case king versus cotton S c Eq Cas Abr p wms at the chancellor house Lord  chancellor Mr attorneygeneral for the plaintiff I be to show your lordship  cause why our injunction shall not be dissolve on come in of the defendant  answer this bill mosely report er p be bring against lady cotton and her young  son by a former venture by Mr king her second husband for a injunction to stay  proceed on ejectment and to have two deed set aside which lady cotton make in  favour of her young child in fraud of the marriage lady cotton be tenant for  life of several land in Cheshire Lancashire and Surre assign the say land in  Lancashire and Cheshire to trustee for ninetynine year if she shall so long  live in trust for herself during widowhood then to the use of her son Stephen  and the heir male of his body remainder to her son John and the mosely report  heir male of his body with like remainder to her other young child and assign  her land also in Surre to trustee for ninetynine year in trust to the use of  herself till marriage then to her son John and the heir male of his body with  like remainder over to the other young child and assign over pound south sea  stock to the same use and after intermarry with the plaintiff these voluntary  conveyance whereby two three of her estate be assign over and over the stock  be make during a treaty of marriage with the plaintiff and therefore be a  fraud on he for she appear to be the visible owner and therefore the  injunction ought to be continue till the hear the cause and as to the land in  Surre the first limitation in case of her marriage be to her son John and the  heir male of his body the whole trust vest in he and consequent he be dead  will vest in the plaintiff in right of his wife who have take out  administration to he Mr solicitorgeneral the substance of our bill can be try  on these ejectment but must be determine by this court on the hear the cause  lady cotton appear visible owner of these land and they be give in to the  plaintiff in the particular of her estate Stephen cotton and the other young  child former bring their bill against Mr king to have the possession of these  land deliver up to they and the deed and your lordship decree the deed to be  deliver to they in order to their go to law for the possession if they please  and though in that cause he be only defendant yet it appear by his answer he  may have cause to be relieve against these ejectment it be express provide by  the decree that it shall be without prejudice to any relief he may be entitle  to there can be no doubt but that by these assignment however fraudulent the  legal estate be in the trustee and the question whether fraud or not can never  be determine at law but be proper for equity and the rather because the young  child who claim the possession have only a equitable title too so it be proper  to be determine here whether they or Mr king have the best title in equity to  these term and marriage be a good consideration it be not material whether the  plaintiff be a gentleman of fortune or not Mr Lutwyche for the defendant the  young child Mr king have none the seven young child a very good equity and it  be very commendable and conscientious in lady cotton to provide for they  especial since she marry the plaintiff who it do not appear have any estate to  settle on her though your lordship have be tell a formal story of his make his  address and that she deliver he a particular mosely report of her estate and  how much he be defraud in he come over from Ireland court and be so fortunate  to marry the lady but these settlement be make in a year before when no treaty  of marriage be on foot nor can she have this fraud in contemplation the  injunction they pray must arise from some confession in our answer against who  it be to be grant and not from the answer of lady cotton who be a amicable  defendant the bill by the young child be bring to have the deed produce to  enable they to bring ejectment Mr king insist upon by his answer what he now  set out by his bill and examine several witness and it appear to your lordship  that there be no fraud and your lordship decree not only that the write shall  be deliver up but that we may bring ejectment in the trustee name which be all  that the court ever do on a voluntary settlement whereas if the defendant have  make out his case the court will not have give we that relief and why then  shall this bill restrain we from any privilege give we by that decree and  though the whole equitable interest of the estate in Surre vest in lady cotton  as administratrix to her son John yet the other defendant by the statute of  jam be entitle to seven eight of it so that the Cheshire and Lancashire estate  belong entire to they and seven eight of the estate in Surre it be proper  their trustee shall take possession but I think this settlement differ from  the common settlement of a long term of year and be determinable on her life  may be limit over in this manner because all the limitation mosely report er p  be to be determine in the compass of a life so that there be no danger of a  perpetuity which be the only reason why a term for year can be entail Lord  chancellor what I order as well as I remember on the former decree be that the  deed shall be deliver by Mr king to the young child he insist that they be  fraudulent and that he ought to keep they I can not say a provision make by a  mother for her young child who have no present maintenance and small portion  be fraudulent if she have make a voluntary settlement without a consideration  it will have be a fraud but these settlement be execute some time before her  marriage and be no secret but very public know on the other side I will not  take the possession from he but leave the young child to their remedy at  mosely report law and now they have recover I do not see why I shall grant a  injunction though perhaps there may appear sufficient cause at the hear but as  to the Surre estate the whole vest in John the son and consequent on his death  in his representative and the law know no difference between long and short  term and this very point have be solemnly determine in this court then the  administratrix be seize of the whole trust of the term in the Surre estate so  the injunction must continue as to it and it be not distributable till after  his debt be pay but let the plaintiff give judgement in the ejectment with a  release of error and consent not to bring error and as to the other ejectment  the injunction must be dissolve Chan Rep Ant Cas Chan Cas Chan Cas vern vern  Saturday January the saint