case Francis SCRIBBLEHILL appellant henry brett and another respondent that  January Mews dig seven viii tenant in tail model a lease to a in consideration  of his procure a marriage between the lessor and a lady of fortune hold that  this consideration be fraudulent and the lease accord set aside decree of the  court of chancery dismiss the bill for relief against the lease reverse it do  hot appear that on this appeal the principle of law or equity on the subject  of marriagebrocage agreement be at all dispute but it be probable the reversal  of the decree may arise from a knowledge of fact in this instance as it appear  very remarkable to have be previous before the house in the case cite below  from shower the follow extract from the treatise of equity edit with Mr  Fonblanques note will elucidate the rule both of law and equity on the general  question see treat Eq pp wherever a mother or father or guardian insist upon a  private gain or security for it and obtain it of the intend husband it shall  be set aside for the power of a parent or guardian ought not to be make use of  brown er p to such purpose and these contract with the father etcetera seem to  be of the same nature with brocage bind etcetera but of more mischievous  consequence as that which will happen more frequent and it be now a settle  rule that if the father on the marriage of his son take a bind of the son to  pay he so much etcetera it be void be do by coercion while he be under the awe  of his father nor will the court only decree a marriage brocage bind to be  deliver up but a gratuity of guinea actual brown pay to be refund vern for  such bind be in no case to be countenance and a bind to procure marriage  though between person of equal rank and fortune be void as be of dangerous  consequence from the case of grisley v Lother hob it shall seem that though  the procure of a marriage be not a consideration in equity it be a sufficient  consideration in law and of that opinion holt c I appear to have be in hale v  potter lev the case cite below and the circumstance of the bind in that case  have be ultimate cancel by the decree of the house of lord do not affect the  rule of law as that decision be upon a appeal from the decree in equity which  have hold the bind to be good as court of equity do not in such case interpose  on account of the particular damage to the party but from consideration of  public policy see law v law forest but query whether the vice of such  consideration can not now be plead at law Collins v Blantern will that equity  will relieve against bind to stranger for the procure of marriage see Arundel  v Trevilian I c r Glanville v Jennings c r tooth Drury v hook c c vern coal v  Gibson I ves smith v Aykwell atk and as these contract be avoid on reason of  public inconvenience the court of exchequer in Shirley v Martin Nov hold that  they will not admit of subsequent confirmation by the party see also booth v  earl of Warrington post can vern prece in Chan Eq can ab can viner vol p can  vol p can vol p can Thomas thin of Longleat Esq be seize of the rectory of  Thames in brown er p Oxfordshire grant a lease thereof to John thin of Egham  Esq for his life and this have be usual do by their respective ancestor for  the better support of the Egham family which be a branch of the other brown er  p the yearly rend of pound and for the express consideration of pound and on  the that of June the say Richard Brett assign this lease to the respondent  brown Thomas the first Lord Weymouth take a surrender of the lease to John  thin and grant another lease of the same premise to trustee during the life of  the say John thin and of John brown thin his son but in trust for the benefit  of John thin the father the say John thin the father afterward mortgage the  rectory to the appellant intestate for secure pound and have several child he  by his will devise the same for the purpose of raise portion for they and for  the payment of his debt and make his wife executrix and in march die soon  after the death of John thin the father the respondent bring a ejectment and  thereby recover possession of this leasehold estate but in June the appellant  exhibit her bill in chancery against they pray to be relieve against the lease  of under which they claim suggest that it be obtain by Richard Brett the uncle  for brocage in procure a marriage between the say Thomas thin the lessor and  the lady Ogle on hear this cause that of February the Lord keeper decline  determine upon the proof and circumstance of the case but be please to direct  a trial at the bar of the court of common plea by a special jury of the county  of Oxford upon the two follow issue saint whether the say pound be pay as the  consideration of the say lease or not and dly whether the consideration of the  say lease be the procure the say marriage or on what other consideration the  say lease be grant the trial be accord have and a verdict for the plaintiff on  the first issue and for the defendant on the second but three of the judge  have certify that though they do not find cause to set the verdict aside yet  they be not so full satisfy with it as to think a new trial unreasonable  application be make to the court of chancery for a new trial and on the that  of July it be order that there shall be a new trial at the bar of the say  court of common plea upon the same issue and before another special jury of  the same county a second trial be accord have when the jury find the same  verdict as on the first trial and in consequence thereof when the cause come  to be hear on the equity reserve d may the Lord keeper assist the reason of  this solemnity seem to have be because the plaintiff have previous obtain a  order for hear the cause ab origin by the Lord chief justice holt the master  of the roll and the Lord chief justice Trevor be unanimous of opinion that the  plaintiff ought brown not to be relieve and therefore order that the bill  shall stand dismiss from both these decree and the order direct a new trial  the plaintiff bee brown er p peal and on her behalf it be contend that the  take of bind or make bargain as reward for procure marriage though not  voidable in strictness of law have always be declare fraudulent and set aside  in court of equity because such transaction tend to corrupt executor trustee  guardian servant and other have intimacy with person of quality and fortune to  betray they into unhappy or improvident marriage and be therefore the very  seed of fraud misrepresentation and deceit that the court of chancery have a  original jurisdiction in all matter of fraud and evil practice because they be  frequent cover with such specious pretence as not to be avoidable by the  strict form of law ought to have give judgement and relieve against the lease  in question accord to the fact and circumstance of the case and not have send  the appellant to prove the same at law where matter of fraud be not so proper  inquirable by a jury that the insert in the lease so great a consideration as  pound when in truth not one penny of it be pay or agree to be pay be evident a  attempt to cover some fraud or other and sufficient to show that the lease be  not good fide make and that the fraudulent practice of Brett in obtain the  lease be so apparent in the cause that the set it a side can be attend with no  ill consequence whereas by deny the relief seek for against it the appellant  and other creditor of John thin the father will be deprive of their security  the provision make for his family and child will be defeat and a brocage for  betray person of quality and fortune into unhappy marriage may be encourage or  at least a safe method of manage the reward for such transaction will be  establish on the other side it be insist p Crawford that the lease in question  be not make until six month after the marriage between lady Ogle and Mr thin  have take effect when he be under no kind of obligation to make it and even  declare so at the time of its be execute as appear upon both the trial that  there be nothing allege to avoid the lease but that it be make on a corrupt  agreement to procure the marriage which be a matter of fact be accord to the  law of England most proper triable by a jury and be accord submit by the  appellant to be so try and that if she have conceive any ground of appeal from  try that fact at law such appeal shall have be bring immediate after make the  decree which direct the issue and not after the appellant have submit to have  the fact try twice which have be do in the fair and most solemn manner and the  same verdict find by two special jury of unquestionable character and  reputation brown after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge  that the decree and the several other order complain of shall be reverse and  that the indenture of lease make by Thomas thin Esq decease to Richard Brett  Esq also decease bear date the that of January shall be vacate annul and make  void to all intent and purpose whatsoever and that the respondent shall  forthwith deliver up the same to the appellant to be cancel and it be further  order that the say respondent shall deliver possession of the leasehold  premise and that the several tenant of the say premise shall pay the rend to  the appellant jour vol p Mr Vernon and the other author cite as have report  this case mention the event of it upon the appeal but say that the decree be  reverse and the lease set aside without any regard to the two verdict this  seem to throw some imputation on the judgement but upon examine the matter  there do not appear to be the least ground for any imputation for by a  memorandum on the appellant print case reference be make to a cause of a  similar nature determine by the house some time before and which case seem to  have govern the house in the present determination but as no notice appear to  have be take of it in the court of chancery the reversal of that decree under  this particular circumstance do not impeach the general principle on which it  be find the case allude to be indeed so similar as to vary in only one  circumstance videlicet there be a bind here be a lease in every thing else it  depend on the same fact it be report in lev and abridge by viner vol p can but  the best report of it be in a book know by the name of shower parliament case  p and as both the case itself and the argument throw great light upon and full  support the present determination I hope to be excuse insert it as report by  the lastmentioned author hall et alian executor of Thomas thin versus jane  potter administratrix of George potter appeal from a decree of dismission in  the court of chancery the case be thus that Thomas thin Esq have intention to  make his address to lady Ogle give a bind of pound penalty to the respondent  husband to pay pound in ten day after his marriage with lady Ogle the  respondent assist in promote the say marriage which afterward take effect soon  after the say Mr thin be barbarous murder and about six year after Mr potter  bring a action upon this bind against the appellant as executor of Mr thin and  prove the marriage recover a verdict for pound thereupon the appellant prefer  their bill in chancery to be relieve against this bind as give upon a unlawful  consideration the defendant by their answer acknowledge their promotion of the  marriage to be the reason of give the bind upon hear the cause at the roll the  court decree the bind to be deliver up and satisfaction to be acknowledge upon  the judgement the respondent petition the Lord keeper for a rehear and the  same be reheard accord his lordship be please to reverse the decree and order  the appellant to pay principal interest and cost or else the bill to stand  dismiss with cost and it be argue on behalf of the appellant that this bind  ought in equity to be set aside for that even at the commonlaw bind find upon  unlawful consideration appear in the condition be void that in many instance  bind and contract which be good at law and can be avoid there be cancel in  equity that such bind to matchmakers and procurer of marriage be of dangerous  consequence and tend to the betray and often time to the ruin of person of  quality and fortune and if the use of such security and contract be allow and  countenance the same may prove the occasion of many unhappy marriage to the  prejudice and discomfort of the best of family that the consideration of such  bind and security have always be discountenance and relief by equity give  against they even so long since as the Lord Coventry time and long before and  particular in the case of Arundel and Trevilian between who the that February  Charles I be a order make in these or the like word upon the hear and debate  of the matter this present day in the presence of the counsel learned on both  side for and touch the bind or bill of pound against which the plaintiff by  his bill pray relief it appear that the say bill be original enter into by the  plaintiff unto the defendant for the payment of pound former promise unto the  say defendant by the plaintiff for effect of a marriage between the plaintiff  and Elizabeth his now wife which the say defendant procure accord as his  counsel allege but this court utter dislike the consideration whereupon the  say bill be give the same be of dangerous consequence in precedent upon read  three several precedent wherein this court have relieve other in like case  against bind of that nature think not fit to give any countenance unto  specialty enter into on such contract it be therefore order and decree that  the say defendant shall bring the say bill into this court to be deliver up to  the plaintiff to be cancel then it be further urge that the appellant have  once a decree at the roll to be relieve against the bind in question upon  consideration of the say precedent in time of the say Lord Coventry and other  and of the mischief and inconvenience likely to arise by such practice which  increase in the present age more than in the time when relief be give against  such bind and therefore it be pray that the decree may be reverse on the other  side it be urge that the consideration of this bind be lawful that the assist  and promote a marriage at the party request be a consideration in law at all  time to maintain a promise for payment of money that this bind be voluntary  and the party who be obligor be of age and sound memory that here be no fraud  no deceit in procure it that chancery be not to relieve against voluntary act  that here be a great fortune to be acquire to the appellant testator by the  match that here be assistance give that the person be both of great quality  and estate and no imposition or deceit on either side in the marriage that it  may be proper to relieve against such security where ill consequence do ensue  yet here be none and the thing lawful and the bind good at law the same ought  to stand that here be no child purchaser or creditor to be defeat that there  be asset sufficient to pay all and consequent there can be no injustice in  allow this bind to remain in force that it be the expectation of the  respondent without which she will not have give her service in this matter  that it be the full meaning of the appellant testator to pay this money in  case the marriage take effect that there be a vast difference between support  and vacate a contract in chancery that though equity perhaps will not assist  and help a security upon such consideration if it be defective at law yet as  there be no cheat or imposition upon the party but he mean as he have  undertake to pay this money and be not deceive in his expectation as to the  success of the respondent endeavour it will be hard in equity to damn such a  security and therefore it be pray that the decree shall be affirm it be reply  that marriage ought to be procure and promote by the mediation of friend and  relation and not of hireling that the not vacate such bind when question in a  court of equity will be of evil example to executor trustee guardian servant  and other people have the care of child and therefore it be pray that the  decree may be reverse and it be reverse accord by the journal vol p this  judgement appear to have be give on the that of January