case Ely versus osborne Lord chancellor Nov Eq can ab pl SC marriagesettlement  on the husband for year if he so long live remainder to trustee to preserve  contingent remainder remainder to the heir of the body of the husband by the  wife remainder to the heir of the husband there be issue two son and a  daughter husband and trustee with the old son join in a fine it be a good bar  and no breach of trust the old son join James steer on his marriage settle the  land in question on himself for ninetynine year if he so long live remainder  to trustee and their heir to preserve contingent remainder during his life  remainder to his wife for her jointure remainder to the heir of his body on  the body of mary his intend wife remainder to his own right heir issue John  James and mary James the father and John his old son with the heir of the  survive trustee join in a feoff and fine to doughty and his heir John and  James John only accord to the report p wms S c the son die without issue James  the father yet live Vernon chancery case the question be whether the purchaser  have a good title or that the trustee join shall be a breach of the trust plea  allow vide p wms SC nomin else v Osborn and a statement of the case from the  register book in the note et vide pie v gorge p win Basset v Clapham ibidem  Mansell v Mansell p wms and particular p there where the principal case as  above report speak of by the court with disapprobation but the report of it p  wms be more consistent with the principle lie down on the subject by the  authority but the court have in some case though spare exercise its discretion  in direct trustee to join in destroy contingent remainder Platt v spring ante  Frewin v Charleton Eq can ab pl in which case it be urge as in the above print  report that the trustee be trustee only for the tenant in tail but there be a  daughter in that case the court before it order the trustee to join in a  recovery will have security give for the portion in townsend v Lawton p wms  there be two son of the marriage and the wife dead and the court refuse to  order the trustee to join in suffer a recovery unless the young son will  consent and dismiss the bill against he and the trustee with cost so whether  the settlement be voluntary for a valuable consideration or by will Symance v  Tattam atk and where it do order a trustee to join in destroy contingent  remainder it be with a view to effectuate the real purpose of the settlement  or to benefit the family winnington v Foley p wms Woodhouse v Hoskins atk  Barnard v large Amb I bro Ch Rep SC and it seem unsafe for a trustee to do so  in any case without the direction of a court of equity vide Marlow v smith p  wms Mansell v Mansell ibidem moody v Walters Ves Biscoe v Perkins v b et vide  observation of will Ch just on the principal case as above report Parkhurst v  smith will Rep and consider by he as a very slender authority on the point of  breach of trust Lord chancellor it be absurd to say that the trustee may not  join with the tenant in tail for although the father be live he be but bare  tenant for ninetynine year if he live so long and the estatetail vest in the  son in equity but the legal estate in the trustee and their heir during the  life of the father and they be trustee pure for the tenant in tail and to  preserve his estate and not to stand in opposition to he for the sake of those  who be to come after he