coal v gibson July marriage brocage article before marriage to secure annuity  out of wife estate to her servant who have influence over her and bind for  pound the bind deliver up and a new grant of the annuity after marriage the  consideration of the bind and annuity direct to be try see Scribblehill v  Brett bro p c octavo edit vide also Ves sen Ves sen in on a treaty of marriage  between Philip Bennet and miss Hallam then about twenty year old article be  enter into to which be make party the intend husband and wife the defendant  and Mr Ralph Allen the first clause therein be for secure a annuity of pound  to the defendant out of the wife estate but every other provision therein for  benefit of the wife and issue of the marriage be make revocable by the wife  after the marriage shall be have about the same time with the article a bind  be give by Mr Bennet before the marriage to pay the defendant pound which bind  be afterward deliver up to be cancel but at what particular time do not appear  a recovery be afterward suffer to the use of the article in a new grant be  make to the defendant of this annuity which be continue to be pay for some  time after the wife death but the present bill be now bring to set it aside  Prec Chan vern Eq Abr Chan Rep vern vern salk wms vol atk atk ante in these  case bind in fraud of marriage agreement have be relieve against but in win  such a bind be hold good as it will be injurious to a former agreement make on  a valuable consideration and prior in point of time vesey senior for plaintiff  whether plaintiff be entitle to relief against this annuity depend on two  question whether it be not in all the form of it a marriagebrocage contract as  be the price on the sale of the lady and if so whether any acquiescence  payment or act by plaintiff alone or by plaintiff and his wife will prevent  the go into consideration of the ground of the agreement and the give relief  it will appear that defendant be hire at wage and be a nurserymaid in the lady  family and get so absolute a power and control over her from her mother death  and so entire into her confidence that she can put a negative upon any match  and have the government and disposal of her the bind make part of the  transaction and be a bribe on the marriage the only other consideration set up  be gratitude and generosity in her mistress then why do not defendant stay  till after the marriage her answer admit give the bind but do not remember the  consideration the principle on which the court go be that the man give these  bind can refuse if he will succeed in what he go about if the sum to be pay on  the marriage be to three person have no influence over the party yet it be  consider as bribe they but strong in case of a parent guardian or servant have  gain a confidence because the marriage depend on it and it be have in  consequence of this one instance among other of her influence be her direct  the servant to bring her the letter of her mistress suitor and tell her she  shall not have such and such person where the relief pray arise from personal  ground of equity from imposition or the draw into what be not understand or  explain subsequent act of ratification show the plaintiff be full inform will  rebut and lake away the foundation but where the relief be upon the agreement  be corrupt and such as can not be enter into vesey senior er p though sharing  in fraud be the court will relieve for such agreement shall not stand and  there be no instance where acquiescence can sanctify a iniquitous transaction  as where usurious interest be pay for thirty year in Bosanquet v Dashwood  which be reheard your lordship agree with Lord Talbot Tal there every payment  be a ratification yet the court think it a wrong act so that no one can debar  himself from take advantage of it decree that the account shall go back game  debt be rely however often ratify if father and son clandestine agree in fraud  of the public marriage agreement and the son make a new deed of it every day  he can not be bar relief though a party for no other can have it the court  relieve for the public in general this a agreement be a gross injury to the  lady bribe the vesey senior person by who advice he be govern into the match  which otherwise she may not think proper if her reason and judgement be  exercise if such a security be take on pretence of take a account it will be  equal bad be only a colour but there be no evidence of anything due to  defendant much less a sum answerable to this annuity and the pound which  though give up make part of the transaction in duke Hamilton case for sal will  there be no personal imposition it be get before marriage and in favour of the  mother who influence be presume and whatever be presume there will be prove  here in respect of a common servant the case on this head be in tooth and I c  r octavo and show p c Arundel v and show p c hall v potter and for and p c  evidence for the plaintiff to prove the content of the bind be object to as  never do unless where the instrument itself can be have whereas it appear from  the answer read that the bind be deliver up to plaintiff and must be in his  custody for plaintiff this bill be not to be relieve against the bind for then  the objection will be good but here it be only make use of as collateral  evidence as be part of the transaction and to prove that it be on account of  the marriage and on no other consideration Lord chancellor the objection be  find on the proper and common rule of evidence and in consequence the  plaintiff can be admit to give parole evidence of the content of this bind as  the case at present stand the general rule be the best evidence shall be give  the nature of the thing will admit and therefore as to all deed write and  letter Ves sen they must be prove themselves unless under certain circumstance  as when show to be in the adverse party hand for then you will be permit to  prove the content or if show to be destroy you may then read reasonable proof  of the destruction and parole evidence to the content which be then make the  best the thing will admit vide Ves sen but as the present case stand the  plaintiff have read what be make evidence out of the answer that the bind be  execute and that the defendant deliver it up to the plaintiff which be  evidence that it be in plaintiff custody and to prove the content must be  produce a distinction be endeavour between a bill to set aside the bind or  instrument of which parole evidence be attempt to be give and a case wherein  it be make use of only by collateral evidence but there be no such distinction  in point of evidence the rule be the same whether it come in by way of  collateral evidence or the very deed which the bill be bring to impeach so it  be in the case of letter vesey senior which be always use by way if collateral  circumstantial evidence to prove the fact no bill be ever bring to set aside  letter for defendant Marriagebrocage contract be only where money be give to  procure a marriage which on its original merit the court will never suffer  this be not so if a lady of large fortune have contract a friendship during  infancy on the foundation of service and tell a man she will not marry unless  provision be make for such a person in pursuance of which the husband and wife  join to do that which the wife say she will do this be no contract for procure  the marriage she often declare that whenever she do marry she will provide for  the maintenance of defendant on account of her friendship for her it be not a  clandestine private transaction without knowledge of the person to be procure  husband and wife both join so that no injury can be to a person conusant a  contract party privy to the whole there be no evidence of a treaty with  defendant that money shall be advance or that there shall be the marriage nor  that it be carry on with her privity or application to influence her mistress  the question here be different from that in otter case vesey senior er p  particular hall v potter where the fact be admit but the consequence deny here  the defendant allow the principle if this be a marriagebrocage bind but  dispute the fact which be the single question and depend on the evidence on  both side here be sufficient to show whence the grant take its rise and that  it be fair and justifiable it shall be prove that this influence be acquire  undue or so use when acquire whereas there be no evidence of any communication  between plaintiff and defendant to do any such office as the equity of this  bill be find on in all instance of marriagebrocage it be a provisionby the  party purchase or give the bribe and never so deem where do above board and  with privity of the person who if she have be sell will not have be make party  to the contract be of a age to be sensible of such perfidy which will rather  have enrage her against the person procure it beside the plaintiff have  release to defendant Lord chancellor to be sure this court have be extreme  jealous of any contract of this kind make with a guardian or servant especial  with a servant in respect of the marriage of person over who they have a  influence note in pre Chan such consideration be hold as none vern parliament  Cas Eq ab Leon and have be just so nothing tend more to introduce improper  match and by rule establish not regard whether the match be proper or no if  bring about by a marriagebrocage contract set it aside not for to sake of the  particular instance or the person but of the public and that marriage may be  on a proper foundation therefore though a proper match as it be in hall v  potter show parliament can yet for the sake of the mischief that will be  introduce and to prevent that influence which servant more especial will gain  over young lady the court set it aside and if that be the nature of the  contract I do not know that subsequent confirmation have be permit to stand  vesey senior in the way of the relief seek I will not say there may not be  such a confirmation or release give as may release the remedy of the party for  it be bare to say that in a court of equity a man have a right of action or  suit to be relieve in equity and know the whole of the case may not release  that on whatever consideration it arise so far as regard himself but it must  be apply to that particular case do it with his eye open and know the  circumstance see Morse v royal Ves et per Lord Thurlow c Ves jun nothing be  sufficient show in this case to release and discharge that relief the  plaintiff may have on the ground of the marriagebrocage contract there be no  recital or collateral evidence that it be apply or intend to be apply to any  right of action or suit the plaintiff may have to be relieve against this  contract and it now appear by the defendant own show on a plea put into a bill  call her to account for the money receive that she plead the release only to  that particular relief seek by the bill that pray a account not as to the  relief against the be contract and grant of this annuity and be therefore to  be restrain as the defendant herself have restrain it it be common in equity  to restrain a general release Ves sen to what be under consideration at the  time of give it so that this release must be lie out of the case nor will the  annuitys be grant after the marriage alter the case for in that great  authority in Lord Coventys time of Arundel v Trevillian Ch Rep the bind for  performance be give after marriage the husband have his hand free yet the  court even so long ago do not suffer it to prevail in these case therefore  such a sort of confirmation or subsequent act have not be consider nor in  other case where there be remedy on like ground as in private clandestine  agreement in contradiction of the public marriage agreement as by husband to  return part of his wife fortune without the privity of his own relation for  unless something release or bar his action the court will never suffer such  subsequent act to bar it but notwithstanding all this be true with the rule of  the court be so yet undoubted a husband or wife or both together may with the  privity of each other at the time of the marriage agree to give a sum of money  or a annuity by way of reward to a old servant for service perform which when  do with their eye open by both free from any imputation or contract in respect  of the marriage to be have but bare from the must set it aside the case oh by  one of the contract or generosity the court will not interpose to ge bind have  be general where grant privity of the other but if both agree to give on the  marriage no impose can presume on one more than the other though that be a  pretty odd transaction to agree by the article on the marriage vesey senior so  to do but where the court do not interpose on the motive of gratitude for  service perform vesey senior er p before and long attendance the court be to  look very narrow into it to see that that be the real consideration for as it  be a pretence easy to be make and have be often the court be to see that it be  clear of marriagebrocage and that one consideration do not long all evidence  out of the case relate to the stand in place of the other lie all the evidence  out of the case relate to the marriagebrocage I do not like the transaction on  the grant of the annuity itself which be the very first clause in the article  and the only part thereof not subject to power of revocation which be a very  strange transaction for though the power be in the wife herself she be in a  very different situation after marriage as her husband may prevail over her by  good or ill usage so that there be not a more uncertain or precarious way of  settle a estate then by leave the wife separate estate in her power after  marriage which be the consequence of Mr smith of Essex settle to the separate  use of his two daughter Mr Allen the other party to the article have not  execute they nor be there evidence that he know any thing of the matter this  annuity be provide by this deed for a servant who it be strong prove have gain  a very great influence over her mistress why do she not direct the letter to  be bring to the guardian who be then in the same house she ought to have do it  if this have be do by a guardian on marriage of his ware under age thoughI he  have not make himself party to the article but they be prepare with his  privity and one of the provision therein be for pound annuity to take place on  that marriage I will without any difficulty have set it aside and it appear  this servant have gain as much authority as a guardian abstract there over  from the marriagebrocage it be not to be countenance unless support by better  proof of the intent of both party to make some provision for her but how be  this connect with any agreement that can be call a marriagebrocage agreement  that depend on the evidence which be not clear but liable to uncertainty yet  it be under very great suspicion as it now stand before I it appear that it be  the brother f defendant who introduce Mr Bennet to this lady it be open that  the bind be on consideration to pay pound on the marriage but that be not  prove and it must be take that the cancel bind be in plaintiff custody but how  do it stand on the answer the not remember the consideration induce a  suspicion for it be impossible that the defendant who have nothing can have  forget the consideration of give her pound if the bind be give as plaintiff  say to pay pound on the marriage and when the annuity be make secure by the  recovery and declaration of the use the bind be give up it will be very strong  evidence of this be a marriagebrocage bind as be give for the marriage and  afterward the annuity be grant on the bond vesey senior be give up which will  tack they both together but if the transaction shall appear to stand clear of  corrupt management in respect of the marriage and that the grant of the  annuity proceed from the generosity of the mistress and with common consent  and that the bind be give to secure the annuity because the mistress be under  age that may be another consideration there be strong proof of the general  influence which may be gain by proper service and make proper or improper use  of the defendant conceal consideration of the bind and so do the plaintiff it  be proper therefore to be inquire into to see what be the consideration of the  bind which must be try in Stribblehill v Brett p c it be twice try and the  lord do a very extraordinary thing determine contrary and without regard to  the verdict they must have be of opinion the issue be direct in some improper  shape for it can be suppose they set it aside as a marriagebrocage contract  upon the proof this be not like fraud in general arise on a great variety of  circumstance where it may be improper to try fraud or not fraud general I will  therefore direct three issue first whether the bind be execute in  consideration of or as a prcemium for defendant procure or assist plaintiff in  his marriage or on any other and what consideration second whether the pound  be thereby make Payable at or on the marriage or any other and what time three  whether the annuity or rentcharge be grant in consideration of the bind or  procure or assist plaintiff in his marriage or for any other and what  consideration but if the jury shall find a other consideration for the bind or  annuity or any other time for payment let it be endorse Reg lib a fol see the  find of the jury and the progress of the cause for five year to its conclusion  supplement p to vesey senior er p