case Jarvis and ux versus duke Eq can ab pl a release shall be avoid where  there be pressingdown very or supplying an answer to one falsehood sir e duke  by his will devise a legacy of pound to one of his daughter but if she shall  marry one Bacon that then the legacy shall be void she have before her father  death marry the say Bacon take advice upon the will and be advice that the  legacy be void by reason of her have marry Bacon her brother pay her pound and  she release her legacy the bill be to have this release set aside there be two  release execute by plaintiff but for what purpose do not appear r l and her  legacy make good to her pretend she be circumvent in this release her brother  tell her she have no legacy give her by her father will but be raze out of it  and that he suppress the will and do not prove it till after such time as he  have obtain this release to which it be say by my Lord chancellor that it be  the constant rule where there be either pressingdown very or supplying an  answer to one falsehood the release shall be avoid so Broderick v Broderick p  wms and case there cite in note and for the several ground on which court of  equity exercise jurisdiction in set aside deed c vide Osmond v Fitzroy p wms  and case there cite in note vide also Naldred v Gilham p wms as to the  diversity in the exercise of the jurisdiction of court of equity in set aside  deed and will vide goss v Tracy p wms and case there cite in note if a release  be give on a particular consideration recite notwithstanding that the release  conclude with general word yet the law in order to prevent surprise will  construe it to relate to the particular matter recite say by Lord chancellor  coal v Gibson ves so Ramsden v Hylton ves note the case of Evans v Llewellyn  bro Ch Rep cite by Mr Cox in Broderick v Broderick be a case of improvidence  and not of direct fraud or imposition as to the effect of misapprehension in  the party avoid his release vide gee v Spencer post but the release in this  case appear to have be fair obtain r l then they go on to prove that sir e  duke in his lifetime do actual revoke this will and declare his daughter shall  have no such legacy Vernon chancery case to which it be object that they can  not b admit to that proof by reason that the defendant himself have prove the  will which he can not do without take a oath that it be his father last will  say non allocatur for that he only swear that he believe it to be his father  last will and at that time he may not know of the revocation and it be full  prove that the father have revoke this legacy it be decree by the Lord  chancellor against the plaintiff say that where a legacy be devise to a woman  upon condition she marry with the consent of I S here if the legacy be not  limit over it be only in terror and though she marry without consent it do not  avoid the legacy marples v Bainbridge mad and case there cite and it seem to  have be former the doctrine on this head that a gift over of the residue be  not sufficient to avoid the legacy garret et ux v pretty et all post Vol  Wheeler v Bingham will where the reason full give by Lord Hardwicke who state  it to be a settle doctrine nor the overplus of what be call the residue after  certain legacy give thereout Semphill et ux v Bayley et ux pre Ch but it have  since be decide though much argument on that point from the bench do not  appear that such a legacy shall be avoid under a gift of the general residue  Scott v tiler bro Ch Rep which see for a summary of the read case on this  subject but a limitation over to the executor will not do for it be no more  than the law imply cage v Russell vent Eq can ab pl the court incline to  favour consent and will construe they with great latitude vide dally v  Desbouverie atk and case cite in note there clarke v Parker Ves DAguilar v  Drinkwater v b Lloyd v Branton mere and will not extend such a condition if  not so express to the case of a second marriage without consent by a daughter  who have marry with consent in the testator life time after the date of the  will and become a widow Crommelin v Crommelin Ves at least it be presume this  be the principle of that case nor where marry by consent of the father after  date of the will clarke v Berkley post Vol see also Hutcheson v Hammond bro  Charles Rep Parnell v lion v b Wheeler v Warner S S but here in this case the  father himself have actual revoke the legacy upon his daughter disobedience  the father himself have in this case be chancellor and that with equity too  such a example of presumptuous disobedience high merit such a punishment she  be only prohibit to marry with one man by name and nothing in the whole fair  garden of Eden will serve her turn but this forbid fruit Reg lib a fol Vernon  chancery case er p