atkins case Terrell versus hope may at the roll the master of the roll of  opinion that a note under the hand of the husband ought to be look upon as  part of the a age agreement and consequent as part of the settlement and as  the wife will have be relieve if she have bring a bill against the husband  equal so as bring against the assignee who stand in his place the plaintiff  before her marriage with John Terrell be seize in fee or her mother mrs  Stanton be of a estate in Berkshire and in consideration of the intend  marriage and of pound pay to Mr Terrell as her marriage portion it be agree  that the estate shall be settle previous to the marriage so as that one moiety  may be enjoy by the plaintiff mother for her life and after her decease by the  plaintiff or her trustee for her sole and separate use exclusive of her  husband and that she shall receive the rend and profit during her husband life  and that as well the say moiety after the plaintiff decease as the other  moiety but this moiety it seem be agree to be settle in strict settlement  shall be settle upon such trust as the plaintiff by any deed in her lifetime  or by will shall appoint Mr Terrell the intend husband undertake to procure  deed to be draw pursuant to the agreement but when the deed be read over to  the plaintiff in order for execution she observe there be a mistake for that  the moiety of the premise limit to her mother for life be after her decease  limit to the use of Mr Terrell for life and not to her separate use as have be  agree and she refuse to execute unless the mistake be rectify in order to do  this it be then propose by the trustee that Mr Terrell shall give a note or  write under his hand that the plaintiff shall take and receive one moiety of  the estate after her mother death for her sole and separate use accord to the  agreement as if the same have be so settle by the release and thereupon Mr  Terrell previous to the execution of the deed give the plaintiff a note or  write to the purpose aforesaid and deliver it to the trustee name in the  release to keep for the plaintiff benefit the marriage be have short after and  upon the that of July mrs Stanton the mother die and on the that of July a  commission of bankruptcy issue against Mr Terrell and he be find a bankrupt Mr  hope and other be choose assignee and be get into the receipt of all the rend  of this moiety refuse to let the plaintiff receive they or to make any  settlement for secure the receipt thereof to her pursuant to the agreement  before her marriage the bill be therefore bring against hope and the other  assignee for a account of what they have receive of the rend and that a moiety  of they for the future may be assure to the plaintiff for her sole and  separate use atkins Mr terell by the note promise and agree with the plaintiff  by the name of his intend wife mary Stanton that she shall enjoy and receive  the issue and profit of one moiety of the estate then in possession of her  mother mrs jane Stanton after the decease of her mother Mr Noel for the  defendant insist that both note and deed must stand together and if they can  the deed ought to control the whole because a deed be of more authority in the  notion of law than a note sign by one person only and for this purpose he cite  bawd versus amhurst Eq Cas Abr that while court have deed only before they  they have a sure foundation but if they go out of the deed witness may be  guilty of perjury and therefore the court have always lean strong against  parole evidence because this may err that can that as no body be present when  the note be give but person in the interest of the plaintiff it will be of  dangerous consequence to lie much stress upon such evidence especial as it be  not possible to produce any on the other side vide Clarkson versus Hanaway p  wms that suppose the word separate have be insert in the note that it will not  have give the wife as it be a note to her a separate interest during the  coverture hob clark versus Thompson cro James Mr brown for the plaintiff rely  upon the case of walker versus walker December atk S c as a authority in point  with regard to the evidence that be offer on the part of the plaintiff and  which ought to be allow upon this foot that it be a fraud in the husband to  draw in the wife to rest upon his promise without atkins er p alter the deed  and upon this suggestion parole evidence may be admit notwithstanding the  statute of fraud and perjury master of the roll the case now depend arise upon  the deed execute before marriage and upon the note sign before the deed the  first question be what relief the plaintiff will have have if it have be a  bill bring against the husband the second question if she be entitle under  this bill to the same relief against the assignee of the husband atkins I  shall consider it in the same light as the counsel have do now as to what have  be say with regard to the mischief produce by separate maintenance I shall lie  that out of the case for we must not be direct by what we think of it in our  own private judgement but upon what the court have judicial do in separate  maintenance then as to the first point upon the deed to be sure the wife can  have no relief for there be no word in it that can convey a separate estate to  the wife but then it be insist the note have supply this defect and that a  witness have explain the matter full a objection be make to admit this  evidence and a case cite in Eq Cas Abr bawd and amhurst where evidence be  offer to show the use of a marriage settlement but be not admit there because  it be not sign by the party here the note insist on be sign by the party the  husband himself the next question how far I shall give weight to this evidence  it say that a moiety of the estate be to be settle to the separate use of the  wife after the death of the mother now if the matter rest single upon the note  no parole evidence ought to be admit to explain the agreement between the  party vide walker v walker atk Ulrick v Litchfield atk Parteriche v powlet atk  but I be certain warrant in admit this evidence so far as it go to the reason  and occasion of sign this note the next consideration what effect it shall  have I ready agree where there be any write execute after the settlement and  differ from it the settlement shall control it but if I take the evidence into  the case with regard to the reason of give this note it will have a different  consideration with I because the wife refuse to execute the settlement without  it and if so I must construe it as one entire agreement before marriage and  both of they consistent for it be plain here be a new agreement between the  party and that it be upon the credit faith and foot of the note the settlement  be execute by the mother and the wife atkins as to the fraud which the  plaintiff counsel have suggest in the case it be not so clear because the  settlement be read to the mother and the wife before execution so that they do  it with their eye open now fraud be what be do in secret and where there be a  concealment from the party in a matter which concern his interest I can say  indeed the note be good in law against the marriage settlement but in equity  it ought to be look upon as part of the marriage agreement and consequent as  part of the settlement and therefore if the wife have bring a bill against the  husband she will have be entitle to relief several case have be cite to show  that this note be void in law and equity but upon the circumstance of this  case I do not think it be there be a strong case to this purpose where a bind  be give by a husband to a wife before marriage to secure a sum of money to her  use which be void in law and yet in equity will be consider as a trust for the  wife watkyns v watkyns atk one thing more before I leave the consideration of  the note be what will be the effect of it it have be say by the plaintiff  counsel that though it be not express yet it be imply in the note that she  shall have this moiety to her separate use now the word separate use indeed be  not in the note but there be other word which amount to it vide Darley v  Darley atk Graham v Londonderry ibidem lee v Prieux bro Charles Rep atkins er  p that she shall enjoy and receive the issue and profit of one moiety of the  estate which can admit of no other construction but that it must be for her  separate use for to what end shall she receive it if it be the property of the  husband the next moment the word enjoy too be very strong to imply a separate  use to the wife the second question be if the wife be entitle to the same  relief against the assignee of the husband a she will against the husband  himself it have be insist by the defendant counsel that assignee be trustee  for creditor and creditor be always favour in law so that when they have the  legal interest they shall have that e equitable estate against a person who  have only a equitable interest atkins it must be own the legal estate vest in  the husband and by assignment in his assignee and the general rule be that  they stand in the place of a bankrupt but I think it do not hold in every case  for instance where there be a voluntary conveyance by a bankrupt the court may  carry it into execution against the bankrupt himself but not against his  assignee the reverse where it be a conveyance by the bankrupt for a valuable  consideration before a act of bankruptcy commit as it most certain be here for  then the wife take in consideration of marriage and of a estate move from her  the case of tailor versus Wheeler vern come very near the present for there  the legal interest be vest in the assignee there be another reason why I think  the assignee can be consider no otherwise than as the bankrupt himself because  what have be do upon the marriage be in the nature of a trust only for the  wife and therefore if the husband be only a trustee for the wife the assignee  of course must be trustee in the same manner as the husband be Bennet v Davis  p W Darley v Darley atk Rolfe v budder bunb take then all the circumstance  together as she will have be entitle to the relief she pray against the  husband she be equal entitle to relief against the assignee Reg lib b fol  Jewson v Moulson atk but without cost as it be their duty be trustee only for  the creditor at large to bring a case so circumstance before the court see ex  part bias atk winch v Keeley durn Easts Rep