Can a husband extinguish his wife's beneficial interest in the home so that the wife can not attach the writ?

Counsel for the husband and wife in the present case rely upon Jellett v. Wilkie in support of their contention that the effect of the agreements between the spouses was to extinguish the husband’s beneficial interest in the home so that the writs could not attach. I am satisfied from the authorities that in order to come within the ambit of the rule in Jellett v. Wilkie, the equitable interest must directly relate to the land. In the present case the final agreement between husband and wife as reflected in the amending oral agreement related only to a fund, namely, the proceeds of the third party sale. Thus it does not confer upon the wife an interest in the land over and above that which she previously owned. I consider this to be the situation whether or not the agreements are viewed as a contract simpliciter or as a trust.