burton versus hastings see Abr Eq c S c marriage article a remainder a  remainder to the issue but the settlement be a remainder in tail to the wife  on a treaty of marriage article be enter into for settle of the land in  question to the husband for life remainder to the wife for life remainder to  trustee to preserve contingent remainder with remainder to the heir of the  body of the wife by the husband to be beget with other remainder over the  marriage take effect and a settlement be make to the husband and wife  successive for life remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder  remainder to the first son of that marriage and the heir of the body of such  first son and so to the second and other son of that marriage in like manner  with a remainder to the heir of the body of the wife by her say husband they  have issue one daughter only then the husband die and the wife marry a second  husband and they both join in a fine and recovery by which the daughter be at  law divest of her inheritance bring this bill to carry the article Gilbert  into execution for that by the settlement care be take of the son pursuant to  the intent of the article but no care be take of the daughter in regard the  limitation to the heir of the body of the mother by the first husband make her  tenant in tail general and consequent at liberty to defeat her daughter as she  have now do by this fine and recovery which be contrary to the intent of the  article which be to make a effectual provision for all the issue of that  marriage but my Lord chancellor say if no settlement have be make and they  have then come hither to have enforce the make of one pursuant to the article  there this court will have take care the daughter shall have be likewise  secure of the provision intend by the article by limit a remainder to the  daughter and the heir of their body to be beget on failure of son but here a  settlement be actual make and accept by the party though a provision be for  the son strict than the article themselves import yet the next remainder be  limit in the very term of the article he can now make no alteration in it  though Mr Gilbert report er p Vernon offer a difference where a settlement be  make before marriage and where after that where it be before this court can  not interpose as they can where it after marriage yet the court have no regard  to this distinction but too hasty dismiss the bill