atkins case mary Ireland sole executrix and residuary legatee of mary ignorant  her aunt plaintiff Susan rittle and other defendant November the that mary and  Susan Jackson the daughter and coheir of James Jackson be seize in fee of  certain land the former marry Thomas Ingram and the latter William atkins er p  rittle and by a mutual agreement between their husband in a partition be make  of the say premise between themselves and the heir of mary and Susan the  husband be both dead and the bill be bring against Susan rittle to confirm the  division of the say estate the agreement of the husband can bind the  inheritance of the wife a parole agreement for a equality of partition of a  long stand by person who have a right to contract and put in execution will be  establish by this court if a jointtenant upon equality of partition think  proper to accept of a contingent uncertain advantage when of the moiety of the  land be of superior value to the other it will not vacate the agreement James  Jackson the plaintiff mary grandfather be entitle to the reversion in fee of  certain copyhold land surrender the same to himself for life to his wife for  life and after the death of the survivor to his own right heir the tenant for  life die soon after and James the reversioner leave a widow and two daughter  mary and Susan who upon the death of their mother be admit as coheir of James  and the lord of the manor do in consideration of pound feoff and convey the  same to mary and Susan Jackson their heir and assign for ever mary intermarry  with Thomas Ingram and Susan the plaintiff mother with William rittle and have  make no partition of the say premise before their intermarriage Thomas Ingram  and William rittle the husband of mary and Susan by a mutual agreement in make  a partition of the say premise between themselves and the heir atkins of mary  and Susan by which each of they agree to take one part thereof which they do  and enter into possession and Susan now hold a share of the premise so divide  by virtue of such partition and mary enjoy her part till her death and mary  share be at the time of the partition somewhat large than Susan in  consideration thereof mary pay the tax and the levy charge upon both note mary  in her lifetime and after the death of her husband by lease and release as the  plaintiff state by her bill convey her part to the use of herself for life  with remainder to the plaintiff and her heir Thomas Ingram die many year since  without issue leave mary his widow and in William rittle the plaintiff mary  father die intestate leave the defendant Susan rittle his widow and four child  the bill be bring among other thing to confirm the division of the say estate  and that the defendant Susan rittle man be restrain from proceed at law  against the plaintiff to compel a new partition thereof Lord chancellor where  there have be a long possession under a agreement for owelty of partition this  court be strong incline to quid the enjoyment of such estate and I be at first  of opinion to establish this agreement but it appear now that it be only a  agreement between the two husband which can by no mean bind the inheritance of  the wife so Oldham v Hugh post vol but this doctrine so far as it relate to  partition where such partition be equal be direct contrary to the text of  Littleton Litt S and the authority of his commentator   Litt a see Oakeley v  smith Amb in the case of may v hook har   Litt a note it be hold that a  agreement by a infant jointtenant can not sever the jointtenancy so post vol  for the argument of long enjoyment be of no force here unless it have be  original the agreement of the wife though I do admit a parole agreement of  long stand acknowledge by all the party to have be the actual agreement and  accord put in execution will be establish by this court where it appear that  the person who make such agreement have a right to contract and I will not at  fiftythree year distance suffer either party to controvert the equality of the  partition at the time it be make the next consideration be whether mary share  be large than Susan at the time the partition be make will induce the court to  set it aside now suppose that the agreement be between proper party I do not  think the objection of a contingent advantage only to one of the party upon  the partition be sufficient to set asideathe agreement for a jointtenant upon  owelty of partition may if he think proper accept of a contingent uncertain  advantage where one moiety of the land be of superior value to the other as in  the present case Susan who have the less valuable moiety by way of  compensation or recompense be to pay no tax whatsoever and though she may be  disappoint in her expectation from this contingency yet that will not vacate  the agreement atkins but upon the particular circumstance of the present case  I do declare that though the defendant Susan rittle consent in the lifetime of  her husband to hold the premise in question accord to the partition make  between he and Thomas Ingram yet that she be not bind by such agreement but as  she now submit to hold the several part of the say premise as they have be  already hold in severalty I decree atkins er p that the plaintiff and the  defendant Susan rittle do respective hold and enjoy the say several part of  the say premise in severalty and that each of they do execute conveyance of  the respective share thereof to the other accord to their respective interest  therein and that the plaintiff do pay the tax of the whole estate Reg lib a  fol