never sign any promise or agreement before marriage for her enjoy  any part of her estate separate which he plead in bar of any relief or  discovery it be urge against the plea that this promise be on the plaintiff  side execute by her intermarriage and therefore like the several case in which  equity do relieve and compel a mutual execution that the letter write by the  defendant though after marriage be a evidence under his hand of the agreement  before the marriage and so take it out of the statute on the other side it be  say that the express word of the statute make all such promise in  consideration of marriage void unless they be in write sign by the party and  that there be the great reason for it since in no case can there be suppose so  many unguarded expression and promise use as in address in order to marriage  where many passage of gallantry usual occur and it be therefore provide by the  statute that all promise make in consideration of marriage shall be void  unless sign by the party that it be very wrong to call marriage the execution  of the promise when until the marriage it be not within the statute and the  statute make the promise in consideration of marriage void therefore to say  that the marriage be a execution which shall render the promise good be quite  frustrate the statute which the court take notice of and approve peer William  Lord chancellor in case of fraud equity shall relieve even against the word of  the statute as if one agreement in write shall be propose and draw and another  fraudulent and secret bring in and execute in lieu of the former in this or  such like case of fraud equity will relieve but where there be no fraud only  rely upon the honour word or promise of the defendant the statute make those  promise void equity will not interfere nor be the instruction give to counsel  for prepare the write material since after they be draw and ingross the party  may refuse to execute they and as to the letter it consist only of general  expression as that the estate shall be at the plaintiff command or at her  service indeed have it recite or mention the former agreement and promise the  performance thereof it have be material but as this case be circumstance allow  the plea also this plea be in bar of a discovery as to all matter which if  discover and admit may be bar by the statute so far may the statute be plead  in bar of such discovery but upon the plaintiff amend her bill and charge  several additional fact a second plea of the statute of fraud put in by the  defendant be order to stand for a answer stram see more as to plead of the  statute in ease of parole agreement in Hawkins v Holmes post