atkins case brett versus forcer and other February previous to the marriage of  g S the father of the intend wife covenant to pay pound to the husband on the  marriage and that his heir executor c shall pay likewise to the husband his  executor c six month after the father death pound as the remainder of the wife  portion after the fatherinlaw death the husband be indebt to the plaintiff  assign the pound to he as a security for the debt the executrix of the wife  father direct to account for the pound to the plaintiff as it never wonder as  the money of the wife but a debt due to the husband himself previous to the  marriage of George savage with Frances forcer article be execute bear date the  that of October between Francis forcer and Frances his daughter on the one  part and George savage on the other part and it be thereby covenant by the  father of the intend wife that at the solemnization of the marriage he will  pay one thousand pound to the husband and that his heir executor and  administrator shall pay likewise to the husband his executor administrator or  assign six month after the death of the father the further sum of five hundred  pound as the remainder of the marriage portion of the wife and by the same  deed the husband contract that he will give security by specialty covenant or  obligation that in case his wife survive he his heir executor or administrator  within six month after his death shall pay her one thousand pound and likewise  that she shall be entitle to such share of his personal estate as the wife of  a freeman of London will be the marriage take effect on the that of November  and the husband give his bind three day afterward George savage be now a  bankrupt but before the bankruptcy and after the death of his fatherinlaw be  indebt to the plaintiff assign the five hundred pound atkins er p to he as a  security for the debt note but he have previous assign it to other person for  secure a debt of which there now remain due about pound the bill be bring by  the assignee of the five hundred pound against the executrix of the wife  father against savage the bankrupt and his wife and the assignee under the  commission for this five hundred pound Mr solicitor general counsel for the  plaintiff insist that this be out of the common rule that whoever come here  for the wife fortune must first make a provision for her because that rule  have be confine to person who stand exact in the same light with the husband  but the court have distinguish where the plaintiff have be a creditor of the  husband for a valuable consideration and have decree for he without oblige he  to make any provision for the wife that there be likewise this favourable  circumstance for the plaintiff the five hundred pound be not to be pay to the  wife for her separate use but to the husband himself atkins he cite Jewson  versus Moulson the that of October and that of December as a case in point see  Tr atk Mr Holford of the same side cite squib versus Wynn p wms and Bennet  versus Davis p wms and milner versus Colmer ib and Cleland versus Cleland Prec  in Chanc Mr attorney general counsel for the wife of George savage the  bankrupt say that it be a agreement previous to marriage and enter into for a  valuable consideration and executory only on the foot of a contract it be a  mutual consideration and therefore the court will construe it to be strict  carry into execution and though it be no debt due to the wife yet move from  the father mere in consideration of the daughter and therefore be a provision  for the benefit of the daughter and her child Mr smith of the same side say it  be a rule in equity the court will not decree a hardship and if it shall be  determine against the wife in this case she must in all probability starve  that this therefore be a reason for the court to stand neuter and not  interfere in favour of the husband for the defendant be cite the case of  Turton versus Benson Prec in Chanc Lord chancellor this may be a unfortunate  case but notwithstanding the counsel for the defendant the wife say I shall  not interpose at all I can in this case refuse to make a decree for if the  court be to stand neuter the legal interest will be in the assignee under the  commission and they will run away with it who have a less equity than the  plaintiff and therefore I think the court ought to make some decree consider  it as if the agreement of the that of October and the execution of the bind on  the that November be all one agreement and all before marriage then it will  have stand as a agreement by the wife father in consideration of act to be do  on the part of the husband to pay c vide the word the first thing insist on  for the wife be this ought to be consider as part of the estate of the wife  and that at the court will not let a husband have it unless he first make a  provision for her atkins nor consequent the plaintiff he stand only in the  husband place those case be where the wife have a demand in her own right and  the husband apply to the court in her right they will then take care of femes  covert where there be no agreement previous to the marriage on their behalf  vide Jewson v Moulson ante atk vol and the case cite there but this never be  the money of the wife for her father have covenant to pay it absolute to the  husband therefore be no part of the wife estate but a debt due to the husband  himself the question will depend upon the other objection with regard to the  agreement on the part of the husband in the article previous to the marriage  that it be a executory contract and the whole must be decree to be carry  strict into execution for the benefit of the wife I will put this case suppose  the husband have not be a bankrupt and have bring a bill against the executrix  of the father for a performance of his covenant under the article the court  can not have compel the husband to have do more than give the bind and the  wife must have take her chance as to the share of her husband personal estate  as any other widow of a freeman subject to the accident of trade and  bankruptcy and the husband may have say I give a bind three day atkins er p  after marriage and you have acquiesce in it and therefore nothing be leave  executory for I have perform the whole on my part then if the husband will  have be entitle shall a assignee for a valuable consideration be in a worse  condition than the husband the assignor there be many case where he have be  hold to be in a better condition but none where he have be hold to be in a  worse so that however unfortunate the case of the wife may be there must be a  decree in favour of the plaintiff for as I say before if I stand neuter the  assignee under the commission who bare stand in the place of the husband will  take the whole from a assignee for a valuable consideration therefore his  lordship decree the executrix of the wife father to account for the pound to  the plaintiff which he direct to be apply in the first place to discharge the  debt due to the first assignee and then the plaintiff demand Reg lib a fol