article on marriage to settle land on the husband and wife for their life  remainder to the heir male of the body of the husband by the wife remainder  equity case abridge er p to the heir male of the body of the husband by any  other wife remainder to the heir female of the body of the husband by this  wife a settlement be make before the marriage videlicet in and say to be in  pursuance and performance of the say article whereby the land be limit to the  husband for life sans waste and with power to make lease remainder to the wife  for her life for her jointure remainder to the first c son of the marriage in  tail male successive remainder to the first c son of any other marriage in  tail male remainder to the heir of the body of the husband by this wife  remainder over by this settlement there be a omission of trustee for support  contingent remainder and instead of limit a remainder to the daughter of the  marriage the limitation be to the heir of the husband of the marriage which  give the husband a estatetail and consequent a power to bar the daughter of  that marriage and also the remainder over by a recovery the husband have issue  of this marriage one only daughter mary and take advantage of this mistake  sell part of the premise to the amount of pound and upward and have suffer a  recovery of such part as remain unsold by indenture Feb he convey the same to  trustee W and h in trust for himself for life remainder to such trust as he  shall declare by will and accord Dec he devise the premise to defendant in fee  except a small tenement which he devise to one barrable in fee and make her  executrix mary the daughter marry b and they have issue the plaintiff m and f  both infant mary their mother be dead the plaintiff bring their bill against  the devisee in order to rectify the mistake in the settlement but as to the  premise sell the bill do not seek to disturb the purchase only to recover the  purchasemoney out of the asset of their father the devisee plead the  settlement of the recovery the will and the long enjoyment of the premise and  the plea be argue equity case abridge before Gilbert c b and the other baron  the same be overrule unanimous but upon hear the Cause before all the baron  the bill be Dec dismiss without cost it be dangerous as it be say to set aside  a settlement which seem to have be deliberate and solemnly make but upon a  appeal to the house of lord this decree of dismission be Feb reverse and  decree that the trustee and the devisee m e the respondent shall convey such  of the premise as be comprise in the article to trustee to the use of the  appellant m and f and to the heir female of their body as tenant in common  with cross remainder to they in tail female and the respondent the devisees m  e and barrable to account for the profit and to pay the same to the appellant  the infant and the respondent the executrix to account for the purchasemoney  that have be receive by her testator for such part of the premise as he have  sell and pay the interest thereof to the appellant and the respondent to bring  their write into the court of exchequer and deliver up the possession to the  appellant but as to the principal money arise by the say sale these be to be  lie out in the purchase of land in fee to be settle to the same use as the  land unsold be decree to be convey west and Errissey first in scacc and  afterward in dom proc will Rep where article be enter into before marriage and  settlement make after marriage different from the article as if by article the  estate be to be in strict settlement and by the settlement the husband be make  tenant in tail whereby he have it in his power to bar the issue equity will  set up the article against the settlement but where both article and  settlement be previous to the marriage at a time when all party be at liberty  the settlement differ from the article will be take as a new agreement between  they and shall control the article lee and Goldwire November so in the book  cite by Lord Talbot mich in the case of Lord glenorchy and Bosville can in Eq  tempt Talbot and although in this case of west and Errissey the article be  make to control the settlement make before marriage yet that resolution no way  contradict the general rule above for in west and Errissey the settlement be  express mention to be make in pursuance and performance of the say marriage  article whereby the intent appear to be still the same as it be at the make  the article per Lord Chan Talbot ibidem vide the case of Streatfield and  Streatfield p can vide also the case of Glanville and pain Barnard Rep in Chan