case honour versus honour refer to Sackvillewest v viscount holmesdale l r h l  Lord chancellor Cowper vern Eq can Abr pl article and settlement mention to be  make in pursuance thereof be both make before the marriage but the settlement  vary from the use in the article decree to go accord to the article so west v  Erisey Vol two and bro p c Robert v Kingsley ves see more on this subject in  west v Erisey post Vol two and see Barstow v Kilvington Ves Jenkins v  Quinchant ib note article be make before and in consideration of marriage and  enter into about twentyfive year since whereby land be agree to be settle to  the use of the husband for life remainder to the wife for life remainder to  the heir of the body of the wife by the husband beget remainder to the husband  in fee some time afterward but before the marriage the settlement itself be  make and recite the article and in pursuance of the article for so it be  mention in the settlement these land be limit to the use of the husband for  life remainder to the wife for life remainder to the heir of the body of the  husband on the wife to be beget remainder to the husband in fee the marriage  take effect and there be issue one son the plaintiff and the husband marry  again and have several other child peer William it be prove that the intent of  the party be that the father shall have but a estate for life and that it be  take in the family and by all the relation that the father have no power to  sell or charge the estate the father take up pound on a mortgage of the  premise have get the son to join in a fine without any consideration and the  feesimple and equity of redemption of the mortgage premise be limit to the  father peer William er p the son bring his bill to compel the father to  reconvey and resettle the premise on the son after his death and to make the  settlement pursuant to the article Lord chancellor it be a plain mistake in  make the settlement vary from the article the article be prudent article and  the wife though she be to have a estatetail thereby yet can bar it but be  restrain by h and it be plain intend that the father shall not have a power of  defeat and starve the issue and the article be so the settlement which be say  to be make pursuant thereto show there be no reiteration of the intention nor  any new agreement between the make of the article and the settlement and this  appear upon the face of the article and the settlement and in the plain reason  of the thing the length of time be immaterial peer William therefore decree  the defendant the father and his second wife to join in a conveyance to settle  the estate as by the article videlicet to the father for life remainder to the  plaintiff the son in tail but as to the mortgage the son have join in it this  court will not set it aside but let the father keep down the interest during  his life and in regard the defendant the father insist to take advantage of  this mistake let the conveyance be make at his charge and let he pay cost vide  green v ekins atk Whatley v Kemp cite in Howell v Howell ves highway v banner  bro c c pale yellow use by Sugd note Evans stat Gretton v Haward marsh and  Taun S c brudenell v Elwes Ves and see Gossage v tailor style kirkman v  Thompson cro James