case acton widow versus pierce and Saxby and all see milbourn v Ewart t r  duberley v day Bea v Eq can ab pl pl pre Ch SC sub nom Acton v Acton bind give  to the wife before marriage to leave pound though extinguish at law by the  marriage yet good in equity and shall bind the real asset and decree the wife  after her husband death to redeem a mortgage and to hold over though copyhold  as well as freehold include in the security John Acton on his marriage agree  to leave his wife the plaintiff pound if she survive he the draw of Vernon  chancery case the marriageagreement be leave to one Nowell the parson of the  parish who make a bind from Acton to the plaintiff his intend wife in pound  condition to leave her pound if she survive he the marriage be have John Acton  mortgage his estate and die the plaintiff bill be to have the benefit of the  bind although release at law by the intermarriage it be so at law cage v Acton  Lord raym and case cite there common Carth S c Bac ab vol and reference  milbourn v Ewart t r but in equity husband and wife may sue each other and  such a bind be write evidence of the agreement cannel v buckle p wms so  watkyns v watkyns atk and the principal case cite for that doctrine arg bishop  v church ves et vide Hardwicke Lord chancellor judgement SC ibidem p and there  be several other case in which bind void or defective at law be aid in equity  vide Crosby v Middleton Ch Rep sims v urry Ch can Holtham v Ryland Nels Ch can  anon mose butler v Pendergast bro p c Simpson v Vaughan atk emes v Hancock  ibidem archer v pope ves Rippon v Dawding Amb burt v Barlow bro Ch Rep where  though bill to establish bind mistake draw up dismiss yet it be for want of  sufficient proof of the mistake and joint bind consider in equity as joint and  several Thomas v Frazer Ves so joint bind hold several in bankruptcy dict per  Loughborough Lord chancellor burn v burn ibidem and so decree in that case  against creditor in the administration of asset and for the ground of such a  case vide grey v Chiswell Ves et vide Underhill v Horwood Ves as to covenant  or agreement between party who afterward become husband and wife be extinguish  at law by the marriage vide darcy v Chute Ch can Haimer v Haimer vent Pridgeon  v Pridgeon mich Fursor v Penton ante Vol and case cite in note there and that  she as a bondcreditor may be admit to redeem the mortgage and hold over until  satisfy what she shall pay for the redemption and also the bonddebt Vernon  chancery case er p it be object first although it may subsist as a agreement  in equity and entitle the plaintiff to a satisfaction out of the personal  estate yet the bind be void it can not be look upon as a specialty or bind the  real asset Lord keeper the bind if set up must be whole and entire set up and  not in part only to bind the personal asset and not the real but where the  condition of a bind consist of different part some lawful and other not it be  good for the lawful part and void for the rest Yate v king bunb bro p c S c  second it be object if a good bind yet it can only affect the freehold and can  not give her any right to redeem the copyhold estate but it be answer that  although a bind will not bind a copyhold estate yet the free and copyhold be  both in one mortgage the plaintiff be entitle to redeem the whole decree for  the plaintiff to redeem and hold over accord to the report of the principal  case in pre Ch a issue be direct to try whether the bind be execute and note  this case seem to be the same with that in salk where holt c I be say to have  differ in opinion from gold and Turton just the former hold that the bind be  absolute extinguish on the marriage the other that it be but suspend and  revive on the death of the husband but the chief justice allow that have it be  a covenant or a promise make to the wife dumb sola these in regard they will  have be executory and have raise no present duty will have be good they will  have depend on a future contingency which can not happen during the coverture