case wing against wing and other a decree be make in the court of exchequer  against tenant for life to hinder he from commit waste which decree be find on  a deed of settlement and upon a bill now bring to set that deed aside the  defendant plead the decree in the exchequer which be overrule S c Eq ab this  be a bill bring by the father against his own son and against the father of  his wife to have a deed of settlement set aside because not make pursuant to  the article of marriage between he and his wife wherein the plaintiff suggest  that he be impose on and set forth several instance of oppression by the  contrivance of his own son and his fatherinlaw particular that it be agree in  and by the marriagearticle between the plaintiff and his wife on their  intermarriage to settle his wife estate which be the estate now in contest on  the plaintiff and his wife for their life without impeachment of waste  remainder to their issue but that afterward a deed of settlement be make by  which the plaintiff and his wife be make tenant for life only and by  consequence subject to be impeach for waste that the plaintiff wife die and  then his son the defendant marry the daughter of the other defendant who be a  attorney and entrust with all modern report the plaintiff paper and who very  well know all this matter and that the plaintiff have afterward discover a  leadmine in the premise and make a lease thereof to one Jones for twentyone  year with power to dig for lead over and enter into a covenant for quiet  enjoyment and become bind in a obligation of fifteen hundred pound penalty  condition for performance of covenant by virtue of which lease the lessee  enter and dig for lead over but be obstruct by the defendant whereupon the  lessee bring his action against the now plaintiff who be arrest and commit for  want of bail to the action and all this be do by the contrivance of the  defendant and their agent the defendant plead a decree make in the court of  the exchequer in favour of the son against his father to hinder he or his  lessee to open any i or dig for lead over and that a perpetual injunction be  grant against the now plaintiff the counsel for the defendant argue to  maintain this plea that there be a perpetual injunction against the now  plaintiff in a court which have a proper jurisdiction and can enforce a  obedience to their decree it will be inconsistent to have a contrary decree  make between the same party in this court while the first decree stand  unreversed therefore to obviate that inconveniency it be insist for the  defendant that this plea may be allow beside the plaintiff as it be prove in  this cause and as it appear in this deed of settlement which he will now avoid  have a power to charge this estate with two hundred and fifty pound which may  be a consideration for the leave out or for his not insist to have a estate  for life without impeachment of waste which sum be at that time a smart charge  on the land be then of the value of thirty pound per annum and no more though  since the make the say article and settlement the estate be very much improve  by a casual discovery of some treasure in the bowel of the earth but that can  be a reason to make a equitable construction of this agreement now if this  settlement shall be set aside it may be difficult to know what estate the  plaintiff will insist on for probable he may insist on a estatetail by virtue  of the article the limitation be to he and his wife for their life remainder  to their issue and by this mean will strip the defendant of any benefit he may  claim to those land modern report therefore since there be a decree make in  the court of exchequer for the now defendant against a tenant for life to  hinder he from commit waste or dig i and a perpetual injunction for that  purpose for these reason it be insist that this plea may stand for that this  court can control a decree make in the court of exchequer which be equal bind  with a decree of this court the counsel for the plaintiff argue that this plea  may be overrule for that the decree of the court of exchequer be find on this  very deed of settlement which modern report er p the plaintiff will now avoid  and of which he now complain for that decree be to subsist and to be support  by that deed therefore it be inconsistent to plead that to the plaintiff which  he endeavour by this suit to avoid beside the defendant have not make any  answer to that part of the bill wherein the plaintiff pray a account of the  lead over already dig by the defendant for this decree and injunction on which  he rely be only to hinder the plaintiff to dig for over in this land but it  give the defendant no right to dig there during the life of the plaintiff  neither do it preclude he from have a account of what be already dig by the  defendant or his agent moreover a decree may be obtain in the court of  exchequer by fraud as well as a judgement in the court of commonlaw and though  this court can reverse either yet when the fraud and practice appear they may  compel the party to take no advantage thereof as be against all conscience and  equity now it appear that this decree be obtain by fraud and oppression for  the attorney who be one of the defendant in this cause and who daughter marry  the plaintiff son have all the paper of the plaintiff in his possession and  conceal they while the proceed in the exchequer be carry on against he so that  he can not make any defence in that cause for want of the article which he  suppress and it be in proof that the now plaintiff be in custody at the time  this decree be make and long before and that it be make ex part upon a  affidavit of serve he with a subpoena so that it be obtain by fraud in  suppress the article it can be a bar to the plaintiff to have a account of the  profit and to have this deed set aside modern report it be admit by the  defendant counsel that by the article the plaintiff be to have a estate for  life without impeachment of waste but it be insinuate that before the deed of  settlement be execute the party come to a new agreement by which the plaintiff  have power to charge the estate with two hundred and fifty pound and that may  be the reason why that clause without impeachment of waste be leave out of the  settlement which be very true if the fact be so but that very sum be likewise  mention in the article which the plaintiff be to have and receive out of his  wife estate and it be not pretend that it be ever pay the court be of opinion  that the decree in the court of exchequer and the injunction to stay waste be  find on this deed of settlement which if set aside the other must fall of  course and that there be such a appearance of hardship and oppression in this  cause that the court hold it reasonable to overrule this plea and tell the  defendant counsel that at the hear of the cause they may take what advantage  they can thereof and then the court will consider how far this decree in the  exchequer shall conclude this court in this cause