case carrack and other against errington where papist be not disable by the  statute will c to bring their bill in equity S c Annally S c Eq ab S c brown p  c S c Peer wms S c Moseley this be a ill exhibit by the plaintiff Carrick and  two other as heir at law to Edward errington and it be to avoid and set aside  a conveyance obtain by the defendant by fraud suggest that the say Edward be a  weak man in his intellect and that he convey the land c to trustee and their  heir in trust for Thomas errington for life remainder in trust to his first  and every other son in tail male remainder to William errington in like manner  and all this in consideration only of two hundred pound for which reason it  appear to be a fraud and imposition on the say Edward the defendant plead that  two of the plaintiff be papist and consequent disable to bring this bill by  the statute will c for that they can take by descent from their ancestor and  as to the other plaintiff there be nothing in the case but what may be try at  law videlicet what be the consideration of this conveyance and it be plain  that the defendant errington be eighteen year of age and upward when the  aforesaid statute be make consequent not within the penalty therefore it ought  to be try at law whether the plaintiff be capable to recover or the defendant  capable to take by this conveyance for it be probable that it may appear  Edward have some other consideration modern report to make this conveyance  beside the two hundred pound therein mention but admit the first limitation to  Thomas be void be be incapable to take because he be a papist yet the  limitation over to William be good and shall vest immediate but that be deny  by the court for the contrary be settle in the duchess of Hamilton case a Eq  Abr a videlicet that though the first limitation be to a papist who be disable  by the statute to take yet it be not such a void limitation so as the  remainder shall immediate vest as if the first be dead without issue modern  report er p beside this estate be more likely to continue in a protestant  family by support this conveyance than by destroy it for Thomas errington the  papist be a old man and have no issue but William who be the next in remainder  be a protestant the counsel for the plaintiff argue that it be proper for he  to apply to this court because it be to discover a fraud and for that the  legal estate be and be in trustee so he must come into a court of equity to  set the deed aside and if it be set aside the plaintiff must take as heir at  law to Edward for though two of they be papist yet they be above the age of  eighteen year at the time this statute be make and consequent not subject to  the penalty therein mention but admit they be all papist and incapable to take  yet certain they be capable of come into a court of equity to set aside any  conveyance fraudulent obtain from their ancestor and the rather because it may  happen that the next of kin who be a protestant may not be Willing to be at  the expense of a suit in chancery for such a precarious interest as to receive  the profit of a estate until the heir at law become a protestant so that a  fraudulent deed shall carry the estate beside it be settle in the case of  roper v Radcliff a post Mod Eq Abr brown p c a that the heir at law though a  papist be capable to take the inheritance for it be in he though the next  protestant of kin have the pernancy of the profit until the other become a  protestant and the trust limit to support contingent remainder can be say to  be a trust for a papist nor shall the remainderman in this case take immediate  suppose the limitation to Thomas to be void as to himself because he modern  report be a papist for if he shall take immediate then this absurdity will  follow videlicet all the contingent remainder to the son of Thomas will be  void and it can never be the intent of the donor that William the remainderman  who give no consideration shall immediate have the estate for all the  consideration move from Thomas and the only consideration mention in the deed  be money so no other shall be aver there be no decree make but a reference to  a master to inquire what be the consideration of this deed if any and as for  what be offer that two of the plaintiff be eighteen year old at the time of  make the statute and consequent but of the penalty the court be of opinion  that they be out of the letter of the Act but within the intent and meaning of  it for the lawmaker can never intend to put infant of tender year in a worse  condition than those who be of age a see the case of hill v Filkin post Peer  wms Mod a but be that as it will the plaintiff be proper to make application  here as heir at law to Edward errington b the cause come on to be hear on the  master report before Kino Lord chancellor on the that of June who declare that  the deed of settlement ought to be take to have be fraudulent obtain accord as  be declare by a order make by Lord Macclesfield on that June and do therefore  decree that the say settlement shall be deliver up to the plaintiff to be  cancel and it be refer to the master to take a account of the profit of the  estate in question receive by Thomas errington since the death of Edward  errington discount thereout what be due to he for principal and interest on  the three bind and the bind to be deliver up and the surplus of the profit be  to be divide into four part and the coheir of Edward errington be each of they  to have one four part and the receiver of the estate be to account before the  master and pay the money into his hand in like manner and deliver possession  of the estate to the say coheir and the tenant be to attorn and pay their rend  accord but on the that November the cause be reheard and both the above order  of that June and that June be reverse the Lord chancellor declare that he see  no cause to set aside the settlement make by Edward errington but that Thomas  errington to who a trust for life be limit for his benefit be a person profess  the Popish religion the trust be void by the statute will c and that during  his life the plaintiff and the defendant Frances errington the coheir of  Edward errington be entitle to the rend and profit of the estate from the  death of Edward errington and therefore refer it to the master to take a  account of the profit of the estate receive by Thomas errington since the  death of Edward and what the master shall certify to be remain in his hand  after all just allowance be to be pay by he to the coheir of Edward errington  videlicet to each a four part thereof and the receiver be also to account and  pay the rend in his hand in like manner and he be likewise to deliver  possession of the estate to the say coheir and the tenant be to attorn and pay  their rend to they and on a appeal to the house of lord the decree be affirm b  modern report er p