bushel versus Burland mich Ann in ejectment on a special verdict the case in  substance be this a and b the wife of a levy a fine and four year afterward  they by deed declare the use in which deed be these word all and every fine or  fine levy or to be levy shall be to the use of this deed the question be  whether the use of the fine be well and sufficient declare by this subsequent  deed sergeant Pratt for the fine and deed rely on Dowmans case   and that the  jury find the deed relate to the fine before levy holt KB Hooper contra  the  question be whether this subsequent deed be sufficient to declare the use of  this precedent fine I shall lie down three rule saint that no use of a fine  since the statute of fraud and perjury can be aver by parole dly the necessary  consequence thereof be if a fine be levy and the use can be aver by parole  that then it will go back to the party that have the interest before dly when  a deed be make before or after a fine be levy and do declare to what use the  fine shall be it shall be to such use as be declare by the deed as to Dowmans  case which seem to be against I that be of a recovery and all be within a mon  that and it be so littlelime it seem to be the same convey once but in this  case there be four year and this do by a feme covert that case be long before  the statute of fraud and perjury and then a use may be aver by parole but now  it can the reason of that case as it be report in more be because the deed  which be the evidence do say that it be the agreement of all that the recovery  shall be to such use and it be there say without these word the case have be  otherwise now in this case there be no such thing as a agreement the statute  for the amendment of the law do not alter the statute of fraud and perjury as  to that part no use can be aver by parole and therefore that do still remain  good now I be to show why a subsequent deed shall not be good and if it shall  the mischief that will follow a fine of itself can be no harm to a feme covert  if nothing be do but the levy thereof and that be the only conveyance that she  can make but the inconvenience be that though a feme covert be private examine  when she levie a fine which be useless until there be a deed to declare the  use thereof yet to that deed she be not examine and then in so long a time as  this the husband have a great opportunity to persuade his wife I desire to  know where be the freehold between the levy of the fine and the time of  declare the use thereof and what shall be think a reasonable time to execute a  deed to declare the use after a fine levy all the case where a subsequent deed  may declare the use of a fine be to be intend where the use may be aver the  freehold must be in he to who use the fine holt KB be levy by the purport of  the deed it appear that the intent of the party be to have a future act do  which be that she shall levy a fine holt KB er p Pratt as to the objection  that this be the case of a feme covert when the wife join in a fine with her  husband he may make a deed to declare the use thereof without her consent in  the case of Jones and Morley it be hold that a write be sufficient to declare  the use of a fine if the jury find it be deliver to such use Hooper if a fine  be levy and there be no deed to declare the use but only a parole evidence and  the jury find that it be levy to use accord to that parole evidence will that  be sufficient Powell I cite beckwith case   and say that if the wife join with  her husband in a fine and she then will not consent to make a deed to declare  the use then the husband may declare the use without her consent holt c j he  may if a fine be levy in August and a deed to declare the use thereof be make  at the same time by a man and his wife ol land which he have in right of his  wife the fine in judgement of law be a fine of the precedent term and yet the  deed be but a deed in August and that deed be sufficient to declare the use if  a fine be levy by husband or wife of land which he have in right of his wife  and there be a deed make at the same time to declare the user thereof and  afterward this deed be lose and then another be make to the same effect and  date as the first that deed be sufficient to declare the use of the fine  Powell I if there be by a subsequent deed a agreement to a precedent act then  it will take effect notwithstanding the statute of fraud and perjury holt c j  a estate for life without impeachment of waste can be without deed and then  bow be this use declare but by a subsequent deed gold I in Arthur Basset case  dyer pl there the case be put where there be four year between the time of  levy of the fine and the time of make the deed to declare the use holt c j if  there be a agreement to levy a fine and a fine be levy and afterward a  subsequent declaration of use this be good within the statute of fraud and  perjury holt KB in another term holt c j deliver the opiraion of the court the  question be this deed bear date before the fine levy and not execute till  after and the jury have find that the fine be levy to the use therein declare  whether it be sufficient to declare the use of the fine we be all of opinion  that it be we think that notwithstanding the statute of fraud arad perjury a  subsequent deed be now as good as it be before the statute it be doubtful  whether that statute do extend to use because they be not mention there but  only trust notwithstanding we take trust and use to be the same in respect of  trust in their large extent and so within the statute of use here be what the  statute require for here be a write and here be a deed if you consider Dowmans  case more you will find this to be much strong for the jury there find that  the deed of use be subsequent and the question be whether the deed be  sufficient to declare the use and in that case it be object that there be a  limitation of the use without any impeachment of waste which can be without  deed at the time of grant of the reversion there be no deed but when the deed  come and declare the intent of the party then it be a sufficient manifestation  of the use and the intent of the party and ib be true waste can not be  dispunishable without deed but when the deed come and make good thme use it be  well enough the jury here have express find that it be the intent ol the party  at the time of leyig the fine that it shall be to those use in Basset case  dyer pl there be a recovery suffer h and the use be not declare till the that  though it be before the statute yet it be the same thing and that be hold a  good declaration of the use judgement for the plaintiff