case harvey versus harvey vern Eq can ab pl Eq can ab pl devise of a personal  estate to a feme covert for her separate use without name trustee queen  whether good to bar the husband a have a daughter marry to the defendant by  his will devise his personal estate to his daughter to hold to her particular  and separate use and die afterward the husband part of this personal estate  consist of a mortgage agree by write under his hand that the wife shall enjoy  it to her separate use and the question be here be no trustee to who the  devise be make whether the wife shall enjoy this personal estate without its  be intermeddle with by the husband Lord chancellor this be a great question  whether the husband shall be compel to let the wife enjoy this personal estate  to her own use for though it be object that the testator have a power to  devise it so and that his intent be to make use of such power yet it be give  to a marry woman and no contract peer William precedent or subsequent from the  husband that he will not intermeddle with it the husband title to this estate  be subsequent to the will and the intention be repugnant to the rule of law  videlicet that a feme covert shall have property in personal good it seem to I  to have some difficulty in it vide Burton v pierpoint post Vol two wherefore  let it be reserve as a case to be argue but as to the mortgage where the  husband have contract or declare under his hand that he will not intermeddle  with it though such declaration may be voluntary yet it must be presume to  proceed from a sense the husband have of the testator intent that the wife  shall enjoy this mortgage separate and to be find on natural justice though  not on contract for which reason the court be clear of opinion that the  husband shall be bind by this agreement and Lord chancellor say that if a real  estate be devise to a feme covert for her separate use and a declaration that  the husband shall not intermeddle with the profit but that the wife shall  enjoy they separate he doubt this will be a repugnant clause and the husband  will still enjoy they it do not appear either by this report or that in vern  nor even in the register book what be Lord cowpers final determination upon  this point but the case of peer William er p Bennet v Davis which be determine  at the roll in December seem to have settle it post Vol two vide also Rolfe v  budder bunb in Darley v Darley atk husband be hold a trustee to separate use  of wife of a estate devise to he for the livelihood of the wife