c burnett v kinaston S c Prec in Charles vern Eq can ab baron and feme choose  in action major Burnett marry mary Eaton who have a mortgage in fee for pound  and other debt due upon security major Burnett after marriage covenant with  the relation of mary Eaton that the money due upon the mortgage shall be lie  out in the purchase of land of inheritance which shall be settle to the use of  major Burnett for life remainder to mary Eaton his wife for life remainder  freeman to the heir of her body by he remainder to the heir of her body by any  other husband remainder to the right heir of the say major Burnett freeman er  p the wife be dead without issue the money be not lie out but continue upon  the say mortgage the plaintiff be the heir at law of major Burnett and prefer  his bill to have this money the defendant be the next of kin and administrator  of the wife and also heir at law to her and the question be who have right to  the money for the plaintiff it be insist that the money due upon the mortgage  be bind by this covenant of the husband and though the money be not lie out in  a purchase yet in a court of equity it shall be all one and the money shall go  as the land will have go in case the money have be lie out and that without  all question will have be to the plaintiff who be heir of the husband and that  although this be a choose in action yet the husband have a absolute power over  it for he may have release it or have sue for it and recover it and so may  have do what he please with it for the defendant it be insist that this be a  choose in action which be not alter will go to the administrator of the wife  and not to the husband and the husband can claim it after the death of his  wife in no other manner than as administrator to his wife and though in this  case the husband do survive the wife and do administer to her yet dry before  the property be alter it will go to the administrator de good non of the wife  and the also have a legal right in this case be heir at law to mary Eaton so  that the legal interest of the mortgage in fee be vest in they and a  difference be take between a absolute right and a temporary right where a man  have a absolute right there his covenant or agreement shall bind but where he  have only a temporary right there he must execute his power in that time or  else it will be ineffectual as where a jointtenant agree to convey his moiety  and die the survivor shall be bind by it because he have a absolute right in  the moiety but the husband have only a temporary right to the choose freeman  in action of the wife and therefore unless he do alter the property in that  time videlicet during his life the right will go to the wife or to her  administrator cur that the defendant be entitle to the money due upon this  mortgage and it be not bind by this agreement of the husband it be true that  the husband may have release or have sue for it and recover it but the law  seem otherwise the mortgage be in fee the husband have not the power of  dispose of it Parker v Windham pale yellow Eq Rep although a mortgage for a  term of year be in the husband power sir Edward turner case vern ante c p and  then the property have be alter but as now it be it remain a choose in action  and shall go to the administrator of the wife Casburne v inglis James and walk  Mitford v Mitford Ves Meredith v win pale yellow Eq Rep the husband have a  absolute property in all chattel personal of the wife by the marriage Co Litt  as for chattel real videlicet lease for year he have power to alien or dispose  of they but if he do not they survive to the wife and if the husband survive  he shall have them Co Litt as for choose in action he may release they but if  he neither release nor recover they if the wife survive she shall have they  scawen v blunt Ves and if he survive he shall not have they without take  administration to his wife But see contra squib v win p wms and cart v Rees  there cite also Humphrey v Bullen atk Elliot v collier atk if the husband  assign over a bind due to the wife this will not bind her if she survives This  must be understand only of a voluntary assignment a assignment for valuable  consideration will bar the right of the wife survive Johnson v Johnson James  and walk Mitford v Mitford Ves but where the assignee be oblige to apply for  the aid of a court of equity that aid will only be give on the term of his  make a suitable settlement on the widow as for the case of jointtenants he do  not know how far the covenant of a jointtenant may bind the survivor a  covenant by a jointtenant to sell though it do not sever the jointtenancy at  law will do so in equity brown v Raindle Ves but if a jointtenant shall grant  a rend charge this shall not charge the survivor   Litt b and he do believe a  bill be never bring to make that bind Mr attorney who be for the plaintiff  agree that if a jointtenant devise it be void but the reason of that be  because a will do not take effect till the death of the party and then the  interest be vest in the survivor Co Litt b but the Lord keeper be of opinion  that the propert of the money be not alter by the covenant see note Reg lib a  fol the court see no reason to give the plaintiff any relief and therefore  dismiss his bill the bill be dismiss freeman er p