case PROBERT v morgan and Clifford may the that easter term SC Amb SC Cox p W  in note full a bill by the plaintiff to have the deficiency of her jointure  make good out of the asset of her husband and his father and also for pound  leave her by her husband Payable with interest from three month after his  death and for her paraphernalia where the father and son be party to the  marriage contract she have a lie both upon the estate of her the father and  son a account of asset be decree and that the deficiency shall be make good  out of the son estate it appear that he receive most of the fortune this be a  bill bring by the plaintiff to have the deficiency of her jointure supply out  of the asset of her husband and his father and also for pound leave her by her  husband Payable with interest from three month after his death and likewise to  have her paraphernalia make good on the marriage of Robert the son with the  plaintiff the father and son both covenant that the land settle upon her for  her jointure be worth pound per and part of which land be woodland but the  whole original income be not worth pound Lord chancellor in marriage contract  when the fortune of the wife be pay to the father or to clear encumbrance or  to the son and the father and the son be party to the marriage contract the  wife have a lie both upon the estate of the father and son as to the woodland  part of the estate it appear that notwithstanding a valuation be make of what  arise from the fall of timber and cut wood every year a deficiency still  atkins remain to satisfy the jointure a account of asset be decree and that  the deficiency in the jointure shall be make good out of the personal estate  of the father and son pursuant to their covenant and in case that shall prove  deficient then out of their real estate liable to their debt by special Lord  chancellor hold that the legacy of pound give by will to the wife ought not to  be consider in this case as a satisfaction for the deficiency of her jointure  because that do not arise till after his death and therefore can not at that  time be in his consideration and as the jointure land be covenant by the  marriage settlement to be worth so much clear of all reprizes the testator  plain intend the pound as a bounty to her there be another question out of  what fund this legacy be to be pay for by the marriage settlement by another  settlement subsequent to the marriage the husband have a power to charge the  estate with pound after the death of his wife and a term of year be raise for  that purpose the word of the husband will be first I charge all my real estate  c Lord chancellor if a man have a power to charge a estate it be not necessary  in the execution of it he shall refer to the deed out of which the power arise  for in a court of equity it be enough that his intent appear and if in the  execution he sufficient describe the estate he have a power to charge the  estate be certain bind especial where the person charge be a purchaser of the  power ex part Caswal post but in such case it must appear that the person who  have the power intend to execute it Moulton v Hutchinson post Andrews v Emmot  bro Charles Rep he have indeed mistake a circumstance with respect to the time  of raise it but that will not make it void the sum of pound be to be raise two  year after the term shall come into possession atkins er p it be insist for  the plaintiff that as the husband by he will leave her the pound Payable with  interest the interest shall be make goodtill it amount to the sum of pound  which he have a power to raise but his lordship say as to that the pound be  the only charge upon the estate he be of opinion that the interest shall not  be make good out of the power for that be to charge the estate with the  principal sum of pound his lordship reserve the consideration whether interest  be to be allow upon the sum of pound from month after the testator death to be  make good out of the real estate descend or the real estate devise Reg lib b  fol with regard to the paraphernalia it be strong insist upon by the counsel  for the defendant that the wife can stand in the place of bind creditor and  the case of tip v tip wms be cite for that purpose Lord chancellor where there  be real estate descend the wife may be entitle to her paraphernalia decree  that if the personal estate be sufficient to pay debt then the plaintiff be  entitle to have her paraphernalia but if not sufficient then she be to have  satisfaction out of the real estate descend Reg lib b fol say vide incledon v  Northcote post vol but otherwise in this case where the real estate come by  the husband and say the case in vern have be carry full far enough fir though  it be there lie down that where a die intestate or by will do not dispose of  the jewel his wife may claim in case atkins there be no debt the jewel  suitable to her quality to be wear as the ornament of her person yet by the  old law they be absolute in the power of the husband so Graham v Londonderry  post vol and if by will devise away the jewel such devise shall stand good  against the wife claim of paraphernalia contra Northey v Northey post vol  Seymore v Tresilian post vol see Snelson v Corbet post vol cro car and roll  Abr sec