case pie versus gorge vide this case state at large I bro p c bro p c and Ed  the decree be affirm by the house of lord Lord keeper Harcourt salk pale  yellow Chan I Eq can ab pl pre Charles trustee for preserve contingent  remainder join in a conveyance before the birth of a son this be a breach of  trust and equity will relieve it be declare by the Lord keeper Harcourt that  where there be trustee appoint by will to preserve contingent remainder and  they before the birth of a son peer William er p join in a conveyance to  destroy the remainder this be a plain breach of trust and any person take  under such conveyance if voluntary or have notice shall be liable to the same  trust and though it be object that this have be only obiter say in equity and  that there never be any precedent of a decree in such a case Lord keeper say  it be so very plain and reasonable that if there be no precedent in this case  he will make one but this be not the principal case which be that there be a  son bear before the conveyance by the trustee and the peer William estate be  in mortgage the son come into equity after the death of the tenant for life to  redeem agreeable to what be thus declare by Lord Harcourt it have be since  express decree by Lord chancellor king assist by Lord Raymond and chief baron  Reynolds in the case of mansel v mansel Dec vide this case post Vol which be  the case of a voluntary settlement and where the court unanimous deliver it as  their opinion that nothing in common justice sense and reason can be a plain  breach of trust than that those who be appoint trustee to the intent to  preserve the estate to the first son and for that purpose only shall direct  contrary to their trust join in the destruction of the settlement vide post  Basset v Clapham and else v Osborne but where there be a tenant for life  remainder to the first son c and no trustee to preserve contingent remainder  in such case if tenant for life by fine or feoff destroy the remainder there  be no trustee there can be consequent no breach of trust and this be the law  chancery will not interpose but then as this be a hardship at law to prevent  which the method of appoint trustee be invent so it be reasonable that the  trustee when they let in this hardship by violate the trust repose in they  shall themselves be liable for the same but if the conveyance be voluntary or  if there be notice of the trust such trust shall follow the land do v elvey  east do v Martin t r if the trust be executory the court will direct a  limitation to trustee to preserve contingent remainder to be insert in the  conveyance Harrison v Naylor Cox and see winnington v Foley post