c sir Francis Hollis v sir robert car SC report tempore finch but much more  clear and circumstantial in Mod which see covenant the defendant father be  tenant in tail and the defendant be his old son and heir and upon the marriage  of his sister with the plaintiff he and his father enter into article to pay  pound and to secure it in manner follow and then in one of the follow article  there be these word videlicet whereas a fine be intend to be levy by the  defendant and his father of such and such land they do covenant and agree that  it shall be for the security of the say portion the defendant father die and  the estate descend to the defendant and the plaintiff exhibit his bill to  compel the defendant to levy this fine and upon this two question be make  whether upon these article a action of covenant will lie admit that it will  lie whether upon the whole matter it be proper for this court to compel the  execution of this agreement by levy the fine or to leave the plaintiff to his  remedy at law for damage to the first question it be argue by sergeant Maynard  that a action of covenant will well lie for he lie it for a ground and it be  agree by the Lord chancellor and the counsel of the other part that  wheresoever there be a apparent agreement of the party that a act shall be do  though freeman there be no express word of covenant if the party set to their  seal yet it will amount to a covenant such do on they of Milburn v Salkeld  will and he cite the case of Maynard and Norwood hill car rot where there be a  agreement for the payment of money and then these word follow videlicet and it  be the intent of the party that it shall be secure by bind this be hold to be  a good covenant and bret and Cumberland case roll and pasch car rot Bashall v  Scott roll termor for year if a b and c shall live so long grant over his term  and there be these word and the say c be live hold a good covenant and the  attorneygeneral and solicitor who argue on the other side agree all those case  because there it do appear that there be a agreement of the party and he agree  the case of walker and walker roll and he say in indenture of freeman er p  apprenticeship there be no word but the say I S shall do so and so and yet it  be always hold a good covenant but here appear no agreement only a recital see  as to the effect of a recital hope v Lord clifden Ves more v Magrath Cowp  marquis cholmondeley v Lord Clifton James and walk Hassell v long Mau and Sel  Whalley v Whalley Meriv taggart v Hewlett Meriv smith v Fitzgerald Ves and Bea  that if be intend that a fine shall be levy and that shall not make a covenant  for it be almost in every marriage settlement whereas a marriage be intend to  be solemnized c and yet if one of the party will not marry no action of  covenant will lie but to that it be answer that the case be not alike for here  in the precede t article there be a covenant to give further security and then  come in these word and so take all together certain the intent of the party do  well enough appear and to this first point it be hold by the Lord chancellor  finch that a action of covenant will well enough lie upon these word for take  all together by couple doran v Ross Ves jun the covenant to secure with this  recital it be very plain that it be intend by the party and he say whatsoever  do amount to a collective intent to do a act under band and seal will make a  covenant roll as a lease make yield and pay a rend to a stranger though the  reservation be void yet a action of covenant will lie to the second question  it be argue that the party ought to be leave to his remedy at law for damage  and not to compel the execution of the agreement because when the defendant  seal these article he have no estate in he and if he have levy a fine it can  only have work by estoppel to extinguish freeman a right and though he have  now a estate in he yet he ought not to do it have no estate in he at the time  of the article and this may be dangerous in respect that it be ten year since  the seal of the article and there may be encumbrance that by this mean will be  avoid and here the plaintiff may have his action of covenant and satisfy  himself by the personal covenant and Mr solicitor cite sir Richard Minshalls  case where there be a covenant that all fine to be levy shall be to such use  and afterward a fine be levy and other use declare and it be hold that a  action of covenant will well lie but the Lord chancellor decree the levy of  the fine for although the defendant have no estate in he at the time of the  article and so if the bill have be then exhibit it be not in his power to have  do it if the issue in tail levy a fine in the lifetime of his ancestor who be  then seize of the estate tail the ancestor himself may afterward levy a fine  and thereby bar his issue and also the person to who the issue levy the fine  sheep touch yet that be no reason why he shall not be compel to do it now it  be in his power and it may be a question whether or no if a purchaser come in  without notice the land shall be bind by this agreement in equity and so it be  decree that the fine shall be levied SC in a further stage of the suit upon  revivor as it shall seem against sir Robert car representative vern and Eq can  ab pl by which report it appear sir Robert car refuse to levy the fine as  decree and die without have do so but after devise his land for payment of his  just debt it be contend on the part of his representative that the plaintiff  debt be not within the intent and meaning of this provision for payment of  debt as the testator have always oppose the payment of it and have consider  himself surprise and circumvent in the covenant obtain from he and Hollis v  Norden vern be cite as direct in point but the Lord chancellor jefferies  observe sir Robert car have devise his estate for payment of all his just debt  and the plaintiff debt must now be take to be such the law have say it be a  just debt have not sir Robert car devise his land for the payment of his debt  they will have descend on his heir and be asset in her hand liable to have  satisfy the plaintiff demand on sir Robert car covenant his lordship therefore  decree the debt with interest and it be say in this case that if a man  covenant to do a thing that be not it his power this court will lie he by the  heel hall v hardy p wms freeman er p hall v hardy p wms by Reg lib a fol we  learn this cause be first hear in February before the Lord chancellor assist  by wile and Windham I I and on the and of April the Lord chancellor again  assist by the say judge pronounce a decree save as to the matter of the fine  as to which he desire a further argument which seem to have be that here  report but of which no trace have be discover in r l however in fol we find  that a caveat be enter to stay sign and enrol the decree and in Reg lib a fol  the party be order to attend for the purpose of settle the decree and by Reg  lib a fol it be put out of doubt that the fine be decree to be levy as here  report