case collins versus plummer vern pale yellow Chanc upon a settlement a be make  tenant for life remainder to the heir of his body by his wife jane and in the  same deed a covenant not to suffer a recovery but that the land shall be enjoy  accord to these limitation a do suffer a recovery and devise the land the  covenant good to bind the asset but a be tenant in tail and as such have power  to suffer a recovery the land devise shall not be affect see Diddleford v  Tichner dick m Legard v Hodges bro c c bro c and Ves jun S c one in  consideration of marriage settle land upon himself for life remainder to his  intend wife for life remainder to the heir of his body on his wife to be beget  remainder to his own right heir and in the deed of settlement there be a  covenant with the trustee from the intend husband for himself and his heir  that he will not discontinue dock or suffer any recovery to bar the limitation  in the settlement but that the issue of the marriage shall enjoy and hold the  premise pursuant to the say limitation the marriage take effect and they have  issue a daughter who marry the plaintiff and to who her father who make the  settlement and covenant give a considerable portion peer William the father  afterward suffer a recovery to the use of himself and his heir and then devise  the land in trust for his say daughter for life with remainder to her first c  son in tail male and if the daughter survive the husband to the daughter in  fee but if the daughter shall die first then the remainder over and die the  husband and wife bring a bill against the devisee and executor of the father  peer William er p for a specific performance of the covenant and for the  plaintiff it be insist that this covenant be not only a good covenant but bind  the land and though a condition that tenant in tail shall not suffer recovery  Inst be void hark   Litt b note and driver v Edgar Cowp just as a condition  that tenant in tail shall not alien be yet in each of those case a covenant  not to alien or a covenant that tenant in tail shall not suffer a recovery be  good then if this covenant be a good covenant it shall in equity operate as a  disability upon the father from suffer a recovery especial in regard it be in  the marriagesettlement and consequent to be take as part of it and it be  compare to the lord peterborough case where there be tenant for life with a  power to make lease and the tenant for life covenant he will not make lease  but afterward notwithstanding his covenant execute such power upon which  equity set aside the lease and for the same reason equity shall set aside this  recovery or at least decree that those claim under it shall convey such estate  to the daughter and heir of the marriage and in such manner as she shall have  take if such recovery have not be suffer peer William on the contrary it be  urge that a condition that tenant in tail shall not alien by recovery be void  and a covenant if it will affect the land be the same tie upon the land as a  condition and consequent must be void too that it be a useful maxim in law  that land shall not be unalienable but beside the devise as here pen answer  the intent of the settlement and it be the husband of the daughter that will  now have the entail in the daughter in order that by a recovery he may get the  estate vest in himself and deprive the family of it whereas by the limitation  in the will the estate be secure to the heir male of the marriage and the wife  if she survive be to have the fee Lord chancellor the covenant be in the same  deed with the settlement prove that the conveyancer know very well that the  father may suffer a recovery and that it be a entail in he and though if this  be only article by which land be covenant to be convey to a for life with  remainder to the heir male of his body on a bill bring for the execution of  such article the land will be settle upon a for life see the case of Trevor v  Trevor post with remainder to his first c son in tail male yet here it be the  case of a actual settlement and not of article the conveyancer know therefore  that it be a entail in the father who take by the same deed it be plain the  intention of the deed be trot the party shall rely and depend on the security  of the father covenant and equity peer William ought not to vary or alter the  security which the other side have agree to accept of for that will be go  beyond and consequent against the intent of the party it may be compare to the  case of Lord Warrington and sir Stephen Langham pre Charles also see post  Bosvil v Brander and flight v cook ves post where one covenant to leave his  daughter pound and it be seek by the bill to make the party give security for  performance of this agreement but deny per cur because the plaintiff agree to  accept of the covenant and equity will not alter the agreement of the party  and this differ from the case of Lord Peterborough because here the covenant  be in the same deed but there be a agreement subsequent to the raise of the  power to extinguish it further in this case the intent of the settlement be  more effectual answer than it will have be if the land have descend in tail to  the daughter for then it will have be alienable from the issue male whereas  here it can and therefore I be of opinion the covenant do not bind the land so  as to defeat the will or recovery but it be press that they may be at liberty  to sue the executor and recover out of the personal asset and in order thereto  that a issue may be direct per cur then let the issue be not what the husband  but what the wife or her issue be damnified by the breach of this covenant  though sure the plaintiff come too soon in this case for the wife may survive  and the whole be limit to the wife if she do survive she perhaps may be no way  damnified peer William also it be allege that the testator do moreover give a  portion to the daughter the defendant shall have liberty to give in evidence  any thing of that kind which may tend to a satisfaction of this breach of  covenant Copley v Copley post the court likewise observe that the covenant in  this case be not only that the peer William er p father shall not suffer a  recovery but that the premise shall be hold and enjoy pursuant to the use  limit which latter covenant be executory be the strong as it may afford some  pretence for a specific performance thereof but upon the whole his lordship  think the latter covenant be to be construe as relative to and dependent upon  the former and to be restrain by that and to have mean no more than that the  father shall not by suffer a recovery prevent the premise from be enjoy accord  to the say limitation