case come Shaftsbury versus comitissam Shaftsbury refer to Jenkins v Jones l r  Eq Lord chancellor Feb Eq can ab pl S c Ant case I S devise all his household  good and furniture which shall be in his house at r at his death to his wife  and afterward go beyond sea his steward get the landlord of the house to  accept of a surrender of the lease of the house and remove the good to another  house and write a account of this to I S who approve of it the good will not  pass by the will to the wife otherwise if they have be remove by fraud to  defeat the legacy or by any tortuous act without the privity of the testator  the late earl of Shaftsbury before he go to Naples for his health make his  will and thereby inter alian devise to the defendant his wife all the plate  picture household good and furniture that shall be in his house at riegate at  the time of his death while he be beyond the sea his steward get the landlord  to accept a surrender of the lease of the house at riegate and thereupon he  remove the good to another house of the testator and write to the earl a  account of what he have do who approve thereof yet the defendant insist to be  entitle to the good that have be at the house at riegate the same be remove  from thence not by the direction of the testator vide as to this decree in  note infra but by accident upon the steward prevail on the landlord to accept  a surrender of the lease the court decree the defendant to account and answer  the value of the good to the plaintiff but withal declare that Vernon chancery  case if the good have be remove by fraud or practice on purpose to disappoint  the legacy or by a tortuous act unknown to the testator that may have entitle  her to relief and as to the good which be in the house at riegate his lordship  declare that nothing passes to the defendant the countess of Shaftsbury by the  word of the say will but what be in the say house at the time of the testator  death for as this case be there be no fraud or wrongful removal but a general  authority to the defendant Wheelock the steward to do as he think fit and that  what the defendant Wheelock do the testator consent to which be as sufficient  as if there have be a express command for the removal of the say good and that  the say testator have by his will give the defendant the countess some further  bequest in consideration of the say good that be remove from the house at  riegate the same ought not to be take to belong to the defendant the countess  but be bring into the account of the say testator personal estate Reg lib a  fol vide duke of Beaufort v Lord Dundonald ante p and not there see also land  v devaynes bro Ch Rep heseltine v heseltine mad and whereas the countess  before marriage have save out of her maintenancemoney pound which be in the  hand of her brother Henry ewre Esq who after his sister marriage give a bind  for it to the earl but Mr Wheelock the earl steward prove that the earl say  his wife shall have that money and that it shall be place out in some public  fund for her benefit and have also a little before his death say he give it to  his wife and three person then present put down in write what he so say and  attest it as witness though the earl do not direct they so to do nor know that  what he so say be put down in write and although the earl afterward make two  codicil to his will and in one of they devise several thing to the countess  but take no notice of this money or of the bind give for it yet the Lord  chancellor decree it to the defendant the countess not as a gift from her  husband but as declare and intend original for her separate use where a feme  covert save money out of her separate maintenance she may dispose of it as a  feme sole Bletsow v sawyer ante Vol and case cite in not there Vernon chancery  case er p