case lee versus sir robert henley all Eq can ab pl S c omission in a voluntary  conveyance not supply in equity the case be thus I S be seize of diverse land  in Dorset Somerset and Devonshire those in Dorsetshire be of equal value with  those in the other two county of Somerset and Devonshire and have two nephew  one the son of his sister Henley and the other the son of his sister Vernon  chancery case lee who he intend to make his heir he to prevent dispute between  they about the partition of his estate after his death by conveyance execute  in his lifetime settle all the land to the use of himself for life then to the  use of the trustee for a term of year remainder to his issue if he shall  happen to have any in tail and then appoint the land in Dorsetshire to his  nephew Henley and the land in the other county to his nephew lee in the deed  as state in Reg lib the parcel be enumerate and describe as lie in certain  manor and parish but it do not mention the country in the enumeration of the  particular of the land in Somerset and Devonshire a farm or manor of about  pound per and be omit but after the limitation of the land to his nephew  Henley there be add these general word videlicet and all other my manor land  and tenement whereof no use be already limit the same shall be unto the use of  my nephew Henley c The entire limitation to Henley be in these word and as  concern the message and demesne of abbot Wootton and other the manor message  and appurtenance not before therein limit to any use or use except one  tenement call Brigdown from and after the death of the settlor and the  expiration of the say term of year and failure of issue of the settlor to the  saint d d and other son of the say sir Robert Henley by the say dame Barbara  successive in tail with remainder to the plaintiff in tail remainder to  plaintiff young brother in tail then the trust of the term be declare it be  insist by henley counsel that this manor or farm omit as aforesaid shall pass  to Henley by virtue of these general word but it be thereunto answer by lee  counsel that the omit farm can not pass within those general word for that  although when he come to distribute the land between his nephew that farm be  omit to be enumerate yet in the limitation to himself for life remainder in  tail there mention be make of that farm and so it be not within the word  whereof no use have be already limit for a use of it be limit unto himself for  life and it be insist by lee counsel that he ought to have this entire farm  for that the scrivener who draw this settlement swear this farm be intend to  be settle on lee as well as the rest of the land in Somerset and Devon and  that so be his instruction and that the same be pure the omission of the clerk  the answer of ford who draw the conveyance state that the testator give he  direction to settle all his manor and land in Somerset and Devon on the  plaintiff and his heir male and that the omission of the manor of Peyton be  occasion by his oversight and therefore they insist that although this be a  voluntary conveyance yet be provision for a heir the intent of the party may  be supply in equity and make good by a averment consistent with the deed a  trust of personal estate may be aver vide fane v fane ante p and for that  purpose they cite the case of barrow and barrow but the Lord chancellor upon  the whole matter do not think fit to decree it for one or other of they but  leave the land in question to a trust of personal estate may be aver vide fane  v fane ante p descend equal between the two nephew it be not so the word of  the decree be as follow whereupon c his lordship declare that he see no cause  upon read the proof to alter any of the use of the say deed of settlement and  do therefore order that the matter of the say plaintiff bill as to the decree  which be thereby pray for the possession of the manor and farm of Peyton or  any relief concern the say manor and farm do stand absolute dismiss out of  this court Reg lib b fol it seem to be a principle in equity that wherever a  voluntary deed be not sufficient to pass the subject out of the conveyor it  never can be carry into execution without either a valuable or at least what a  court of equity call a meritorious consideration as payment of debt or make  provision for a wife or child colman v seraglio Ves jun bro Ch Rep et vide  Bonham v Newcomb vent Thompson v Attfeild post and where there be two  voluntary conveyance he that have the advantage at law ought to keep it vide  chief justice Trebys argument in bath v case Chan can and the one be against  the other must be try and in will where all be volunteer the word may be vary  such dict per Lord Hardwicke bagshaw v Spencer atk Vernon chancery case er p  Vernon chancery case de boundary paschae car two in curian porter