Equity, do Equity, and provide for her, unless she consents to give the Property to him (), or the Property is a mere Life Interest in the Wife, and her Husband has not deserted her, or become Bankrupt (m). The first Case in which this Principle was acted upon appears to have been Mason v. Masters, decided by Lord Nottingham. There the Defendant, a mean and indigent Man, stole a Marriage with one that had 500 l.; half was paid down, half was secured by Bond. The Defendant sued upon the Bond, and Lord Nottingham restrained the Action till some provision was made for the Wife out of the Money; and at the same time dismissed a Bill brought by a Creditor of the Husband against the Trustee of this Bond, to pay him out of this Security, which was a kind of Attachment in Equity (n). If a Feme Sole Mortgagee marries, and the Husband files a Bill of Foreclosure, the Court will not compel the Mortgagor to pay the Money to the Husband without his making some provision for his Wife; or at least the Wife, by an application to the Court against the Husband and the Mortgagor, may prevent the payment of the Money to the Husband, unless some Provision were made for her (o).

In all cases, indeed, where the Wife has a demand in her own right, and the Husband applies to the Court in her right, and there is no Agreement

(1) Lady Oxenden's Case, 2 Vern. 494. Langham v. Nenny, 3 Ves. 469, and Milner v. Colner, 2 P. Wms. 639.

(m) See Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 12, &c

(n) See this Case stated by Lord Northington in Forbes v. Phipps, 1 Eden, 506.

(0) Bosville v. Brander, 2 P. Wms. 459.

previous to the Marriage (p), it is an established Rule (of doubtful policy, perhaps) (q), that the Husband will not be allowed to obtain his Wife's Fortune (unless it be under 200 l. or 10l. in annual payment (r), or unless, perhaps, where the Property is small, and the Husband is a Freeman of London) (s), without making a Provision for her; nor does an inadequate Provision for her by voluntary Settlement after Marriage, vary the Rule (t). The doctrine is not modern; it is adverted to in a very early Case by the Lord Keeper Coventry (u); but, (as it has been justly observed,) it is difficult to discover the ground of the Wife's Equity (x).

The Rule applies not merely to the Husband, but to Persons claiming through him, whether by operation of Law, or otherwise; on the Bankruptcy, for instance, of the Husband, it applies to his Assignees. The Assignees of a Bankrupt take, as the Husband would have done, subject to the equitable Interest of the Wife, and are bound to make a proper Settlement (y). In one Case, half the Property was given to the Wife (2), and this seems the usual course in

(p) See Brett v. Fercer, 3 Atk. 400.

(q) Brown and Elton, 3 P. Wms. 205. 2 P. Wms. 639.

(r) March v. Head, 3 Atk. 720; and see General Order, Beames's Orders, &c. 464.

(s) See Adams and Pierce, 3 P. Wms. 13. Sed quæ. as to this, since the stat. 2 Geo. I. c. 18, which gives Freemen a Power of bequeathing their

Personal Estates.

(t) 2 Atk. 448. (u) Tanfield v. Davenport, Tothill, p. 114.

(x) Lloyd v. Williams, 1 Madd. Rep. 458.

(y) Jacobson v. Williams, 2 P. Wms. 382. Ex parte Colygame, 1 Atk. 192. Grey v. Kentish, Ib. 280. Worsall v. Marr, 2 Dick. 647. Mitford v. Mitford,, 9 Ves. 87. Wright v. Morley, 1 Ves. 101. Lamb v. Milnes, 3 Ves. 517. Freeman v. Parsley, 3 Ves. 424. Osmell v. Probert, 2 Vez. 680. Pringle and Hodgson, 3 Ves. 617.

(z) Browne v. Clarke, 3 Ves.

168.

such cases (a). A Settlement before Marriage of part of her Property to her separate use, does not bar her of this Equity (b). Where on a Bill filed by the Assignees of a Bankrupt, to recover Money to which the Bankrupt was entitled in right of his Wife, the usual reference was made to the Master, to consider of proposals for a Settlement on the Wife and Children, the Master approved of a Settlement of the whole property on the Wife and Children. Exceptions were taken to his Report, and allowed, and he was directed to re-view his Report (c).

*

So, too, the Rule applies against a voluntary Assignee of the Husband (d), and, as it seems, even against a Purchaser for a valuable consideration of the Wife's interest from the Husband (e), except, perhaps, in the case of a Trust of a Term for years of Land, as to which Lord Nottingham (f) expressed great surprize, and others have entertained doubts (g). The point, whether the Equity of the Wife can be barred, or affected by the Husband's Assignment for a valuable consideration, was once much questioned, but Lord Northington (h) held she was entitled to a Provision in such case; and Sir Lloyd Kenyon said "the more he thought upon the subject the more he was satisfied that such an Assignee must be subject to

(a) 1 Christian's Bankrupt Law, p. 271.

(b) Burdon v. Dean, 2 Ves. jun. 607.

(c) Beresford v. Hobson, 1 Madd. Rep. 362.

(d) Jewson v. Moulson, 2 Atk. 420.

(e) Macauley v. Phillips, 4 Ves. 19; and see Wright and Rutter, 2 Ves. 711; but this point has been doubted. Mitford

v. Mitford, 9 Ves. 100. Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 17, 22.

(f) See Pitt v. Hunt, 1 Vern. 18.

(g) 4 Ves. 19. Sir Edward Turner's Case, 1 Vern. 7. Tudor and Samyne, 2 Vern. 270; and see Jewson v. Moulson, 2 Atk. 420.

(h) Earl of Salisbury v. Newton, 1 Eden, 370.

the same Equity" (i). Lord Alvanley admitted, that Lord Hardwicke and Lord Thurlow (k) intimated difficulties whether an Assignment for a valuable consideration might not support the right of the Assignee, or at least evade this Equity; but he observed, "I have looked into almost every Case, and have never seen it determined, that any such Equity does exist in favour of the Assignee" (1). Sir William Grant seems to have thought there were some cases very difficult to reconcile with Lord Alvanley's proposition, for that there was hardly any other ground upon which Lord Hardwicke (m) proceeded in some of the Cases before him (n). An Assignment by a Husband of Dividends of Stock, in right of his Wife, to the amount of 100l. a year out of 260l. was held good, though a doubt was expressed, what would have been the effect if the whole of the Stock had been assigned (o).

If the Father of the Wife covenants to pay a sum of 1,000l. to the Husband, this is no part of the Wife's Estate, and may be obtained without a Settlement (9).

Whenever the Husband can come at the Estate of his Wife without the aid of a Court of Equity, the

(1) Roberts v. Roberts, 2 Cox, 422.

(k) See what Lord Thurlow said in Worrel v. Marlar, and Bushnan v. Pell, mentioned 1 P. Wms. 459, in note. Worrall v. Marlar is since reported 1 Cox, 158.

(1) Like v. Beresford, 3 Ves. 511, 512. and see Pryor v. Hill, 4 Bro. C. C. 139. Pope v. Grashaw, 4 Bro. C. C. 326.

(m) See Grey and Kentish, 1 Atk. 280, but said to be "arrant nonsense" as reported, 1 Dick. 494. Bates v. Dandy, 2 Atk. 208; and see Lord Carteret v. Paschal, 3 P. Wms. 199. before Lord King.

(n) Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 17. S. C. MS.

12.

(0) Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves.

(q) Brett v. Forcer, 3 Atk. 405.

Court cannot interfere (r); nor will the Court, as before observed, interfere where the Wife's Property does not amount to 2007. (s). He may dispose of the Trust of a Term which he has in right of his Wife, as well as of the legal Estate of a Term which he has in her right, without making a Settlement (t). So also, if the Wife's Debtor pay her Debt to the Husband (u); or if before a Bill is filed a Trustee who has the Wife's Property, Real or Personal, chooses to pay the Rents and Profits of the Real, or hand over the Personal, Estate to the Husband, (an improper act on his part) (x), the Wife has no remedy; but after a Bill filed such Trustee cannot exercise a discretion; for the Bill makes the Court a Trustee, and takes away his previous right of dealing with the Property (y). The Husband, it seems, may transfer Bank Stock belonging to his Wife, and the Bank cannot prevent it, nor can a Court of Equity, in such case, interfere to procure a provision for her (*).

There is no instance of a Debtor calling upon the Court to interpose an Equity for the Wife (a).

The equitable right which a married Woman has, in a Court of Equity, to a Provision out of her own Fortune, before her Husband reduces it into Posses

(r) See Attorney-General v. Whorewood, 1 Ves. 539.

(s) 5 Ves. 742, in note. Beames's Orders, 464. Ante p. 482.

(t) Tudor v. Samyne, 2 Vern. 270. Sed vid. 4 Ves. 19. (u)Mitford v. Mitford, 9 Ves. 100, 101. Jewson v. Moulson, 3 Atk. 419.

(x) See Lord Elibank v. Montolicu, 5 Ves. 743.

(y) Murray v. Lord Elibank, 10 Ves. 90; and see Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves. 206. Macauley v. Philips, 4 Ves. p. 18.

(2) Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. 176; and see Pringle v. Hodgson, 3 Ves. 620.

(a) Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves.

206.