case Mansell versus Mansell p will S c trustee to preserve contingent  remainder for child unborn join to defeat they this be a breach of trust  relievable in equity and where there be not a purchaser for a valuable  consideration without notice the estate shall be convey to the former use this  cause come on upon a appeal to my Lord chancellor king from the decree of the  master of the roll Edward Vaughan seize in fee in devise land to his sister  Dorothy afterward the plaintiff mother for life remainder to trustee to  preserve contingent remainder remainder to the use of her first and other son  in tail male remainder to the use of his cousin Edward Mansell in fee and  charge the estate with a debt of pound and die the plaintiff mother intermarry  with sir Edward Mansell and in they with the remainderman in fee join in a  feoff with a covenant to levy a fine to trustee to the use of the plaintiff  father in fee and this be express to be to case tempt Talbot the intent that  the feesimple may be vest in he for the raise of money for the payment of the  debt of Edward Vaughan the testator who inheritance it be by demising sell or  mortgage the estate or any part thereof and for other good cause and  consideration a fine be levy accord at the grand session in Carmarthenshire  where the land lie about a year after the trustee to preserve contingent  remainder recite the will feoff and fine convey the whole estate by lease and  release to the plaintiff father in fee Dorothy be then with child and then the  plaintiff be bear afterward the father by will make the plaintiff tenant for  life c and die the plaintiff bring his bill to have the benefit of Mr Vaughan  will and insist on the breach of trust and that the party who claim under the  fine and feoff be party to the breach of trust ought not to take advantage of  it the defendant in his answer insist on the fine and feoff the master of the  roll decree for the plaintiff for so much as be not alien good fide it be  argue for the plaintiff by Mr attorney general that the estate ought to be  preserve by the trustee accord to the intent of the deed of trust that their  case tempt Talbot er p join with the tenant for life in the alienation be a  high breach of trust and that have they alien to one who have no notice of the  trust the remedy shall be against they but where with notice the party claim  under the trust shall make good the estate and so hold by the Lord Harcourt in  pie and George case p will S c also bro part can and ed bro PC where it be  state at large in salk report which be strong than our case for those we claim  against be all volunteer under sir Edward Mansells will Mr Vaughan estate be  subject to a charge of pound it can be suppose that sir Edward Mansell and the  trustee shall bar the remainder case tempt Talbot to prevent they come to the  first and other son of Dorothy who be his wife but mere to discharge that debt  which a court of equity will upon a bill bring have decree to be do by sale  wherever a conveyance have be make for a particular purpose and no particular  limitation of the estate after that purpose perform it have be always look on  as a result trust for the heir or for such to who the inheritance belong there  be many case where it have be so hold vern Baden versus earl of Pembroke it be  also insist that old sir Edward Mansell have in a answer former put in to  another suit in this court allow that the plaintiff will be entitle in equity  to a estate tail under Mr Vaughan will Mr solicitor general Mr Verney and Mr  rider after the proof read add that their claim only against devisees under  sir Edward Mansells will and not against any purchaser either with or without  notice of the trust obviate all objection that can be make on that head and  that where a volunteer claim under a breach of trust without any consideration  pay and with notice of the trust it will be unconscionable he shall take  advantage of it but he shall hold the estate liable to the trust pie and  George case though not a case direct adjudge yet be a very strong declaration  by the court trustee to preserve contingent remainder be find out to help the  defect in the law of the first son not be able to take advantage of the  forfeiture of the tenant for life by make a feoff because not in a thing  naturan at the time of the forfeiture commit and at law before the statute of  use if a feoff to use have feoff another with notice of the use the second  feoff will have hold the estate subject to and for the use of the beneficiary  and trust and trustee be appoint to preserve and not to destroy contingent  remainder then take it on the other side this do not seem case tempt Talbot so  much a breach of trust as a just and legal act to take off that charge which  lie on the estate and to secure that very entail which they be trustee for and  will have be destroy by a sale for the act do by the husband and wife be  recite in the deed to be do only in order that the estate may be settle on the  husband to and for the raise such sum as the estate be Chargeable with and it  be the great equity they shall be take to this particular purpose only it be a  lawful one for where a deed may be take in a double sense the just and  equitable one shall be prefer neither be it to be suppose the wife will have  join in the disherison of her child but only to make sir Edward Mansell her  husband a trustee for this special purpose of discharge the estate in all case  of raise of term for one purpose after that purpose serve the term shall  attend the inheritance though no trust appoint after the serve of the purpose  Lowther versus Lowther hear at the bolls the last term and so whether it be  consider as a rightful act or whether it be take as a breach of trust and so a  wrongful one the plaintiff ought to be relieve and so wherever way data the  decree ought to be affirm Mr lutwych Mr will and Mr mead argue on the other  side for the defendant and say that it be not pretend that the legal estate be  well vest in sir Edward Mansell by his father will but they object that there  have be a contrivance to defeat the plaintiff not then bear of that entail  which he will otherwise have have it be not the feoff that destroy the  contingent remainder for therein the trustee be not concern but it be the  release and it be observable that here be no purchaser but only volunteer  claim under a settlement make by Mr Vaughan will and there be many instance  where in case of volunteer contingent remainder have be destroy they be favour  neither in law or equity pollexfen case tempt Talbot where tenant for life  with remainder to himself destroy the contingent remainder it have always be  hold good and it be here admit that have there be a purchaser there will have  be no relief which appear by this very decree for it case tempt Talbot er p  give no relief against such who have purchase part of this estate good fide as  this case be circumstance there can be no reason for a court of equity to  interpose for they seek relief as to one part of the father will which they do  not like but will have the other part which make for they to stand vern Noy  versus mordant here be a very fair settlement make by the father and it have  go far towards serve Mr Vaughan intent which be to have the estate remain in  the family than will have be otherwise if he have be tenant in tail the defeat  this will be disappoint the provision make by the father for his young child  which can the father have apprehend he will have provide otherwise for his  child their say the conveyance to sir Edward Mansell be only a trust for  payment of debt for that it be not dorothy intent to disinherit the child she  be then ensient of be set up a intent to defeat the express act of the party  which be a conveyance for and in consideration of natural love only to sir  Edward Mansell and to no other use or purpose whatsoever and the word trust  not so much as mention in any part of the deed and there be in the end of the  deed a express provision that all conveyance shall be to the use of sir Edward  Mansell in fee and for no other use whatsoever in the case of Lowther versus  Lowther there be a express conveyance to stranger in trust none of which be in  this case but here the conveyance be to his own heir without mention a word of  any trust neither will their other method of take it as a breach of trust do  much better since remedy have be often deny against the trustee for preserve  contingent remainder in case of a tenant in tail As where upon a subsequent  remainder to the right heir a collateral relation only have be affect by it  there have be no issue of the marriage for next after the party to the  marriage the court consider the issue to be the only object of the settlement  and trust and pay less regard to the remainder over to the right heir as no  immediate object of consideration in the settlement as also where the  application to the court for relief have be make by one who have not at the  time nor possible ever I may be entitle to the remainder under the word of the  limitation vide sir Thomas Tippens case p will cite else v Osborne ibidem  fearne count Rem Edward but where a trustee join with the beneficiary and  trust in tail in any conveyance to tar the entail it be no breach of trust for  it be no more than what he may be compel to do Robinson v comens ante  aldington v butler bro Charles be Pratt versus spring vern bowater versus Ely  Ely versus Osborne p will neither do they pray their remedy against the  trustee but against the remainderman under the will case tempt Talbot tenant  for life by fine bar the contingent remainder there cart be no remedy against  he and yet that be a strong case than this since there he have a kind of trust  repose in he but here he have none at all then be cite the case of Stapleton  versus Sherrard vern Sherbourne versus clarke smith versus dean and chapter of  saint Paul and bogle and in show parliament Cas to prove that equity will not  assist to defeat those advantage a man have at law by take fetter off another  man estate upon the whole as no precedent have be show where in the like case  any remedy have be give and that the case of pie versus George be but a  extrajudicial opinion of the court and so imperfect report that no stress can  be lie on it they say it will be hard to begin in this case which must be by  take away a legal title and defeat the provision make for young child who be  always favour in equity beside we shall be leave without any provision for the  debt which have be pay by old sir Edward Mansell and to which this estate be  liable and therefore pray the decree may be reverse No judgement be now give  but in Michaelmas vacation g the opinion of the court be deliver at my Lord  chancellor house Lord chancellor king Lord chief justice Raymond Lord chief  baron Reynolds Reynolds chief baron after have state the case there be two  point first those conveyance be make with a intent to raise money to pay the  debt of Edward Vaughan whether this provision ought to extend to that purpose  only for then there will be a result trust to the old use under the will of  Edward Vaughan case tempt Talbot second suppose the contingent estate destroy  whether this be such a breach of trust as that the estate defecate thereby  ought to be set up again in this court against those who claim under a  voluntary conveyance with notice saint in the first place it be evident that  the trustee not have execute the deed of feoff but be make party without their  consent their estate can not be affect or destroy thereby and the same may be  say of the fine and if nothing else have be do the contingent remainder have  be good but the deed of lease and release execute by the trustee be a absolute  conveyance and have no reference to what be do before but be make on purpose  to destroy their own estate and consequent the contingent remainder I admit  all the case of result trust vern Harcourt and Weymouth Loder and Loder and  which be all find upon this plain principle that when a estate be convey for  particular purpose so soon as they be satisfy there be a result interest to he  who ought to have the estate but there be no trust express in the deed of  lease and release nor can it be case tempt Talbot er p pretend they ought to  be couple with the deed of feoff before execute by different party and for  different purpose the one be to pay debt and the other to destroy contingent  remainder dly whether equity ought to interpose so as to set up these estate  against the trustee and those claim under they that this be a breach of trust  be so plain that I know not how by any thing I have to say to make it more so  indeed have this conveyance be for a valuable consideration without notice the  purchaser can not have be affect but when any one claim by a voluntary  conveyance with notice he must take the conveyance cloth with all its trust  the dictum of a counsel at the case tempt Talbot bar in the duke of Norfolk  case be of very little weight beside it do not appear there to be his own  opinion and salk be to the contrary the case of Englefield and Englefield vern  be sole decree on the point of fraud for there be no trustee to preserve  contingent remainder as to the case of else and Osborne vern that  determination can be of no great authority than the reason on which it be find  will warrant there the Lord chancellor take it that the son have a estate tail  and therefore the remainder ought to be consider no long as contingent and  that then the trustee become trustee for the tenant in tail to which estate  the quality of bar remainder over be essential but this be not the present  case for here the trust subsist in its full force winnington versus Foley p  will S c tip versus Pigot report in Abr Eq case in all these case the  remainderman be in be so that he have a estate tail vest and then the trustee  become trustee for tenant in tail and consequent the estate over may be bar it  be say that court of equity but this in the word of Mr Fearne have only happen  under peculiar circumstance either of pressure to discharge encumbrance prior  to the settlement or in favour of creditor where the settlement be voluntary  or for the advantage of the person who be the first object of the settlement  as to enable the first son c to make a settlement upon a advantageous marriage  vide fearne count Rem Edward Platt v spring vern Frewin v Charleton Eq Abr pl  bassat v Clapham p will winnington v Foley p will and however continue the  same learned author the court may see proper to direct trustee to concur in  destroy contingent remainder under circumstance like those in the above notice  case it have repeat deny the same interposition in case where such ingredient  be want as in Davies v wield vern Eq Cas Abr townsend v Lawton p will Symance  v Tattam atk Woodhouse v Hoskins atk Barnard v large Cox note p will bro  Charles Rep S c Ambl Rep S c have oblige trustee to join but this have be just  as the circumstance of the case have appear vern and whatever they have do or  may do yet they will never have it leave to the discretion of a trustee t do  it it be object that the plaintiff have a satisfaction by the will and  therefore he ought not to have the advantage of both vern I answer that what  he have under the will be not a proper equivalent since he be thereby only  make tenant for life without power to provide for young child or pay his debt  beside the estate be only limit to his first son in tail and far there be no  condition annex to the devise either express or imply but the present question  be only concern the Vaughan estate the Mansells be sufficient to pay the far  debt and legacy as to the inconvenience they be imaginary and there be no  comparison between they and those which will attend the other side of the  question for if this shall stand the trustee may without reason case tempt  Talbot and without the direction of a court of equity join to defeat most  settlement therefore the plaintiff ought to be relieve but in what manner must  be leave to my Lord chancellor Lord chief justice Raymond agree with the chief  baron in both point and speak to this effect as to the contingent remainder  since they be destroy the plaintiff be entitle to relief either against the  trustee or the purchaser with notice that such remainder may be destroy be a  positive law and when do there be no remedy at law and therefore person be  choose in who there be a confidence place to preserve man estate in their  family it have be say that remedy may he have at law for a breach of trust but  I think it be the proper business of a court of equity to keep trustee within  due bind and to give relief if there be tenant for life with contingent  remainder and he defeat they he be not answerable for it since no trust or  confidence be repose in he and in such case justice sequitur law as to case in  point though there be none yet the reason of the thing will govern it if a  estate subject to a trust be purchase from the trustee for a valuable  consideration without notice a court of equity can affect the purchaser but  they can the trustee but if such purchaser have notice then the trust go along  with the estate and the land still continue subject to it it may be trustee  have be excuse where there have be favourable circumstance but it here be not  the least reasonable matter to induce the trustee to join therefore what they  have do be against natural equity and justice in the case of else and Osborne  vern the inheritance be vest and what be do may be proper for the circumstance  of the family but non sequitur a trustee may do it in what case he shall think  proper upon the whole he be clear that the plaintiff shall be relieve case  tempt Talbot Lord chancellor say he will confine himself to one point whether  in this case the breach of trust ought to be relieve against for as to the  result trust case tempt Talbot er p and the equivalent satisfaction he think  there be not much in they and will give no opinion about they in point of law  these remainder be absolute destroy though the trustee have defeat their  estate yet if the wife have keep she that will have preserve the contingent  estate over the question now be whether equity will relieve here be no fraud  but what appear on the deed it will be a very odd thing to say it be not a  breach of trust for those person who be appoint to preserve estate to defeat  they contrary to the intent of he who repose a confidence in they then if this  be a breach of trust equity may relieve for this be a matter within its  original jurisdiction he say he never know that law have anything to do in the  case if then it be the business of equity to keep trustee within compass and  to see trust execute can equity sit still and see trustee break their trust a  law if there have be a trustee to a use and he have convey without  consideration and without notice of the use or though it have be for a  valuable consideration yet if there have be notice the use will have follow  the land and trust be to be govern by the same rule that use be before the  statute of use if there have be a bare tenant for life who be no trustee  equity will not have relieve for there can be no breach of trust where there  be no trustee vide fearne count Rem ed and such case be like a collateral  warranty by tenant for life against which equity will never relieve vide ante  indeed court of equity have go great length to judge whether a man will have  any child or not but I shall be very cautious how I do it a breach of trust  will go so far as to affect the trustee and all who purchase under they have  notice however here be no occasion to go against the trustee since the land  themselves may be have and this be the case of a purchaser case tempt Talbot  with notice vide Garth v cotton atk Ves S c durnford v lane bro Charles Rep my  Lord chancellor confirm the decree make by the master of the roll in favour of  the plaintiff Reg lib b fol case tempt Talbot er p de boundary pasche geo two  in curian porter