case MALLOWNE against FITZGERARD Michaelmas term car roll follow do d Kenrick  v beauclerk east if a father give a estate in tail to his daughter provide she  marry with the consent of the trustee the estate tail be not determine by her  marry without such consent although she have notice collateral of the  condition on which the estate be give SC Mod SC skin SC Eq Abr Writ of error  out of Ireland on a judgement in ejectment special verdict find that John  Fitzgerard be seize in fee of the land in question make a settlement of they  on himself for life on Katherine his daughter and the heir of her body lawful  beget and in default of such issue on Letitia and the heir of her body lawful  beget remainder on his own right heir with a proviso that if Katherine marry  without the consent of three of his five trustee or a man not name Fitzgerard  or a worthy gentleman that shall not immediate shower KB er p assume or take  upon he the name of Fitzgerard c that Katherine be heir at law that at  fourteen year of age she have notice per to visit personas of her not marry  without the consent of the trustee or three of they that at sixteen she marry  one villers not of the name of Fitzgerard and that he do not immediate assume  the name of Fitzgerard et si c shower KB Mr holt for the plaintiff in error  the question there be five I shall make but three first whether notice be  necessary and I hold that it be not first because the father have not make  notice to be necessary he who have the feesimple may dispose of it over to  another and here when the daughter claim by the provision of the father and  not of the law she must take it in such form and with such provision as the  father give it as for the case of the mayor of London v Alford cro car that be  a condition and to defeat a estate but this be a limitation and by way of use  and always favour second by the same mean and for the same reason that she  must take notice of what estate she have she must take notice of the  limitation and qualification of such estate dyer pl the collateral limitation  she be bind to take notice of as well as of the natural limitation of her die  without issue three no person be appoint to give notice and consequent she be  bind to take notice   Guilet v Sans cro car second the defendant wife have the  same mean to come to the knowledge of this as she in remainder that be to take  advantage of it cro James Holmes v twist hob Jones Jacob v cook the first  objection be the case in cro James Curtis v Wolvaston I answer that that case  be not like to this the condition there be to pay a legacy which be a thing  Payable only on demand but if it have be a sum in gross he have be bind to pay  it without demand vide Slanings case Poph the second objection Francis case    I answer there be a great deal of difference between this and that there be a  proviso if he do not disturb the executor there he do not know by that deed  who be his executor beside that resolution be collateral to the point in  judgement which be upon the plead that there be no special act of disturbance  allege but only word shower KB and as to this I must put the case of William v  fry which see in Mod Rep a in Ventris b and in Keble c some will say that in  Francis case the settlement be make on the heir at law as in our case but in  the case of fry v porter it be otherwise but that be not the reason give in  Francis case roll Rep peck v Ingram there be a privity between the heir and  ancestor and certain privity will signify nothing if the heir shall not take  notice of the ancestor act spring v lady Cesar Jones roll Rep winch three then  suppose notice necessary here be sufficient she be tell she must marry with  such a mes consent and one of such a name else her estate will be lose it be  true no person concern do tell her of it but notice any way be sufficient a  report be enough she be acquaint with the penalty but I conceive no notice  necessary in the case Mr Herbert e contra this proviso be in restraint of  marriage which by the civil law and the wisdom of most nation be reckon void  dyer it be his mind that notice shall be give condition be private law and all  law derive their justice from this that they be know   light there be but  three case where notice be not necessary first in case of condition precedent  there want of notice will not excuse second where the thing that notice be  require of be of a public nature three where the party impose the thing on  himself our case come within neither of those here the feeoffees or trustee  may and ought to have give notice the notice that be find be per personas to  visit and not say who they be nor that the name of the trustee be tell her the  true question here be whether there be not a difference between one that be  heir at law and a stranger in this case for a stranger can take but he must be  suppose conusant of the conveyance by which he take and consequent of the  condition and limitation annex to his estate but the heir at law only inquire  whether his ancestor be seize and if he be dead know that then of a Mod b  Ventris c Keble shower KB er p course it descend to he as heir and be not  suppose to take shower KB notice of any estate by deed and therefore notice  seem necessary to he d