case kemp and Kelsey Vid post S c Eq Abr c S c wms wms atk whether a release  give by one who marry the daughter of a freeman of London shall bar the  husband and wife of their customary share the plaintiff wife be a daughter of  a freeman of London and after her marriage with the plaintiff her father give  her pound and her husband at the same time execute a release for the say pound  in full of all his wife customary part or share which be or may be due to his  wife by the custom of London or otherwise by her father her father afterward  make his will and thereby devise to his daughter the precedent in chancery  plaintiff wife pound and make the defendant his own wife executrix and die  have one other daughter possess of a personal estate to the amount of pound  and this bill be bring for a discovery of the personal estate that upon the  plaintiff bring the pound into hotchpot they may be let into a customary part  of the father estate suggest some fraud in obtain the release to this bill the  defendant plead the release in bar and it be argue for the plaintiff that the  very end of the bill be to be relieve against the release it be very  extraordinary to plead the same release in bar especial as it be allege to be  obtain by fraud and undue mean that this release can not be any bar in this  case be give by the husband after marriage that in the case of Blundell and  Barker wms S c it be a question whether a child can release a customary share  be only a future right before it become due and yet that release be by the  child itself and before marriage but here the release be by the husband and  that too after marriage which can not bar any future right which can be come  to his wife on the other side it be argue that the release be a good bar or at  least that the direct question be whether by the custom of the city such a  release be a good bar or not and therefore till the custom be certify to the  contrary the release be prima compose a good bar that the wife herself in this  case can give no release be under coverture that the husband be entitle to  every thing which belong to the wife and may release any right or thing in  action belong to her as he may give away or dispose of her fortune as he think  fit if not preclude by his own agreement the whole power thereof be by law  lodge in he that the suggestion of fraud in obtain this release can not take  away the force of it or deprive they of the benefit of plead of it for there  it will be but to suggest fraud in obtain a award pass a precedent in chancery  account or procure a release and the party will be whole deprive of the  benefit thereof but the contrary of this be every day experience Lord  chancellor say the question in Barker and Blundell be not whether the child  can release her customary share for that he think clear she can not be a mere  future right but whether such release will amount to a composition or  agreement in bar of her future right or as the term be be a compound for her  customary share but in this case the husband have no power whatsoever to  release a future right of his wife that she may survive he and will then be  entitle to it in her own right beside this release be suggest to be fraudulent  obtain and therefore order the plea to stand for a answer with liberty to  except so as to have a account of the freeman personal estate and the benefit  of the release to be save to the hear when the question will come more proper  whether such release by the custom of the city be good or not precedent in  chancery er p