case hobson against STANEER if a person upon his marriage make a extravagant  or unreasonable settlement yet if no fraud or incapacity appear it shall not  be avoid by person claim under a subsequent marriage settlement a bill be  exhibit by the plaintiff to be relieve against a bind obtain by the defendant  and as suggest without any manner of consideration and to have another bind of  eighty pound condition to pay forty pound to be deliver up to the plaintiff  the money be pay and likewise to be relieve against a settlement obtain from  he by fraud without consideration he be a weak man the case be that the  plaintiff marry the daughter of the defendant who be his first wife upon which  marriage the defendant procure a settlement from he by fraud which be by  settle part of his estate to the use of himself and his say wife for life  remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder remainder to the use of  Joshua Staneer and his heir who be the old son of the defendant and brother to  the plaintiff wife and of other part of his estate to trustee for two hundred  year to pay any money the plaintiff shall charge it withal by way of legacy or  otherwise remainder to another brother of the plaintiff wife and to his heir  for ever but the defendant his father take care to have a grant from he of  that power which he have to charge the estate and his motherinlaw procure  another grant from he of one hundred pound to be pay to her after the death of  his wife which be recite to be in consideration of the love and affection  modern report he have for his wife who be her daughter and they obtain another  bind of he modern report er p of eighty pound condition to pay forty pound  without any manner of consideration therefore he insist that this settlement  and both the bind ought to be set aside and a second settlement which he make  on his now wife upon his second marriage and in consideration of her portion  may be establish and make good the defendant answer that the plaintiff have  marry his daughter without his privity or consent he be at first very much  displease but afterward be reconcile and take he and his wife into his house  and pay some of his the plaintiff debt and have do other service and kindness  for he and his wife so that he the plaintiff be indebt to the defendant in the  sum of one hundred pound and more and that in consideration thereof and of the  love and affection which he do bear to his wife a style v attorneygeneral atk  a who be now dead he make the say settlement which he insist on to be good and  not to be set aside b that equity will not carry a agreement into execution  without a valuable or meritorious consideration see Colmay v sorrel brown c c  b the single question upon the proof be whether this settlement shall be set  aside either for want of capacity in the plaintiff or for that it be a  voluntary settlement c see Goodwin v Goodwin Ch Rep villers v Bramont vern  Clavering v Clavering vern tailor v Jones atk Watson v Routledge Cowp c and as  to that it be argue for the defendant that the witness for the plaintiff have  not show one single instance of his weakness but general that he be a weak man  when the witness produce by the defendant prove that he be a person sufficient  to manage his own business ld estate and certain it be not necessary that  every man who make a settlement shall be a ingenious or a learned man for it  be sufficient if he be of a ordinary capacity therefore this settlement ought  not to be set aside for any incapacity in the plaintiff neither ought it to be  set aside as a voluntary settlement to make room for another upon the  plaintiff second marriage because the second settlement be obtain upon no  better consideration than the first d Allen v arm vern Clavering v Clavering  vern young v cottle Peer wms haw v Wyatt brown c c d which be have without any  manner of fraud or circumvention and so far from it that it be prove the  plaintiff always intend if he have no issue that his estate shall go to the  relation of his wife and that such his intent continue even after the death of  his wife but if the court shall be of opinion that this be a voluntary  settlement yet the bill ought to be dismiss for want of proper party because  Robert Hobson the plaintiff father who have the legal estate by the last  settlement be not make a party beside the plaintiff shall not have any modern  report remedy to set aside the first and to set up the last settlement because  he have the same estate in both therefore he can have no pretence to complain  in a court of equity for relief against one settlement in favour of another  such a application as this ought to be make by he who be aggrieve and who have  a estate by one settlement and none by the other therefore it be insist that  the first settlement be make on a good consideration for what can be better  than marriage and the remainder limit on the same consideration be good as for  the bind of eighty pound the defendant insist that he pay the money for the  plaintiff use at two payment c on the other side it be argue that this be a  very extravagant settlement in the first place because there be no manner of  provision for the issue of that marriage and though there be a estate limit to  trustee to preserve contingent remainder yet there be no remainder in the  settlement but the inheritance of all his the plaintiff land be settle on  Joshua Staneer his wife brother and in consideration of love to his wife for  after the limitation to he the plaintiff and his wife for life the remainder  in fee of part of the estate be immediate limit to one of her brother and the  fee of the other part of the estate be limit to another of her brother with  modern report er p a intermediate term of year to trustee which the plaintiff  may charge but care be take to have a grant of that power which the plaintiff  have to charge the land from the plaintiff to that brother so that after all  event he may be in as good a condition as his elder brother beside this estate  be no more than fifty pound ayear and the plaintiff but tenant for life there  be other encumbrance set up by the defendant videlicet a grant of one hundred  pound to the defendant wife at five pound per cent during her life and the  bind of eighty pound which be impossible for he to pay have only a estate for  life in such a small estate and this show a apparent fraud on the face of the  deed itself and by this mean the defendant will always have the plaintiff in  his power to get any other write from he to charge his estate as to the  objection that this second settlement be make upon no better a consideration  than the first the fact be quite otherwise for it be make not only in  consideration of marriage but of one hundred pound which the plaintiff actual  receive as a marriageportion with his wife modern report but upon read the  settlement it appear to be thus the estate be limit to Robert Hobson the  father of the plaintiff his heir and assign during the life of the plaintiff  and his wife in trust that be may employ the profit for the maintenance of the  say plaintiff and his wife during their life with remainder to the issue of  that marriage with other remainder over so that the plaintiff have no estate  by this second settlement the court the plaintiff have no reason to complain  because it appear be be in a better condition by the first settlement than by  the last for he have a estate for life by the first and none by the last and  there be no fraud prove in obtain the first settlement nor any manner of proof  of the plaintiff incapacity there can be no reason to set aside the first  settlement but Robert Hobson the plaintiff father who have the legal estate by  the second settlement not be make a party to the bill the plaintiff can have  no decree but have leave to amend his bill c