case savage against foster distinguish nchol v Jones l r Eq apply sharp v foy  l r Ch see in re Lushs trust l r Ch in re MIntyres trustee estate l r ir bell  v marsh Ch see also wh t l c that ed where a person know his own title and not  give notice of it to a purchaser shall never set it up against the purchaser  Margaret smith be seize of the land in question upon her marriage with Peter  Flavill settle the same upon trustee and their heir to the use of the say  Peter Flavill for life then upon Margaret his intend wife for life remainder  after the death of the say Peter and Margaret to the heir of the say Peter on  the body of the say Margaret to be beget remainder to the right heir of the  say Margaret forever the say Peter and Margaret have issue only one daughter  the now defendant who be marry to one foster Peter Flavill die and then his  widow marry one brown by who she have issue one other daughter and no more  which daughter be court by one William but he refuse to marry her without such  a fortune which Margaret her mother be not able to give without break through  this settlement convey the say land to the aforesaid William c and the  defendant mrs foster and her husband who know that the land be settle on her  in tail as aforesaid solicit her mother Margaret brown to make a conveyance in  favour of the say William and be assist in carry on the marriage between he  and her halfsister brown modern report whereupon the say Margaret convey these  land c to the use of herself for life remainder to William a d his heir then  the marriage take effect and afterward William sell these land to the  plaintiff savage who enter and build a house thereon and now mrs foster who be  the issue in tail by virtue of the say settlement and endeavour to set it up  against the title of the plaintiff who be the purchaser he exhibit a bill  against her to have his title establish against that settlement for that she  have full notice of the purchase and of her own title she give no notice  thereof to the plaintiff and therefore ought not to be at liberty now to  impeach it though she be a feme covert but that she shall be conclude by this  fact as well as if she be a infant it be argue for the defendant mrs foster  that two thing be necessary to bind the right in case of this nature the one  be that the party must know his own title to the land and the other be that he  must be instrumental in promote the purchase thereof by the vendee without  give he notice of such title for it will be of dangerous consequence if the  bare permission of he to proceed in the purchase shall be a foundation to bind  his right in this court on the foot of fraud it be true the defendant know she  have a title under this settlement but she apprehend she be not to take till  after her mother death she know likewise that her sister be about to marry  with William but do not know upon what term but if she have know the term of  that marriage she be then feme covert and her husband ought to have give the  plaintiff notice of her title therefore his negligence shall not prejudice her  who have do nothing to lose her inheritance and the entire benefit of this  settlement or ever on the other side it be first deny that the two thing  beforementioned by the plaintiff counsel be necessary to have relief in case  of this nature the one that the party shall know his own title and the other  that he shall be instrumental in carry on the purchase by another without give  he notice of such title it modern report er p be true he ought to know his own  title and that must necessary be intend in this case because the defendant  have the custody of this deed of settlement but it be not necessary that the  person interest shall be active or instrumental in carry on the agreement in  order to a purchase for modern report if the party know his own title there  can be no danger that his right shall be bind by the purchase because it be in  his power to help himself by give the purchaser notice of such right and  though this defendant be a feme covert yet it be a fraud in her not to give  the purchaser notice of her right and therefore it shall be bind for ever and  the rather because the defendant solicit her mother to make this conveyance in  favour of William upon the marriage of her sister and for that the plaintiff  have enter and build on the land the court where there be a parole agreement  make for a lease and the lessee by virtue of such agreement enter and build  this court will establish it on the foot of fraud in the lessor  notwithstanding the statute of fraud c because contract execute in part be not  always within the statute though executory contract be a see pike v William  vern Lockey v Lockey Prec Chan Floyd v Buckland Freem Gunter v Halsey Amb earl  of aylesford case stram Owen v Davis vezey tailor v beech vezey potter v  potter vezey Lacon v Mertins Atkins whitebread v Brockhurst bro Ch Rep  Whitchurch v Bevis bro Ch Rep read v Wilkes bro Ch Rep a now this bill be  bring to be relieve against a fraud in the defendant who will avoid the  plaintiff title by a elder settlement though she be privy to and assist in  carry on the marriage of he under who the plaintiff claim and never give any  notice of her title to the purchaser now when anything in order to a purchase  be public transact and a three person know thereof and of his own right to the  land intend to be purchase and do not give the purchaser notice of such right  he shall never afterward be admit to set up such right to avoid the purchase  for it be a apparent fraud in he not to give notice of his title to the intend  purchaser b see Mocatta v Murgatroyd Peer wms Goodtitle v Morgan term Rep  towle v rand brown c c b and in such case infancy or coverture shall be no  excuse for though the law prescribe formal conveyance and assurance for the  sale and contract of infant and feme covert which every person who contract  with they be presume to know and if they do not take such conveyance as be  necessary they be to be blame for their own carelessness when they act with  their eye open yet when their right be secret and no know to the purchaser but  to themselves or to such other who will not give the purchaser notice of such  right so that there be no laches in he this court will relieve against that  right if the person interest will not give the purchaser notice of it know be  be about to make the purchase neither be it necessary that such infant or feme  covert shall be active in promote the purchase if it appear that they be so  privy to it that it can not be do without their knowledge modern report  therefore it be decree that the defendant shall levy a fine to the plaintiff  to extinguish her right to the land in this settlement and that the plaintiff  shall have a perpetual injunction to quiet his possession and that if the  defendant shall levy the fine quiet and without delay then the plaintiff shall  have no cost otherwise be shall pay cost and the case of Watts v Cresswell c  viner Abr c be now remember where tenant for life borrow money and his son who  be the next in remainder and a infant be a witness to the deed of mortgage  this court give relief on the foot of fraud because the infant do not give the  mortgagee notice of his title so in the case of one clear a clear v earl of  Bedford viner Abr a who be a infant and clerk to a attorney and have a  mortgage on his master estate and engross a subsequent mortgage thereof to  another without give notice that the estate be mortgage before to he and for  that reason his mortgage be postpone on the foot of fraud b that a infant who  be privy to or practice a fraud shall be bind in the same manner as if he have  be adult see Evroy v Nicholas Eq Abr Becket v cordley brown c c Harvey v  Astley atk but it seem that this rule be confine to such act as be voidable  only Sanderson v mark h Bl Rep b modern report er p notam in the next session  of parliament the defendant petition to appeal or to have a rehear at the  peril of cost and offer to levy a fine on that condition but it be reject for  not come in time