case Warrick versus Warrick and Kniveton February Lord Hardwicke incline to  think that the limitation in a settlement to W b for life and to the use of  the heir male of his body have create a estatetail in he and that the  plaintiff have not the legal title to this estate and if he have not entitle  to come into equity for deed and write till he have establish it first at law  and therefore dismiss the bill so far as it pray to set aside the mortgage but  leave he at liberty to redeem king the assignee of the mortgage a bill be  bring by the plaintiff against the defendant for a account of the rend and  profit of his father estate and for possession and that he may have the full  benefit of the marriagearticle make on the marriage of his father and mother  Thomas Warrick the plaintiff father by article before marriage date the that  of December have the estate in question limit to he for life and after his  death to honour his intend wife for life and after her death to the use of the  heir male of Thomas Warrick to be beget on the body of honour by lease and  release date the that and that of December and declare to be in part  performance of the say article the say premise be convey to Thomas for life  and to honour for life and after her death to the use of the heir male of  Thomas beget on the body of honour the marriage afterward take effect and  Thomas Warrick die in leave the plaintiff his old son who insist that Thomas  Warrick be intend to be tenant for life only with remainder to his first and  every other son successive as tenant in tail and that he be a purchaser under  the marriagearticle and that they ought to be consider in the same light as if  they have be strict carry into execution the defendant Kniveton insist that  Thomas Warrick do in his lifetime borrow of Deborah Westlake pound and on the  saint of August convey the estate in question to her and her heir subject to a  redemption on payment of principal and interest and that the representative of  Deborah in consideration of pound pay to they by this defendant and Thomas  Warrick in consideration of pound pay to he likewise do convey his interest  and the equity of redemption to this defendant on the that of October and that  neither nor any concern for he have any notice of the marriagearticle or  settlement till after the death of Thomas Warrick and insist on his be a  purchaser for a valuable consideration atkins the plaintiff evidence of notice  be that Hawkins be in his lifetime concern as attorney for Deborah Westlake in  engross the mortgagedeeds from Thomas Warrick to her and that in the year he  say to one of the witness that if Thomas Warrick can not cut off the entail of  his estate to raise money he must be throw into gaol and that he have see the  settlement and believe it may be do and that he draw with his own hand a case  for the opinion of counsel and that he be likewise employ as attorney for  Deborah Westlake in engross the mortgage deed of and for Kniveton in draw the  assignment of the mortgage from Deborah Westlakes representative to Kniveton  the value of the estate mortgage be per annum on the point of constructive  notice be cite the case of tovey versus tovey Biscoe versus earl of Banbury  Charles Cas and Whitchcock versus Sedgwick vern the article and settlement be  both before marriage atkins er p Lord chancellor the first question be whether  the plaintiff have the legal title to this estate the second question be  whether there be sufficient proof of notice in this case to the defendant  Kniveton as to the first it be not absolute necessary to determine it but in  the present case I rather think he have not because by the release the  limitation be to the plaintiff father for life and to the use of the heir male  of his body in the singular number such a settlement as this will rather  create a estatetail in the father on the word in   Litt a where land be give  to a man and to his wife and to one heir of their body and to one heir of the  body of that heir it be adjudge to be a estatetail in the father I remember in  the argument in the case of Trollop versus Trollop bob gavelkind SC atk Lord  chief justice Eyre cite it and say it be a limitation in tail by gift that my  Lord coke speak of but I be of opinion in the present case that if the  plaintiff h d a legal estate he be not entitle to come here for deed and write  he ought first to establish his title at law unless he have show term be stand  out so that be can not recover at law there be nothing pretend of this kind  for he have both article and settlement in his custody nor do he suggest old  term be stand out therefore he come too early for deed and write if this be  the whole of the case atkins the more material point suppose the legal estate  be in the plaintiff be whether there be sufficient evidence of notice to the  defendant Kniveton of the plaintiff right under the article I do not think  there be sufficient ground to give relief against a purchaser on the  circumstance of this case first whether from the nature of the article  themselves they will warrant I to decree the legal estate from the purchaser  it be certain true from the general principle of this court that if article on  marriage be to settle a estate to a for life to his wife for life remainder to  the heir male of the body of a it be take here to be in strict settlement and  a estate for life only in father and mother and if the settlement be make  after marriage it shall be rectify by the article before see the note to west  v Errissey p W the case of west versus Errissey p wms be both upon article and  a settlement before marriage this be the first case where the court alter a  settlement and make it conformable to article and relieve on the head of  mistake the settlement refer express to the article but this be between the  party to the article and settlement and their representative and mere  volunteer and have not be carry into execution against a purchaser vide Powell  v price p W heart v Middlehurst atk senhouse v earl Amb Cordwell v mackrill  Amb vide etian gore v Nash atk second as to the point of notice whether there  be sufficient proof of notice in fact there be no pretence of actual notice  and the defendant be only a assignee of a mortgagee Mr John Hawkins be agent  for Mr Warrick the father and the original mortgagee and it be insist that he  have notice by make the mortgage in and by reason of his prepare a case in  which this settlement be recite consider it first in the case of mrs Deborah  Westlake the original mortgagee a common recovery be suffer in Trinity term  probable to enable the father of the plaintiff to borrow money two month  before the time mrs Westlake lend her money the court it be say be to presume  Hawkins see the settlement refer to article must have look into the article  likewise but Mr Hawkins have notice as agent to Mr Warrick for the case state  for counsel opinion be only for Warrick not for the mortgagee this be only  constructive notice to Mr Hawkins and that consequent must create a  constructive notice to mrs Westlake but she be not before the court for the  assignee of the mortgagee only be atkins before the court so that Mr Kniveton  stand only in the second degree the proof as to notice upon the assignee be  still more light one witness swear that he believe John Hawkins be concern for  this defendant because he be at that time clerk to Hawkins and ingross the  assignment atkins er p I take the case to be that Hawkins be concern on both  side which be very frequent in the country it will be a pretty harsh thing to  affect the lender of the money with all kind of knowledge which the agent may  have of the title of borrower but still I will not lie it down as a general  rule that where the same person be concern for the mortgagor and mortgagee  that notice to such person will not be good constructive notice to the  mortgagee but consider what kind of notice the defendant Kniveton have Mr  Hawkins have not notice at the time of the assignment nor relative to this  business but before even before the original mortgage in the case of  Fitzgerald versus falconberg Fitzgib S c so Worsley v earl of Scarborough atk  it be hold the notice shall be in the same transaction this rule ought to be  adhere to otherwise it will make purchaser and mortgagee title depend  altogether on the memory of their counsellor and agent and oblige they to  apply to person of less eminence as counsel as not be so likely to have notice  of former transaction the notice here be clear arise from that case state by  Hawkins at the request of Warrick in order to do something towards suffer a  common recovery and it be a year and six month after that Kniveton be to be  affect with this notice it be very probable that Hawkins may have forget it in  this length of time or which be much more likely do not understand the rule of  this court but take the limitation for a absolute estatetail it be true this  court have give relief against person who claim under the settlement and their  representative but no case have go so far as to relieve against purchaser and  though it be true ignorance of the law do not excuse yet there be no case but  where there be article as well as a settlement that the court will construe  word which create a legal estatetail to be carry into strict settlement if the  settlement have be make after marriage it will have be strong for the  plaintiff but as Lord Cowper say in a case in vern where there be two equity  he who have a superior equity shall carry it and I be incline to think that  atkins as the settlement be before marriage the defendant as a purchaser have  a superior equity his lordship dismiss the bill so far as it pray to be  relieve against the mortgage but decree that the plaintiff may be at liberty  to redeem the defendant Kniveton