case Lechmere versus lady Lechmere may p will S c S c wh t l c that ed see in  re de lancey lr ex money upon a marriage be agree to be lie out in land in fee  and settle on husband and wife remainder to their son in tail male remainder  to the husband his heir and assign for ever a covenant that until the money be  lie out in land the interest to be pay to the person who be to have the rend  of the land when purchase the husband purchase several estate but never settle  any and die intestate sans issue leave a considerable real estate to descend  to his heir at law the heir may compel case tempt Talbot er p the  administratrix the widow to invest this money in the purchase of land and the  land descend upon he will not go in satisfaction of the covenant except as to  such as be purchase after the covenant the late Lord Lechmere upon his  marriage with the lady Elizabeth Howard daughter to the earl of Carlisle and  in consideration of pound portion covenant with the earl of Carlisle and the  Lord Morpeth his son to lie out within one year after the marriage the say sum  case tempt Talbot of pound and likewise the far sum of pound amount in the  whole to pound in the purchase of freehold land in possession which be to be  settle upon the Lord Lechmere himself for life without impeachment of waste  remainder to trustee and their heir during the life of the Lord Lechmere to  preserve contingent remainder remainder for so much as will amount to pound  per and to the lady Lechmere for her jointure remainder of the whole to the  first and other son of the marriage in tail male remainder to the trustee for  five hundred year for the raise a portion or portion for the daughter or  daughter of the marriage remainder to the Lord Lechmere his heir and assign  for ever but if there shall be no daughter that the say term be to cease for  the benefit of the Lord Lechmere his heir and assign for ever and the say Lord  Lechmere far covenant that until the say pound shall be lie out in land as  aforesaid there shall be pay interest for the same after the rate of pound per  cent unto the person entitle to the rend and profit of the land when purchase  the ford Lechmere after his marriage purchase several estate in feesimple in  possession but which be never settle accord to the covenant as also several  term and reversion c and in the year die intestate and without issue leave a  considerable real estate to the value of about pound per and to descend upon  the plaintiff his nephew and heir at law the lady Lechmere take out  administration and the plaintiff bring his bill against her for a account of  the Lord Lechmeres personal estate and to have this covenant carry into  execution his remainder by the death of Lord Lechmere without issue now take  effect as also to have some purchase complete which be leave incomplete by the  Lord Lechmeres death the lady Lechmere insist by her answer that the plaintiff  be no way privy to any of the consideration within this covenant can not  compel case tempt Talbot her to lie out the pound in the purchase of land for  his benefit but that if he can the land which Lord Lechmere have permit to  descend on he be to the value of pound per and ought to be take in full  satisfaction for all the benefit the plaintiff can be entitle to as heir at  law to the Lord Lechmere who design these several purchase to be settle accord  to the use specify in the covenant the cause be first head at the roll and  there decree and for these reason first for that the Lord Lechmere be  compellable in equity to lie out this pound and settle it agreeable to the  article second because the Lord Lechmere live after the year within which time  the purchase be to be make and settle have break his covenant three for that  in consequence thereof the trustee may have bring their bill and compel his  lordship in his lifetime to make such purchase and settlement fourthly for  that the trustee not commence their suit in equity or at law shall not  prejudice any person entitle to have this settlement make five in regard the  land descend and which be under the value of what the Lord Lechmere be bind to  settle shall not be take for or towards satisfaction of the land article to be  settle p will for the heir at law Mr Lechmere upon both point videlicet that  he be entitle to have a specific performance of this covenant and second that  the several estate which descend upon he be not a satisfaction for this  covenant or any part of it and now come on to be hear before the Lord  chancellor Mr pauncefort Mr strange Mr brown and other argue for the plaintiff  that he can not in this case be consider as a mere volunteer but be in some  sort a purchaser accord to Jenkins and Kemishs case Hardr lev but that though  he shall be take for a volunteer yet he must prevail against a administratrix  and this to serve the intent of the Lord Lechmere who by his covenant have say  that his heir at law shall have a interest in the land and in the money until  the land be purchase that the heir be in contemplation at the time of the Lord  Lechmeres enter into this covenant appear from the provision that in case  there shall be no daughter the term of five hundred year shall cease for the  benefit of he and his heir that wherever a man enter into a lawful engagement  and be prevent by death or any other accident from carry his agreement into  execution the court will look upon it as perform that the strength of this  rule appear from the case of Sweetapple versus bindon vern where the husband  be decree to stand in the same condition as if the money have be actual lie  out in land although no rule of law be clear than that the husband shall never  be tenant by the courtesy but where he have reduce his case tempt Talbot wife  estate into possession during her life that though every tenant in fee have  his heir in his power yet if the ancestor do nothing to divest the natural  right which his heir bath to succeed he and to have a specific execution of  his covenant he shall always prevail against the executor or administrator  even when the covenant be mere voluntary as case tempt Talbot er p appear by  the case of holt versus holt in which case the father of a article with a  carpenter to pay he pound for the building of a house upon his land and the  carpenter article with the father to build the house the father die intestate  before the house be begin to be build and the land on which the house be to be  build descend to the son and heir hold that the son may compel the widow and  administratrix of the husband to lie out the pound in building the house  although the son who seek and be allow to take the benefit of this covenant do  not entitle himself thereto by any manner of consideration vern the trustee  neglect to compel the Lord v Lechmere in his lifetime to perform his covenant  can prejudice either party who be entitle to have it carry into execution for  if so the doctrine of this court will be entire overturn and trustee will  become judge whether and how far man shall be bind by their covenant but by  the know rule of this court trustee be bind to execute the trust in the manner  the person that make the conveyance have direct and have no latitude of  judgement leave to they to distinguish whether the conveyance be make upon a  valuable consideration or not or whether the person claim under the trust be  volunteer or purchaser if then the neglect of the trustee will not affect the  case one way or the other the whole must depend upon the equity of the heir  and administratrix and take the heir even but as a volunteer yet he be such a  volunteer as be great favour both at law and in this court and will always  appear in a more favourable light than a executor or administrator as appear  from the several case of Kettleby versus atwood in this case it be agree by  marriage article that the wife have pound portion the husband shall add pound  more to it and that the whole shall be deposit in trustee hand until a  convenient purchase can be find for invest the same in land which when  purchase shall be settle on the husband and wife for their life with remainder  to their first c son in tail remainder to their daughter entail remainder to  the right heir of the husband before the make of the purchase the husband die  leave issue by his say wife a daughter who die about a month old the wife  administer to the husband and daughter and the heir of the husband bring his  bill to have the money lie out in the purchase of land to be settle no the  wife for life only remainder to the plaintiff in fee and though the then Lord  keeper north refuse to make a decree for that purpose and dismiss the bill but  without cost yet the party do not think to rest there but reheard the cause  before the Lord chancellor jefferies who decree for the heir hold that the  money be bind by the article and shall be for the benefit of the heir as the  land will have go if purchase vern vern knight versus Atkins upon marriage  article pound be the wife portion to which the husband be to add pound the  whole pound to be invest in land and settle on the husband for life remainder  to the wife for her jointure remainder to the heir of their two body stop  short there and not express where the estate shall go afterward the husband  die without issue upon which his collateral heir bring his bill to have the  money lie out in the purchase of land to be settle on the wife for life  remainder to the plaintiff in fee as heir at law to the husband and accord the  Lord jefferies decree the whole money to the heir of the husband on a  presumption that it be so intend vern Baden versus Com Pembroke vern lancey  and Fairchild vern Lingen and Sowray p will S c Prec in Chanc S c Eq can Abr  and Vernon versus p will Vernon in the house of lord in and Kentish versus  Newman p will S c July where a feme be possess of pound the husband before  marriage covenant to join so much to her pound as will purchase pound per and  to be settle on they two and the heir of their body remainder to the husband  in fee and until the settlement make the pound to be take as part of her  separate estate case tempt Talbot and if no settlement make during the husband  life and she survive then to remain to her but if he survive then to go to her  brother and sister the marriage take effect in and they have issue a daughter  the wife die in before the husband no purchase have be make upon a bill bring  by the daughter she have a decree against the brother and this case seem to  have be determine upon what be the intention of the party to the article for  they can not be presume to provide for the wife brother and sister before the  daughter who be the issue of that marriage and therefore the court construe  the meaning of the article to be that if the wife die before her husband  without issue then but not otherwise the money shall belong to the wife  brother and sister from and after the death of the husband sister of her  mother though the money have not be lie out within the time provide by the  article the court look upon the purchase as complete this case not only full  prove the right of the heir but likewise that he shall not lose that right  through any accident prevent the execution of agreement within the time prefix  here be no creditor no want of asset and consequent no equity to prevail  against the heir they far insist that if this covenant be to be carry into  execution it can not be do partial but be equal bind as to all party all be  equal entitle to the benefit of the execution that therefore it can not be  confine single to the purchase of land of pound per and for the lady Lechmeres  jointure but the whole must be carry through and limit to the heir in the  manner it will have be limit to the Lord Lechmere himself have he be alive the  lady Lechmere can vary the execution of the article and the covenant be to lie  out the whole sum of pound which be a entire covenant can be restrain to a  covenant for purchase of land of pound per and only for the lady Lechmeres  jointure this method will be admit the representative to contradict what the  Lord Lechmere himself have say shall be land and land for the benefit of his  heir which appear from the provision that until the land purchase interest at  pound per cent shall be pay to such person as shall be entitle to the rend of  these estate many of the case cite be not so strong as the present one be find  upon voluntary agreement which nevertheless have be carry into execution for  the benefit of the heir against the executor and insist upon that of Vernon p  will decree first by Lord king and afterward in the house of lord which case  be this a covenant on his marriage to lie out pound in land and settle it on  himself for life remainder to his wife for life remainder to the first son of  the marriage in tail male remainder to the heir male of the body of a  remainder to a s brother for life remainder to his first c son now though this  remainder seem mere voluntary and out of all the consideration of the marriage  settlement and though a as be there urge have the land be settle by he in his  lifetime may have bar the brother by a common recovery yet on a s leave only a  daughter equal compel a specific performance of the covenant versus Vernon as  a case in point and no way distinguishable from the present the matter case  tempt Talbot rest upon the covenant in that case as well as in this and the  execution of that covenant decree in favour of the heir against the wife both  in this court and in the house of lord notwithstanding all the same objection  make there in her behalf that can be make here for the defendant to the second  point they argue that the Lord Lechmere have not do any thing in his lifetime  to show his intent that these late purchase shall go in satisfaction of his  covenant in part or in the whole no suppose intent can prevail against the  heir for the administratrix she not have so good a equity as he especial see  that supposition may be as well one way as the other that the case of  satisfaction depend upon the particular circumstance of each case appear from  the case of Duffield versus smith and goodfellow in this case a man on the  marriage of his daughter give a bind to her husband for part of her portion  after which by his will he give her land of much great value and yet this be  hold to be no satisfaction although there be not asset to pay debt and there  it be lie down as a rule that where a legacy have be decree to go in  satisfaction of a debt it must have be ground u on some evidence or at least  upon a strong presumption that the testator do so intend it however this case  may be determine on another principle videlicet that money and land be of a  quite different nature the one shall never be take as a satisfaction for the  other vide p will note chaplin v chaplin ibidem versus Burkett vern and also  from the intent of the party as be most manifest from that of Saville versus  Saville where the only difference be between a descent of land in fee which by  the settlement case tempt Talbot er p be to be a satisfaction and that which  happen of a descent of land in tail of equal value of which the daughter may  by levy a fine have make themselves tenant in fee and yet hold there not to be  a satisfaction because the intent be that the feesimple land shall descend in  the present case it do not appear that the intent be that those feesimple land  shall go in satisfaction for if he have so intend he will have acquaint the  trustee with his design of perform so much of his contract by these purchase  and as no intent appear it be no more than if the Lord Lechmere have give a  bind to his heir and have then permit these land to descend upon he in which  case it can be pretend that the descent will have be a satisfaction for the  bind or that the administratrix can have defend herself against this demand by  such a argument so if he have owe pound to his next of kin the distributive  share will never have be take as a satisfaction for the debt a less thing can  go in satisfaction case tempt Talbot for a great as in atkinson and web case  vern Blandy v Widmore p will and the case and observation contain in note but  a equivalent must be give which must appear to have be intend as a  satisfaction and in that of Eastwood versus vink p will S g chaplin v chaplin  p will Barret v Beckford vern grave v earl sal shury bro Charles Rep or where  money be c Apr it be hold that a devise which be to go in satisfaction must be  of the same nature as the thing for which it be to be a equivalent and  therefore hold there that money can not go in satisfaction for land nor  copyhold for freehold c how then accord to these rule can several of these  purchase be call a satisfaction there be term reversion c which be not only  less in value but from their nature can be limit accord to the use intend by  the covenant which be to purchase freehold land and land in possession and it  be therefore very strange to think that the Lord Lechmere shall lake purchase  and intend they to go in satisfaction of his covenant which he very well know  can not from their nature or their value answer any description of those he  have agree to purchase such a construction beside its absurdity will go in  direct contradiction to the well know maxim that a heir be not to be  disinherit by a constructive but a necessary implication only Mr  attorneygeneral Mr solicitor general Mr Verney and Mr fazakerly argue for the  defendant that the consideration upon which this covenant be make extend no  far than to the lady Lechmere and the child of the marriage but not at all to  the heir who therefore can be look upon but as a mere volunteer and as such  have no claim to any equity that the name the heir in the covenant be only to  show what shall become of the land when the other limitation shall be spend  and the provision that the interest shall be pay to such as shall be entitle  to the rend a profit of the estate be no more than what must have be if it  have not be insert and so fall within the rule of expulsion out the dawn c  that it be necessary to explain for what purpose the five hundred year term be  raise and to provide that case tempt Talbot in case of failure of daughter it  shall sink in the inheritance in order to prevent its become legal asset which  it must otherwise have do that here be a great difference between a limitation  to the heir of the body and a general remainder to one and his heir the heir  be in the former case under the immediate contemplation of the party but not  so in the latter and that this court consider even a covenant but as naked  bargain in the case of volunteer for though it be a court of conscience yet  that be only to aid such as be in conscience entitle to a performance of the  covenant which can be say of a volunteer unless he by some particular  circumstance take himself out of the general rule then as to the nature of the  obligation here be no trustee appoint but the whole rest single upon the Lord  Lechmeres covenant which be but a personal lie and must fail whenever he  himself become entitle to the benefit of what be to be perform by that  obligation the rule that what be covenant to be do be look upon as do hold  only in case where somewhat be vest either in trustee or some other manner  whereupon the covenant may be a lie but not where it be a mere personal  obligation as in this case the whole remain in the person own hand this  difference appear from the case of Lingen versus Sowray Eq Cas Abr p will S c  Prec in Chanc S c where there be as appear by the decretal order a assignment  of security to trustee to be lie out in land and to be settle the trustee do  not actual receive the security but sometime after the marriage the husband  call in part of the money himself and settle it upon the same person as it be  to have be settle upon by the marriage settlement he afterward make his will  and devise his personal estate to his wife against who a bill be bring by the  nephew as heir at law and it appear that case tempt Talbot er p pound remain  upon the same security at his death as at the time of settlement it be decree  that the pound shall be look upon as land but that the other part that be  actual take out by he shall not be bind and the court will not in that case  admit the representative of the covenantor to say that his case tempt Talbot  ancestor have break his covenant the like distinction in the case of chaplin  versus Horner p will S c where money be covenant to be lie out in the purchase  of land and to be settle on a in fee and a himself have afterward receive part  of this money hold to be a good payment and not to be repay by a s executor to  his heir but a s heir be decree to be entitle to the remainder of the money  not receive by a march at the bolls and in that of Chichester versus  Bickerstaff where upon sir John Chichester marry the daughter of sir Charles  Bickerstaff sir Charles article to pay pound as part of his daughter portion  which together with pound more to be advance by sir John Chichester be within  three year after the marriage to be invest in land and settle on sir John  Chichester for life remainder to his intend wife for life remainder to their  first c son in tail male remainder to the daughter in tail remainder to the  right heir of sir John the husband within a year after the marriage and his  lady both fall in of the small pox the wife die first and three day after sir  John die without issue have make his will and appoint his sister Frances  Chichester his residuary legatee sir Arthur Chichester the brother and heir  bring his bill claim the money thus agree to be lie out in land the remainder  in fee whereof in case of failure of issue of the marriage be to go to the  heir of the decease husband say per curian this money which will have be land  as to the issue of the marriage yet now the husband and wife be dead without  issue be turn into money again and under the power of the husband to dispose  of it as he please it shall have go to his administrator have there be no will  a strong will it in the present case go to his residuary legatee vide infra p  note a vern it be hold that though money shall in many case be consider as  land when bind by article in order to a purchase make yet while it remain  still money it shall be deem part of the personal estate of such person who  may have alien the land in case a purchase have en make and in the case of the  countess of Warwick and Edward knight versus Atkins lancey versus Fairchild in  this case money by marriage article be to be lie out in land and settle on the  husband and wife and their issue remainder to the heir of the wife the wife  die in the lifetime of the husband and decree for the heir of the wife against  her administrator and Sweetapple versus bindon vern the sum be appropriate and  stand out in trustee hand and so not like this case and in that of knight  versus Atkins the plaintiff be both heir and executor as appear in Chan Rep  indeed the case of Vernon and Vernon in the house of lord rest upon a bare  covenant but there be a express provision that the brother shall have the  benefit of the covenant there be a express estate limit to he upon which he  may have have remedy against Mr Vernon himself in his lifetime but it can be  pretend that the plaintiff can in this case have have any remedy against the  Lord Lechmere in his lifetime Lord Lechmere can have limit the remainder to  any other of his relation in bar of his heir at law in the case of Cann and  Cann vern the court refuse compel the executrix to lie out the money in a  purchase of land whereof the husband will by the article have be tenant in  tail the objection that the covenant be entire and consequent can not be  partial execute be endeavour to be answer by say that the lady Lechmere do not  come here to have the covenant carry into execution but be ready to wave all  the pretention she have under this covenant unless the court shall think the  heir entitle to have it carry into execution and conclude this point by say  the heir be as much a stranger to that be covenant as the natural daughter be  hold to be to the covenant for far assurance in Foresakers and Robinson be  case Eq Cas Abr and that the Lord Lechmere have live several year after his  enter into case tempt Talbot this covenant and have never carry it into  execution this long surceasing be to be take as a change in his intention and  consequent the heir not entitle to a performance as to the second point they  argue that if the heir be entitle to have a specific performance of this  covenant the descent of land to the value of above pound which he take from  the Lord Lechmere must be look upon as a satisfaction that wherever a thing be  to be do either upon a condition or within a time pertain yet if a recompense  can be make which agree in substance though perhaps not in every formal  circumstance such a recompense shall be good and shall go in satisfaction of  the thing covenant to be do in the case of Wilcox and Wilcox vern the descent  of land of the same value be hold a satisfaction though in that case the son  be a purchaser which the heir be not in the present case and in that of Blandy  versus Widmore vern p will S c the husband have covenant to leave his wife  pound at his death and die intestate whereupon her distributive share come to  pound this be hold to be a satisfaction and in case of portion they be hold to  be satisfy either by a devise or where give by will be likewise hold to be  satisfy by a gift in the party lifetime though the will do not take effect  till his death Lord chancellor the first question be whether the plaintiff the  heir at law to the lord Lechmere be entitle to of specific performance of this  covenant it have be consider by the plaintiff counsel as a argument of the  lord Lechmere and a intent in he to lie out this whole sum of pound in land at  all event on the other hand the defendant counsel have insist that the design  go no far than the provide for the lady Lechmere and the issue of the marriage  the intent seem to I to be that the pound shall at all event be lie out in  case tempt Talbot land the produce whereof be to be secure to the issue of the  marriage who in this case must have take as purchaser but as to the remainder  in fee I do not think that the look upon the Lord Lechmere either as a  purchaser of it or not will vary the case since have the covenant be silent  the remainder must have return to the person from who the estate move and I  think it quite the same whether he be consider as a purchaser or as a  volunteer the dispute not be between the heir and a three person but between  the two representative of the Lord Lechmere the one of his real the other of  his personal estate case tempt Talbot er p the heir be but a volunteer in  regard to his ancestor will not exclude he from the aid of this court but  though the question be between two volunteer the court will determine which  way the right be and decree accord we must therefore see whether the pound be  upon this covenant to be look upon as real or personal estate it seem to be  allow on both side that have the money be deposit in trustee hand it must have  be look upon as a real estate and the heir entitle to the benefit of it this I  say seem to be grant and no authority against it but what have be collect from  the case of Chichester versus Bickerstaff vern with respect to this case it be  remarkable that the wife die within three year after the marriage during which  period the purchase be to be make so that the time be not come within which  the money be to be lie out and till then it continue money or possible the  court have some evidence to induce they to believe sir John Chichester look on  the money as personal estate Vid ante also note p will it be probable that in  that case the court go upon some reason which induce it to think that sir John  Chichester look upon that money as personal estate for otherwise the authority  of that case be not to be maintain be contrary to all the former resolution  and to a late one in the house of lord by which I be bind videlicet that of  the countess of Warwick versus Edward p will S c in this case money be article  to be lie out in land and settle on the husband and wife and the issue of the  marriage remainder to the heir of the husband there be issue but such issue  die without issue before the money be lie out and decree that the money be to  be look upon as land and shall go to the heir and which decree be afterward  affirm in the house of lord where the money be decree to go as land though to  a collateral heir who be not within the consideration of the settlement so  that it be now a settle point that where the security be appropriate the shall  go as land not only to the issue of the marriage but likewise to a collateral  general remainderman unless there appear some variation in the party intent  and indeed it be very reasonable that it shall be so for otherwise the neglect  case tempt Talbot of trustee or any other accident may overthrow all man  agreement and contract enter into upon the best and most valuable  consideration but it have be object that this case differ from all those for  that the money be never deposit but remain in the Lord Lechmeres own hand and  that he only be the debtor so now the question be whether this will make any  difference a heir can no more be look upon as a creditor against his ancestor  than he can be look upon as a purchaser under he he take with the several  burden that his ancestor lie upon he and as on the one hand the Lord Lechmere  bind himself by his covenant W lie out this sum of pound in land he on the  other acquire a right to a estate for life and to a remainder in fee which by  his death be now sever and the remainder only descend upon the heir if a man  article for a purchase and bind himself his heir executor and administrator he  may as well be call in that case both covenantor and covenantee as in the  present one but yet the heir be entitle to have the purchase complete and may  compel the executor to do it because their right be different as appear from  the case of holt versus holt ante vern and wherever a man design appear to  turn his personal estate into land this give his heir a advantage which this  court will never take from he nun of the case cite warrant this present  distinction that be endeavour at and in reason I be sure there be nothing to  warrant it the intent and agreement of the party be the same in both case  which if effectual in one case I can see why it shall not be so in the other  the only case from which any thing like this distinction can be collect be  that of Lingen and Sowray ante but I be no way satisfy that that case be  resolve upon that reason for in that case the husband have alter the trust and  the limitation of it beside in that case nobody have any interest in it but he  and his wife and the court as appear by the decree lie great stress upon the  change of his intent appear by change the trust but here no change appear the  intent remain as it be at the time of the case tempt Talbot covenant enter  into and consequent a very wide difference between the two case in the case  chaplin versus Horner ante the husband alone be to have the benefit of the  article and therefore not at all like the present case I therefore think that  this case fall within the common know rule that money article to be lie out in  land be to be look upon as land the Lord Lechmere be bind at the time of his  death to lie out this money in land by which he gain a right to a estate for  life with a remainder in fee and the estate for life be determine by the death  the right which he have to the remainder descend upon his heir and as it come  by his death nothing that have be do by the lady Lechmere either as to the  waiver of her jointure or any thing else can alter or defeat that right indeed  to suppose it will be absurd the case upon satisfaction be general between  debtor and creditor and the heir be no creditor but only stand in his ancestor  place one rule of satisfaction be that it depend upon the intent of the party  and that which way soever the intent be that way it must be take but this be  to be understand with some restriction as that the thing intend for a  satisfaction be of the same kind or a great thing case tempt Talbot er p in  satisfaction of a lesser ante the case cite in note for if otherwise this  court will compel a man to be just before he be generous and so will decree  both but these question be no way material in this case which turn entire upon  my Lord Lechmeres intent at the time of these purchase make those make before  the covenant can never have be design to go in performance of the subsequent  covenant his intent be clear that the whole sum of pound shall be lie out from  the time of the covenant then there be term with covenant to purchase the fee  but term be not descendible to the heir and so no satisfaction the like of  reversion especial see the life do not fall in during the Lord Lechmeres own  life but as to the purchase of land in feesimple in possession it be to be  consider that there case tempt Talbot be no obligation upon the Lord Lechmere  to lie out the whole sum at one time now here be land in possession land of  inheritance purchase which though not purchase with the privity of trustee yet  it be natural for the Lord Lechmere to suppose that the trustee will not  dissent from those purchase be entire reasonable the design of insert trustee  be not to prevent proper but improper purchase and though they be not purchase  within the year yet nobody suffer by it and so this circumstance can vary the  intent of the party in a court of equity the intent be that as soon as the  whole be lie out it shall be settle together and not to make half a score of  settlement in the case of Wilcox and Wilcox vern the covenant be not perfect  nothing do towards it strict but some step take by the ancestor which seem to  be intend that way and it be as reasonable to suppose these purchase to have  be intend to satisfy this covenant in the present case as it be to suppose it  so in that and so vary the decree as to this point only videlicet as to the  feesimple land in possession purchase since the covenant His lordship declare  that the late Lord Lechmeres covenant in his marriage article to invest the  sum of pound in the purchase of freehold message c of a estate of inheritance  in feesimple in possession to be settle to the use therein mention ought to be  perform and do order the same accord and it appear that the say Lord Lechmere  after the say article and after his marriage purchase some message and land  for pound and other land for pound make in the whole the sum of pound his  lordship declare that the same ought to be apply towards performance of the  say covenant and that the sum of pound S be the residue of the say pound over  and above the say sum of pound invest in the say purchase ought to be raise  out of the personal estate of the say Lord Lechmere and invest in the purchase  of freehold message c to to settle to such of the use contain in the say  marriage article as be still subsist and it be further order that the land  beforementioned to have be purchase by the late Lord Lechmere and such other  land as shall be purchase with the say pound S be convey to the use follow  videlicet as to such and so much of the land c as shall amount to and be of  the clear yearly value of pound to the use of the say lady Lechmere for her  life for her jointure and in lieu of her dower and after her decease to the  use of the plaintiff Edmund Lechmere and his heir and that the residue of the  say estate be convey to the use of the say plaintiff Edmund Lechmere and his  heir and it be further order that the master do compute interest at pound per  cent per and for the say sum of pound S from the death of the say Lord  Lechmere and that the say sum of pound per annum to be pay thereout to or  retain by the say lady Lechmere in satisfaction of the arrear of her jointure  of pound ayear that the surplus interest over and above the say ayear be pay  to the say plaintiff Edmund Lechmere and that the grow interest of the say  pound S be apply in like manner until the same be invest in the purchase of  land as before direct and the lady Lechmere be direct to account for the  personal estate of Lord Lechmere and all party to be pay their cost out of the  personal estate of Lord Lechmere to be tax by the master Reg lib a fol case  tempt Talbot er p a give a bind to b her servant to pay her pound per annum  quarterly for her life free from tax and by will take no notice of the bind  devise to her pound per annum for her life Payable half yearly but not say to  be free from tax Lord Kee per the annuity devise not so beneficial as that  secure by bind that which be less not to be presume in satisfaction of that  which be great and decree the annuity additional and not as give in lieu or  satisfaction of the bind vide also Duffield v smith vern master v master p  will Chanc case ibidem Cuthbert v Peacooke salk Thomas v Bennet p will  Crompton v sale ibidem Graham v Graham Ves Nicholes v Judson atk spark v robin  and cope ibidem clark v jewel atk heather v rider atk Haynes v mico bro  Charles Rep Jeacock v Falkner bro Charles Rep Devese v Pontel report by Mr  finch in a note upon the case of brown v Dawson in his edition of Prec in  Chanc p at the roll Michaelmas Rickman v Morgan bro Charles Rep case tempt  Talbot er p in this case a man upon his marriage covenant to purchase land of  pound per and and to settle they on himself for life remainder to his wife for  life for her jointure remainder to his first son in tail male remainder to his  daughter in tail and the father purchase land of pound per and after which he  make no settlement but permit they to descend whereupon this be decree to be a  satisfaction of the covenant the book take notice that the land be worth pound  per and which import that they be just of that value and this plain show that  the land be fight with a intention to satisfy the covenant and the old son can  not complain when he have his pound per and from his father that it be another  estate than what be covenant to be settle upon he videlicet that it be a  feesimple instead of a entail vide S p take v Hastings vern roundel v breare  vern deacon v smith atk attorneygeneral v whorwood Ves sowdon v sowdon report  by Mr Cox in his note upon Lechmere v earl of Carlisle p will at the bolls Feb  also Pultney v earl of Darlington bro Charles Rep in which all the case upon  this subject be very full consider case tempt Talbot er p