c wheeler v WHITHALL all S c Eq can ab misnomer Jo Wheeler have five daughter  devise his land to William Wheeler his son and the heir male of his body  remainder to William Wheeler and his heir upon condition that he shall pay  pound to such of his daughter as shall be then live and if sir William Wheeler  shall refuse to pay the pound then he devise it to his daughter and their heir  sir William Wheeler die live William Wheeler the son who be tenant in tail and  devise this reversion to William the son of his cousin Jo Wheeler of b whereas  his old son be name Andrew William Wheeler the son die without issue Andrew  the last devisee refuse to pay the pound to the daughter for three year but  now proffer to pay it provide he may have the land in this case two question  be stir freeman whether Andrew shall take by the devise be misname and for  that it be hold clear that he shall in Beaumont v fall p wms both the  Christian and surname of the legatee be mistake yet the legacy hold well give  see careless Meriv because though his Christian name be mistake yet there be  certainty sufficient to ascertain he and that be so clear that the counsel do  not much insist upon it but the great question be whether or no when Andrew  have forfeit his estate by refusal to pay the money he shall now in equity be  admit to tender the money and damage and be restore to the estate as a  mortgagor shall in case of a mortgage forfeit and a case be cite between  Wallis and Grimes Charles can Mod where the condition for payment of the money  be precedent to the estate and yet though the money be not pay in time the  party be relieve here another case between Puliston and Puliston Rep tempt  finch be cite where a devise be to his wife of good c for the payment of his  debt upon condition that if a do pay the debt in such a time he shall have  they a do not pay the money in time and yet he have relief here for the good  upon payment of the money afterward because in these case the condition be  look upon as a security only for so much money and where it be so this court  will give relief and Keck say that the difference be take up by the Lord chief  justice hale in the case between fry and porter Charles can between a  condition for payment of money and a collateral condition for where the  condition be collateral as it be in that case not to marry without the consent  of such a person there the marriage without consent be a absolute forfeiture  if there be a limitation over because there can be no recompense give for that  but where it be for payment of money though the money be not pay at the day  yet payment afterward with damage be a satisfaction Popham v bampfield vern  Barnardiston v fane vern post c p and that be the reason of the case of Davis  and Hatton for that be a marriage without consent and a limitation over and  there this court will give no relief against the person to who the estate be  limit over but note if there be no limitation over such a condition be only in  terror vide post c p c p Fonbl Tr Eq note and in this case the Lord chancellor  hold that this condition be for payment of money although in strictness of law  the estate be forfeit by the nonpayment of the money freeman and although  there be a express limitation to the daughter yet this be but as it be a  mortgage or security for money and the daughter be pay the say money and  damage they be at no damage and so decree that Andrew pay the same shall have  the land freeman er p