case saltern against MELHUISH see Dill v coppin my Cr evidence of the content  of a deed destroy and of the destruction of it admit see Cowper v Cowper p W  Phillips on eved vol p five edition Reg lib b foe a in chancery that December  plaintiff in order to prove the content of a deed which be charge in his bill  to have be destroy and lose by Roger Melhuish produce a deed engross but not  execute which be prove to be a copy of the deed suppose to b destroy objection  that the evidence of the destruction of the deed be not sufficient Lord  chancellor I be full satisfy this deed ought to be read and so I shall be if  sit at nisi prius there be several rule by which evidence even parole may be  give of the content of a deed saint it be ground sufficient to show that the  deed be in the hand of the opposite party and that he have notice to produce  it and do not d another ground be to give reasonable account of the deed be  lose or destroy rule of law be that the best evidence must be give which the  nature of the case will ambler admit and in no case be that rule construe with  great latitude the n in case of this sort here be strong evidence that the  deed do exist strong evidence of the content of it much more so than in the  generality of case evidence of loss or destruction general depend on  circumstance and it be very rare even in case of destruction that the positive  proof can be have the circumstance here on which I chief rely be that it  appear by deposition that lady berry who be the survive trustee have the deed  in her custody and that she declare if she live a week long she will send all  the deed and paper elsewhere for that she be afraid they will be take away she  then live in the house of Roger Melhuish who be suppose to have destroy they  and die in about a week afterward the trustee of her will after her death  search her house but this deed be miss and not to be find that be now  thirtyfour year ago where else can they look for the deed beside one of the  witness say she have hear it be destroy by Roger Melhuish and that she be  often present when Roger wife quarrel with he for not have destroy the deed  Medlicot v joiner Mod be cite at the bar and say to be the first case where  evidence be admit of the content of a deed on the other side dr Leyflelds case    be cite to show with what caution such evidence shall be admit on the merit  the case be Thomas Melhuish seize in fee and also possess of a interest  termini of year of the same estate in jure wife who be a executrix in on  marriage of Roger Melhuish settle the inheritance on he and the issue male of  the marriage and in case of issue female only then a sum of pound be to be  raise for such issue female in which deed of settlement be a covenant that the  estate be free from encumbrance without any exception of this ambler term  Roger have issue only one daughter and in recite a agreement to assign this  term do in performance of his promise and in order to make further provision  for his wife and daughter grant and assign the term in trust for himself for  life remainder to his wife for life remainder to his daughter afterward his  wife die he marry again and settle the very land comprise in the term he have  several child by the marriage and by will after give they several pecuniary  legacy make the young child executor ambler er p bill by plaintiff the  daughter of the first marriage to have performance of the trust and benefit of  the term or satisfaction out of the asset of Roger it be prove in the case  that Roger have burn the deed of assignment of the term and evidence be give  of the content of it as before state Lord Hardwicke chancellor all case for  relief against spoliation come in a favourable light but notwithstanding the  rule that thing be to be take in odium spoliator yet it ought to have no other  consequence but this that where the content of the deed destroy be prove the  party shall have the same benefit as he will if the deed itself be produce  this I lie down as a principle b what right plaintiff have under the deed  destroy in this case it be voluntary though make in favour of a child as a  additional portion and as such more to be favour than where there be not any  the least consideration and the subsequent settlement of the very estate be  for a valuable consideration and make without notice that be a answer to the  demand another answer may be give in my opinion videlicet that the plaintiff  be not entitle to the thing the assignment of the term by Roger must be take  as a assignment to attend the inheritance what be the promise to effectuate  the settlement if a bill have be bring to have the term assign to attend the  inheritance this court will have decree it see Whitchurch v Whitchurch p W  Scott v Fenhoulet bro c c Charlton v low p W Capel v Gadler Ves Sugd vend  ambler it be a term to commence in possession after a term of seventy year  which term of seventy year be not to commence in possession till after the  expiration of three life so that this term can not commence in computation  till Q what be Roger interest say to be interest termini and so it be because  not to commence till after the former term in computation of time but if it  have be to commence in possession direct and be concurrent with the former  term it will have be a vest interest say interest termini be not grantable but    light b be express to the contra touchst however it be releasable and in my  opinion be release by the covenant in the settlement of free from encumbrance  a covenant may operate as a release as covenant not to sue a bind may in case  of a action on the bind be plead in bar touchst dean v Newhall t r but such  covenant must be a perpetual covenant a mere covenant not to sue within a  particular time can be plead in bar Deux v Jefferyes cro Elizabeth roll Abr  ailiff v Scrimshire show S c salk touchst but a release for a moment be a  release forever see Northcote v duke post if there be any of the remainder in  the first settlement exist take it to be a interest termini release or  attendant on the inheritance the plaintiff can not have any benefit of it but  it will have be to the benefit of the remainder man d question whether  plaintiff be entitle to satisfaction out of the asset of Roger he have convey  away what be another to a purchaser for real consideration without notice this  be a common head of equity but what ever will be the case where the estate  actual pass by such voluntary conveyance or will so if it be not for the  subsequent conveyance for voluntary consideration yet in the present case the  plaintiff be not entitle to any thing under the assignment suppose the  subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration out of the case No ground for  relief on that head for plaintiff never have any property in the term d  question whether plaintiff be entitle to satisfaction out of asset by reason  of the imply covenant the word grant and demise be imply covenant Iggulden v  may Ves see touchst with this distinction that if there be covenant in the  same deed from the same person by which he covenant in a more restrain manner  that will restrain the general effect of those word there be no covenant in  the deed from Roger ambler but there be a covenant in it from Richard Melhuish  in who the legal estate be vest that he have do nothing to encumber and though  that do not amount to a covenant by Roger yet it show the intention of the  party the question then be whether any relief can he have in a court of equity  for satisfaction mere on a imply covenant there be no case of that sort to my  knowledge Thompson v Attfield vern be of a different nature the court will  supply defective conveyance in favour of child see Watts v Papal bull p W and  note there and so will I here if I think Roger be entitle to this term  independent ambler er p of the inheritance but the question now be whether  plaintiff be entitle to a satisfaction as for a debt so car v Ashwell that  march be a defective conveyance make good in favour of young child there be no  case where the court will decree satisfaction out of asset if the father have  no title to the thing he convey to his child it may tend to strip the other  child of their provision in order to make a additional one for that child the  intention of the parent be to give it if he can not to create a debt at all  event this be by no mean a case that call on the court to make a precedent  plaintiff have have a portion of pound which be equal to her mother portion  and as much as her friend stipulate for her that money appear to have be pay  her fifteen year before she be in strictness entitle to receive it beside she  have a estate bill dismiss on the part of the defendant Mr Wilbraham mention  the case of Praund v turner fitzg for the plaintiff Mr Henley in reply cite  vern car v Ashwell and also Mod that appointed transposuit all the money that  shall be allow by foreign state c in lieu of his share in a ship amount to a  imply covenant and a action be maintain upon it as to the evidence necessary  where deed have be lose suppress or destroy see Whitfield v Fausset Ves coal v  Gibson ib Sanson v Rumsey vern Dalston v coatsworth p W Cowper v earl of  Cowper p W coke v hellier Ves Eyton v Eyton vern that in case of destruction  of deed every thing must be take in odium spoliators see in Dalston v  coatsworth p W bowl v Stewart Sch Lef see vern but a subsequent limit covenant  will not restrain a express general covenant Gainsford v Griffith I sand  Norman v Forster Mod Hesse v Stevenson Bos pull Sugd vend where the above case  be cite