case sir edward Mansell Bart plaintiff raleigh Mansell Esq all defendant Lord  chancellor king chief justice Raymond Lord chief baron Reynolds can tempt Tal  Eq can ab pl pl trustee for support contingent remainder join to destroy they  guilty of a breach of trust and no diversity whether the settlement be  voluntary or for a valuable consideration or by will only Edward Vaughan Esq  seize in fee of land in Carmarthenshire of pound per annum make his will date  the that of November and devise the premise to trustee sir Edward Mansell and  Arthur Mansell and their heir to the use of his sister Dorothy Loyd widow for  her life remainder to the say trustee and their heir during the life of  Dorothy in trust to preserve contingent remainder remainder to the use of the  first c son of Dorothy in tail male successive remainder to the use of the  testator cousin Edward Mansell in fee soon after which the testator die  without issue Dorothy Loyd the devisee for life enter and intermarries with  sir Edward Mansell the plaintiff father afterward sir Edward Mansell and  Dorothy his wife together with Edward Mansell the remainderman in fee join in  a feoff to trustee to the use of sir Edward Mansell the husband of Dorothy and  peer William his heir and covenant by the same indenture to levy a fine at the  next grand session to be hold for the county of Carmarthen to the same trustee  and to the same use the trustee for preserve the contingent remainder in the  will by indenture of lease and release date the d and that of July convey the  premise to sir Edward Mansell the husband of Dorothy in fee she at that time  be peer William er p ensient with a son on the that of August follow dame  Dorothy have issue by sir Edward Mansell her husband a son the plaintiff now  sir Edward Mansell and afterward several other child subsequent to which sir  Edward Mansell the father make his will and be seize in fee of diverse other  land beside what be the Vaughan estate devise all his land and tenement in  general word to his son the plaintiff for life remainder to his first c son in  tail male successive remainder to the second son of sir Edward Mansell by  Dorothy for life with remainder to his first c son in tail male successive and  die leave several son dame Dorothy his wife also die the plaintiff the old son  of the marriage be bar at law of his remainder in tail by the join of the  trustee before his birth bring his bill to have the benefit of the will of his  uncle Edward Vaughan whereby the premise be devise to his mother Dorothy for  life only remainder to trustee during her life to preserve contingent  remainder with remainder to her first son the plaintiff in tail and that the  plaintiff may have the benefit of the settlement and be reinstate in the  premise as if there have be no breach of trust this point videlicet whether  trustee for preserve contingent remainder join before the birth of a son in  destroy they peer William be guilty of a breach of trust be a matter of great  consequence be reserve for the opinion of the court who now with the  concurrence of the Lord Raymond chief justice of b r and the Lord chief baron  Reynolds decree the same to be a breach of trust in they and herein saint it  be resolve that the feoff and fine by sir Edward Mansell and Dorothy his wife  do not destroy the contingent remainder to the first c son of Dorothy but that  the right to the freehold in the trustee do support they dly that when the  trustee join in the lease and release to sir Edward Mansell the plaintiff  father and his heir this destroy the contingent remainder dly that the join of  the trustee to destroy such remainder be a plain breach of trust and though  this have not be before judicial determine yet it seem to the court in common  sense reason and justice to be capable of no other construction for when  trustee be appoint to preserve a estate in a family and for no other purpose  and they instead of preserve it do a wilful act with a intent and in order to  destroy it how can this be otherwise than a plain breach of trust or how can  it be render clear than by bare put the case Q shall the court hold it no  breach of trust or pass it by with impunity it will be make proclamation that  the trustee in all the great settlement in England be at liberty to destroy  what they have be entrust only to preserve indeed where a estate be limit to a  for life remainder to his first c son in tail though it be a plain wrong and  tort in he to do any act which will destroy those contingent peer William  remainder before the birth of a son notwithstanding his legal power of do so  yet as in this case there be no trustee there can be no trust nor consequent  any breach of trust and therefore a court of equity may have no cognizance of  such a case nor handle for relief the matter be leave pure to the commonlaw  but to prevent this inconvenience have the remedy of appoint trustee be invent  on purpose to disable the tenant for life from do such injury to his issue  which be not a very old invention now as it be a tort in the tenant for life  where there be no trustee to destroy contingent remainder so must it more  plain be one in trustee to join in the destruction of they be contrary to  their trust upon which account only be such act of they punishable in a court  of equity then as to the remedy have the premise be convey to one without  notice and for a valuable consideration such purchaser must have hold the land  discharge of the trust and the son of the marriage who be injure by the breach  of trust have take his remedy against the trustee only who will have be decree  to purchase land with their own money equal in value to the land sell and to  hold they upon the same trust and limitation as they hold those sell by they  but even in case of a purchase if the purchaser have notice of the trust which  the trustee be subject to as annex to their estate such notice will have make  he liable to the same trust so there have be a voluntary conveyance make of  this estate though without notice the voluntary grantee will have stand in the  place of the grantors and have be liable to the trust in the same manner as  the trustee themselves be but in the present case it be much strong for here  be not only notice of the trust but the conveyance itself voluntary and make  to sir Edward peer William Mansell the plaintiff peer William er p father who  be the tenant for life and be himself sharing in sin nay one for who sake and  interest all this have be do so that the land convey by these trustee must now  remain liable to the same trust as they be when the trustee join in the  conveyance to sir Edward Mansell as to what have be mention from pollexfen Rep  that trustee be never punish in equity when they break their trust that be say  by Mr pollexfen when of counsel argue only and it be observable that still  this say admit it to be a breach of trust which of course seem punishable in a  court of equity however to outweigh this there be the case of pie and gorge  Vol report in salk which be of great authority than the dictum of pollexfen as  counsel it be there declare by Lord Harcourt though not decree as the book say  that trustee for preserve contingent remainder be punishable as for a breach  of trust if they join in a conveyance to destroy they and for Englefields case  in vern where there be a destruction of a contingent remainder that be  determine only upon the fraud appear therein beside there be no trustee there  can be no trust nor consequent any breach thereof it have be contend that  though in all settlement on marriage or for other valuable consideration it  will be a breach of trust in the trustee to join in the destroy contingent  remainder yet it be otherwise in case of remainder create by a will or other  voluntary settlement but in reality it be as much a breach of trust in one  case as in the other it can be deny but that if I make a voluntary conveyance  in trust for myself and my trustee sell the estate or convey it to peer  William another for any valuable consideration without notice I have  notwithstanding a remedy against they f or this breach of trust and whether  they do it by a voluntary conveyance or not be not material for still every  trustee ought to be faithful to his trust with regard to the case of Ely or  else versus Osborn vern where the marriage settlement be to the use of the  husband f or ninetynine year if he so long live remainder to trustee during  the life of the husband to preserve contingent remainder remainder to the wife  for her jointure remainder to the heir of the body of the husband by the wife  remainder to the right heir of the husband which settlement be make by the  husband and he have two son join with his wife his old son and the trustee in  a fine upon which it be object that this be a breach of trust in the trustee  the court be say to have hold it be not for that the first son be in equity as  tenant in tail and he have join with the trustee make it no breach of trust  see vol where this case be report different the report of this case be not  satisfactory it can be say that the old son where the remainder be limit to  the heir of the body of the husband by the wife can during the life of the  husband have any estate vest in he in equity more than he have at law for no  one be hres to live note this particular case be observe only by Lord Raymond  and as to that of winnington versus Foley vol where land be settle on marriage  to the husband for ninetynine year if he shall so long live remainder to  trustee to preserve contingent remainder remainder to the first c son of the  marriage in tail male successive remainder to the first c son by any other  marriage in tail male the husband have a son the wife die and the son be about  a advantageous match the survive trustee apprehend himself to be a trustee for  all the son will not join in a recovery without a decree which peer William be  accord have direct he to join therein one reason of that decree be for that  this by make the son tenant for life instead of tenant in tail will be a mean  of I preserve the estate the long in the family but Lord Macclesfield then  chancellor moreover observe that the wife of Mr winnington the father be dead  there can be no more contingent remainder within the consideration of the  marriage settlement and therefore it be reasonable to decree the trustee to  join but in the present case there be none of these circumstance no decree for  the trustee to join can possible have be obtain here with regard to the case  of pie and gorge mention above where a three person settle land on the husband  for ninetynine year if he shall so long live remainder to trustee and their  heir during the life of the husband to support contingent remainder remainder  to the first c son of the husband by the marriage remainder to the right heir  of the husband the husband wife and trustee join in a sale of the premise  after which the husband and wife die without ever have have issue a remote  heir bring his bill to be relieve against this conveyance as a breach peer  William er p of trust which bill be dismiss for that such remote heir be not  intend to be provide for by that settlement to bring that determination to  this case it must be suppose that two a son have afterward be bear the Lord  chancellor will not have declare it a breach of trust whereas his lordship do  here actual declare it to be a dangerous experiment for trustee in any case to  destroy remainder which they be appoint by the settlement to preserve the case  of plate versus spring vern where a man have mortgage and encumber his estate  settle it on himself for life remainder to trustee during his life to peer  William preserve contingent remainder remainder to his wife for life remainder  to their first c son in tail the husband have no issue article to sell to one  who bring his bill for a specific execution of the article and to compel the  trustee to join in conveyance and it appear that the mortgagee threaten to  enter and foreclose and the wife of the vendor consent in court to a sale the  trustee thereupon be decree to join now it be to be observe first that there  do not appear in this case ever to have be issue second that the mortgagee may  have swallow up all by his mortgage and three that as be do in the case of  winnington versus Foley the trustee be decree to join whereas no such  circumstance be find in the present case beside where the husband and wife be  much in year have no prospect of issue and the estate in debt the court may  perhaps have former go so far as to decree trustee to join in a sale which  however be go too far but the principal case appear be a quite different  aspect the marry couple young the wife ensient when else trustee join to bar  the remainder and the conveyance by the trustee make on purpose to bar this  child then so near its birth so that be there no precedent for relief yet the  reason and justice of the case be so strong that unless precedent can be  produce in the very point against it the act of the trustee ought to be deem a  breach of trust and punish as such and therefore the land in the hand of the  voluntary grantee must be affect with and liable to the trust let all party  join in make such a estate to the plaintiff as he will have be entitle to  under Mr Vaughan will if these contingent remainder have not be destroy that  be a estate in tail male c Reg lib b fol on this subject vide Basset v Clapham  ante vol in Barnard v large before sir Thomas jewel master of the roll July  the d Amb bro c c Francis Barnard by will devise freehold and copyhold estate  to t c Barnard for year if he shall so long live remainder to the defendant  large during the life of t c Barnard in trust to preserve contingent remainder  remainder to the first and other son of t c Barnard in tail male remainder to  I wall in fee t c Barnard have issue only one son who have attain year of age  and the father and son now file a bill against large the trustee and wall the  remainderman state that they be desirous of suffer a recovery and limit the  estate so as to preserve the contingent remainder to the second and other son  of t c Barnard and pray that large the trustee may be decree to join in make a  tenant to the prcipe for that purpose submit to declare the use of the  recovery to the second and other son of t c Barnard by way of contingent  remainder as limit by the will and to limit a estate to a trustee for the  purpose of support and preserve those contingent remainder his honour observe  that with respect to remainder to remote relation in settlement where the  person to who they be limit be not the immediate object of the party or where  they stand in opposition to the first tenant in tail desire a reasonable  benefit consistent with the intention of the creator of the limitation their  pretention have not be much consideredbut in the principal case all take as  volunteer and be all equal to be attend to his honour then consider the  several case on this subject and say that from a view of they all it seem that  when the old son tenant in tail be of age and about to marry and thereby  continue instead of destroy the purpose of the settlement and in some case  where there have be particular distress under particular circumstance which  ought to have induce the trustee to join the court have interfere otherwise  not that in the principal case he be call upon to disturb the testator  disposition mere for the sake of disturb it for which he see no reason and  dismiss the bill with cost peer William er p