case sir edward turner case Eq can ab pl S c a feme possess of a trust of a  term marry the husband may dispose of it otherwise if the term be assign in  trust for the wife with the privity of the husband vide post Pitt v hunt case  memorandum that about Michaelmas last it be adjudge in a appeal in the house  of lord in the case of sir Edward turner that a term be assign in trust for a  feme by her former husband and she afterward intermarry with the late Lord  chief baron turner who alien the term that the same be well pass away and that  the husband may dispose thereof and my Lord chancellor decree be thereupon  reverse for the ground of this decision vide Jewson v Moulson atk so packer v  Windham pre Chan Pitt v hunt post Walter v sander Trin Eq can ab pl Tudor v  same post vol Eq can ab pl and the same doctrine full recognize in Bates v  Dandy atk incledon v Northcote atk Worrall v Marlar bushnan v pell before Lord  Thurlow Chan do you Cox cite in Bosville v Brander p wms in not so if a  judgement be give to a in trust for feme sole who marry and by consent of the  trustee be in possession of the land extend on a elegit the husband alone may  assign over the extend interest Lord Carteret v Paschal p wms so if the feme  be in possession of land until a debt be due to her and marry ibidem but it be  agree that where a term be assign in trust for a feme by the privity and  consent of her husband there without doubt the husband can intermeddle or  dispose of it a strong he may not if he make a lease for year to another to  the use of his wife if she live so long wiches case Paso James cam scacc Bates  v Dandy ub sup et vide Pitt v hunt post where say however by Nottingham Lord  chancellor that to prevent the husband he must be a party to the assignment et  vide vin ab p pl but although the doctrine on this subject as lie down in the  case above cite appear to be now establish yet it seem former neither to have  be consider as law nor to have meet with favour since its establishment vide  doyley v Perful before Lord keeper finch Charles two Chan Cas Freem sir George  sand case hard Walter v sander ub sup Pitt v hunt post and the court at this  day will go so far as upon circumstance to restrain the husband from part with  the property of the wife Ellis v Ellis before Lord Loughborough Chan b ms  Robert v Robert before the master of the roll that Feb ms cite Supplt vin ab  SC Cox and a husband can by assign his wife property for a valuable  consideration bar her of any equity she may have in it wenman v mason in note  to Bosville v Brander p wms Jewson v Moulson atk pope v Crashawe bro Chan Rep  like v Beresford Ves hill v Atkinson Ves note Mitford v Mitford Ves wright v  Morley Ves Beresford v Hobson mad Elliott v Cordell mad stamper v Barker mad  Johnson v Johnson I W Steinmetz v Halthin g I with the exception perhaps of  the trust of a term for year per master of the roll Macaulay v Phillips Ves  vide also Franco v Franco Ves as to the extent and effect of the husband right  in the term of the wife at law vide   Litt title remitter a Mr Cox in the  conclusion of his note to Bosville v Brander p wms say there seem to have be  more doubt where the husband have assign some particular choose in action or  trust term of the wife for a full valuable consideration whether the court  will impose any term in favour of the wife upon such particular assignee than  in the case that have arise between the wife and the general assignee of the  husband and refer to several case in the principal case no mention appear of  that subject in Pitt v hunt case the chancellor say the provision make for  child be defeat by this new resolution I e in turner case in Tudor v same the  circumstance that no provision have be make for the wife be express urge as a  argument against the decree seek by the plaintiff bill send non allocatur  packer v Windham the wife be dead and no issue Walter v sander be between the  wife and the general creditor and a term create for raise pound be hold to be  a term and not money and in Bates v Dandy Lord chancellor say the husband may  have dispose of the whole but no mention of any term in favour of the wife as  to any distinction between a term in trust to raise a sum of money for a woman  and a trust of the term itself such distinction though attempt to be make be  not attend to by the master of the roll in Walter v sander with respect to a  distinction in the case of a particular assignment between a trust term and a  choose in action of the wife vide packer v Windham ub sup where Lord  chancellor say the bind c be a choose in action and not assignable by law but  a term for year be only a chattel real which the husband may assign by law  without his wife and so he may the trust of such a term and consequent the  money secure by it and a term for year and consequent to every effect of  disposition the trust of such a term be a chattel real and seem to have be  consider in acquire means with choose in action since it must in either case  equal be the agreement of the party to entitle the husband to the wife choose  in action or her chattel real if no disposition salwey v salwey Amb so the  husband may assign the wife choose in action or a possibility that the wife be  entitle to so that it be not voluntary but for a valuable consideration Bates  v Dandy ub sup but a voluntary assignment by the husband will alter the  property squib v Wynn p wms Vernon chancery case er p