case kirk versus clark all January pale yellow Ch Eq Abr c c S c a Cestuique  trust must in all case be a party but the trustee need not especial if  Cestuique trust undertake for he a surrender the reversion in fee of copyhold  land to his son to lessen the fine he must have pay in case it have come to he  by descent after the son treaty of marriage the father tell the wife friend  that this copyhold be so settle in consideration of which and of some  leasehold land a marriage be have and pound portion pay this surrender of the  copyhold hold not to be voluntary or fraudulent this be a bill bring by a  trustee to compel the specific performance of marriage article and the  Cestuique trust be not make a party and therefore it be pray that the cause  may not go on after open the bill and answer because if the bill shall be  dismiss the Cestuique trust will not at all be bind by it and so the defendant  liable to another suit for the same cause it be say that though sometime bill  bring by a Cestuique trust have be allow without make the trustee a party yet  that be upon the Cestuique trust undertake for the trustee that he shall  conform to what decree shall be make which may be reasonable he have no  interest at all in his own right but a trustee can not so undertake for his  Cestuique trust the court order the plaintiff to pay this day cost and to make  the Cestuique trust a party and the former bill answer and deposition to stand  and the next day the Cestuique trust who be a feme covert be make plaintiff by  her brother and prochein any against the defendant one of who be her husband  and the course of the court agree to be that a feme covert may sue her husband  by prochein any they will not make her defendant because it will have take  time to have put in her answer the case appear to be that sir Nicholas clark  be tenant for life of copyhold land with the remainder precedent in chancery  to his wife for life the reversion to himself in fee and make a surrender of  the reversion to his old son in tail the remainder to his own right heir which  surrender be make to his son with intent only to lessen the fine he will have  pay in case the reversion have come to he by descent from his father he have  it by this surrender as a purchase afterward upon a treaty of marriage between  the son and a young lady who be to have pound portion her friend upon  discourse of a settlement understanding the father have a leasehold estate  beside the copyhold propose to have both settle but tell he they rely chief  upon the copyhold that be the only equivalent for the fortune upon which sir  Nicholas tell they he have settle that already on his son by a surrender and  thereupon a agreement be make for settle the leasehold estate upon the young  lady and the issue of that marriage and reduce into write and recite the  intend marriage and portion and that in consideration thereof those lease be  agree to be settle in such manner as therein mention and after a settlement be  make accord some time after sir nicholas lady die and he be in treaty for  another marriage enter into article for make a settlement upon her and among  other thing covenant to settle the copyhold land on her for a jointure c to  such and such use and now this bill be bring by her and her trustee the  marriage be have accord to compel a specific performance of those article for  the plaintiff ft be insist that the settlement on the son be pure voluntary  before any treaty of marriage and therefore fraudulent and void against  purchaser for valuable consideration without notice as the plaintiff be that  if such as a settlement make in such a secret manner as this be shall prevail  against the plaintiff the intent of the statute Elizabeth will be entire  defeat and that this differ from a voluntary settlement on a wife or young  child for precedent in chancery who the father be bind to provide but here it  be upon the old son who will have precedent in chancery er p have it without  such settlement by course of descent and therefore there can be the less  suspicion or notice of the father want of power to settle it on his second  marriage it be likewise insist that the agreement on the son marriage be  reduce into write the party have set up their rest there and ought to be bind  by it and that it will be of dangerous consequence after such agreement in  write to admit of any lose discourse have before to make any part of the  agreement for when it be reduce into write the mind of the party must be  suppose to be full search and all that they intend to be contain therein and  see that agreement mention only the settle the leasehold estate to be the  provision intend no extravagant parole declaration of the father have already  settle the copyhold estate on he ought to be admit nor any proof to enforce  the same and then that agreement in write stand single on the leasehold estate  the copyhold estate which be long before settle and at a time when there be no  prospect of the son marry ought to be look on as voluntary as against the  plaintiff and the rather because the intent oh it appear to be only a  contrivance to ease the son of the great fine he must have pay in case it have  come to he in course of descent and for no other reason since he be not to  have it till after his father death be keep the estate for life still in  himself on the other side it be say that this ought not to be look upon as a  voluntary and fraudulent settlement as to the plaintiff because it be the  chief inducement that prevail on the friend of the son wife to consent to the  marriage and to give her such a fortune and that if they have not be assure  the copyhold be already settle on the son they will have insist on settlement  thereof or not have give her such a portion and tomake void this settlement  now will be to precedent in chancery give the father leave first to marry his  son to that estate and then again after to marry himself to it and so to make  the same estate a snare and trap to deceive either his own or his son wife and  the surrender to the son be upon record the plaintiff may have have recourse  thereto and satisfy themselves and there be no occasion upon the son marriage  sharply field to surrender the copyhold to he when he have it already my Lord  chancellor decree the surrender to the son good and though it be at first  voluntary yet upon his treaty of marriage it be regard as the principal  inducement thereto it now become valuable and ought to be consider as if it  have be but then surrender to the son and it be not necessary to insert it in  the article it be a estate of another nature and to pass another manner and be  in p already settle it be sufficient in the article to provide for the  settlement of what they far intend to secure on that marriage without take  notice of what be already settle to their satisfaction and so the copyhold  pass by the surrender as a proper conveyance for that kind of inheritance and  the leasehold by the settlement as a proper mean for carry over that and both  together make the settlement insist and agree upon to be make and be in  consideration of marriage and a marriage portion which sure be a valuable  consideration and ought not to be set aside as fraudulent in a court of equity  and so dismiss the bill with cost