brown case Charles lord Mohun appellant james duke OF hamilton and other  respondent that January Mews dig three a give a specific legacy to his niece  provide she give no trouble to my executor hold that the legatee shall release  all demand upon the testator estate and then the executor shall deliver the  legacy by article date the that of July make between the respondent the duke  of the one part and Elizabeth lady Gerard the mother of the duchess of the  other part recite the intend marriage of the respondent and that all demand on  lady Gerard be full adjust to the satisfaction of all party it be agree in  consideration thereof and to prevent all future claim and demand and to settle  between the party that the duke shall within two day after the marriage  release to the lady Gerard her executor and administrator all action suit  claim and demand whatsoever by reason of her be guardian of the person and  estate of her say daughter Elizabeth and for performance whereof the duke bind  himself to lady Gerard in pound the marriage take effect but difference soon  after arise between lady Gerard and the duke the release be not execute and  therefore the lady bring a action against the duke upon his covenant and  recover a verdict and enter up judgement thereon this proceed oblige the duke  and duchess to exhibit their bill in chancery against lady Gerard for relief a  plea and answer be put in and witness be examine but before the cause be hear  lady Gerard die whereupon the suit be revive against Charles earl of  Macclesfield her brother and executor pen this cause the earl also die have  make his will and thereby give the respondent the duchess a legacy in the  follow word videlicet I give and bequeathe to my niece the duchess of Hamilton  a pair of diamond pendant and a diamond necklace provide she give no trouble  to my executor and appoint the appellant executor the appellant have refuse to  deliver this legacy unless the respondent will give he a release pursuant to  the agreement with lady Gerard they file a new bill for the recovery of these  jewel the appellant put in a answer admit the legacy and that he be the earl  residuary legatee but insist on have a release of all claim and demand against  the lady Gerard and that such a release be what his testator intend by the  proviso annex to this legacy brown on the that of January this cause be hear  on bill and answer when the court decree that the plaintiff the duchess shall  not give the defendant any trouble as he be executor of the earl of  Macclesfield and that the defendant shall bring the jewel before a master who  be to make a estimate of the same and upon the plaintiff give security to the  value of the jewel that they brown er p will not thereafter trouble the  defendant as executor of the say earl it be order that he shall deliver the  say jewel to they from this decree the defendant appeal insist S Darell that  the respondent ought to have be decree to perform the true meaning of the  condition in the earl of macclesfield will by give the appellant such a  release as the duke have under his hand and seal agree to give the lady Gerard  her executor and administrator for that will be always construe accord to the  intent of the testator and that such a release must more especial be intend in  this case because there be no other difference between the party nor can any  other trouble be give on the other side it be contend I Sloane that no proof  be either at law or in equity to be admit of the meaning of the will but what  arise upon the word and expression of it which make not the least mention of  any such release as be insist on by the appellant nor be it reasonable to  think that the earl so intend for the legacy seem to be out of kindness to the  duchess be part of her own mother jewel and of no great value than pound  whereas the value of the matter to be release be above pound that it be not in  the power of the duchess to execute any such release nor can the proviso be  extend to the duke for he be not even mention in the will and if it can it  will be put it entire in his power whether the duchess shall or shall not have  the legacy by his give or refuse the release which be inconsistent with the  idea of a personal kindness in the testator to the duchess that the respondent  demand against lady Gerard do not affect the earl in his own right and  therefore it seem far more reasonable to construe the proviso to mean that the  duchess shall not trouble or hinder his executor in the probate of his will or  even to declare it void for be uncertain or insensible than either to avoid  the legacy or extend the construction to such a release as the appellant  contend for which if the earl have real mean he will have express himself  accord and have direct the duke to have join in the execution of it after hear  counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the decree complain of  shall be reverse and that if the duke and duchess of Hamilton shall on or  before the saint day of February and before the delivery to they of the jewel  in the appeal mention execute a sufficient release in write to the say Lord  Mohun executor to the earl of Macclesfield executor of the lady Gerard or to  his executor or administrator and also in case the say Lord Mohun shall brown  before such release give die intestate to the administrator de good non of the  say lady Gerard of all demand which they in right of the say duchess have or  claim to have to or out of the personal estate of the say lady Gerard or the  say earl of Macclesfield or of either of they the say Lord Mohun shall  forthwith deliver to they the say duke and duchess the jewel in question but  in default of the say duke and duchess give such release or if they or either  of they shall sue or prosecute for any of the say demand so to be release  within the time before limit the bill of the say duke and duchess be to stand  absolute dismiss and they be to be debar from all benefit of the say legacy  jour vol p the editor surmise that this condition be not comply with because  from wms vern salk and Eq can ab can it appear that the original cause be hear  before Lord chancellor Cowper on the that of may who set these article aside  as be in the nature of a marriagebrocage bind and order they to be deliver up  which decree do not appear to have be ever appeal from brown er p