for the homage and service of the husband, which sometimes is done, [provisions]  which are inconsistent with one another, though it is given in free marriage,1 the  homage is preferred and it will be as though it had been made to the husband and  wife together. If the wife makes a gift of her husband's property without his assent,  restitution lies for the husband by the assise of novel disseisin or by writ of entry,  just as it does for any other person, that is, that she aliened without his consent.  But conversely, if the husband makes a gift of his wife's property it will never be  revoked during the life of the husband, since a wife may not dispute her husband's  acts.2 If the husband gives a thing given them both, the wife may not recall her  husband's gift during his lifetime, but if she makes a gift [of such property], the  husband may revoke it [at once].
Whether a husband may make a gift to his wife during marriage.
 It may be asked whether, during marriage, a husband may make a gift to his wife  or a wife to her husband, [An arrangement may be taken to be a marriage whether  it has been publicly contracted or faith [has been so] pledged that the parties may  not be separated.]3 and in truth, gifts between husband and wife during marriage  ought not to be good,4 and the reason is lest they be made because of the lust or  the excessive poverty of one of the parties.5 That such gifts are invalid is proved in  the roll of Michaelmas term in the fifteenth year of king Henry in the county of  Lincoln, [a case] from the eyre, an assise of mortdancestor [beginning] if Helewisa,6  to whom a certain Eudo had made a gift after he had promised to marry her and  with whom he later publicly contracted marriage, where the heirs of Helewisa  took nothing by an assise of mortdancestor brought on the seisin of the said  Helewisa. To the same intent [in the roll] of Trinity term in the seventeenth year  of king Henry in the county of Norfolk, [the case] of Petronilla, wife of William of  St. Martin,7 who, after her husband's death, was ejected from a tenement so given  her and could not recover seisin by an assise of novel disseisin because the gift  and the feoffment were void ipso jure. To the same intent [in the roll] of Hilary  term in the eighth year of king Henry in the county of Nottingham, [the case] of  Robert of Wallegha and Joanna his wife,8 where it is said that such a gift is  invalid, particularly because the wife to whom it was made never had seisin before  espousals and because her husband died seised and because the land never was  separated from the other lands of her said husband. But what if such a gift is made  after divorce? It is good and valid.9 But if a gift of this kind may not be made  directly by a husband to a wife during marriage, or conversely,