atkins case woodhouse versus Hoskins January see moody v Walters Ves jur Lord  Hardwicke of opinion this be not such a case as will induce the court to  decree a trustee to join in a recovery and dismiss the bill bring by the  creditor against the heir at law of the survive trustee to compel her to join  sir John Hoskins by will date the d of September devise his land after the  death of his wife and a trustterm of year to his son Bennet Hoskins for year  if he shall so long live without impeachment of waste remainder to two trustee  and their heir during the life of his son Bennet to preserve contingent  remainder remainder to the first and other son of Bennet in tail male  remainder to Hungerford Hoskins his second son for year if he shall so long  live remainder to the same trustee and their heir during the life of  Hungerford Hoskins to preserve contingent remainder remainder to his first and  every other son remainder to his other son in like manner remainder to sir  John Hoskinss daughter remainder to the testator heir there be a power for the  son when in possession to make jointure and lease except as to particular land  and another power for Bennet and the other son within two year after be in  possession and have a son of the age of to revoke all and every the former use  and to limit new use so that the premise be limit to the heir male of the son  in the same manner as these limitation and to settle such like power of  revocation sir John Hoskins die Bennet Hoskins his old son die without issue  atkins er p Hungerford Hoskins the second son now sir Hungerford Hoskins marry  and have a son chandos Hoskins now above twentyone sir Hungerford and his son  become indebt by bind to creditor and make assignment of the settle estate in  trust for creditor and agree to suffer a common recovery to make the  assignment and provision for the creditor effectual the bill be bring by the  creditor against sir Hungerford Hoskins and his son chandos and against Thomas  Hoskins the five son of sir John Hoskins all the other son who have  intermediate remainder as before be dead without issue and against the  defendant mrs and Berrington the heir of the survive trustee to preserve  contingent remainder in order to compel her to join in a common recovery and  that the plaintiff may have a effectual security and satisfaction for their  debt Mr attorney general for the plaintiff atkins there be two general  question the first as to the compel the defendant mrs Berrington the trustee  to join in a conveyance to make a tenant to the prcipe in order to suffer a  recovery second as to the power of revocation whether that be not a perpetuity  and void mrs Berrington be a trustee for the son of sir Hungerford Hoskins who  be tenant in tail vest and if she have join voluntary it will not have be a  breach of trust and for this purpose cite vern Mr Wilbraham of the same side  cite wms Basset v chapman SC Eq Cas Abr Foley v winnington p W S c decree by  Lord Macclesfield that the trustee to preserve contingent remainder shall join  Lord chancellor say he be of counsel in the case and it be to make a marriage  settlement and so to continue the use in effect of the old settlement and  after the use of the new marriage settlement be serve it go to the old use Mr  Biddulph for Mr Thomas Hoskins the remainderman say there be no precedent  where a court of equity have decree the trustee to preserve contingent  remainder to join in destroy remainder unless to make a new settlement as in  winnington case but here the prayer be to sell and alienate the estate and the  debt be recite in the article to be the debt of the father and for which the  son be only security Mr attorney general in reply say the son be so far owner  of the estate as that he may levy a fine which will create a base fee and bind  so long as issue of he shall exist and may raise money though not so  convenient and upon such easy term as if the whole be in his power as to the  debt be the father the son be equal bind and in respect to the obligee he be  as much a debtor as the father and cite p wms atkins Lord chancellor if this  have turn upon the power I shall not have determine it now but in a more  solemn manner but as there be a previous question as to compile the trustee to  join in a common recovery the other point be not now necessary to determine  yet so much may be draw from the power as may show the intent of sir John  Hoskins to preserve the limitation he have make as far as possible and this  intent the court effectuate where the use be executory as where Lord Cowper  direct trustee to preserve contingent remainder to be insert in the case of  sir John maynard will it be agree there be no precedent where the court have  decree in such case the trustee to join and I be of opinion this be not such a  case where the court ought to decree it Symance v Tatton atk Barnard v large  Amb bro Charles Rep trustee of this kind be call honorary trustee and entrust  by party to preserve the contingent remainder but I will not say if the  trustee who be appoint shall join it will be such a breach of trust as this  court will decree a satisfaction the reason of make the father a tenant for  year be in order to preserve the estate it may likewise be the design of such  settlement to prevent the father influence over the son when of age if the  father be seize of the freehold to get the son to destroy the settlement here  the intention be to pay the debt of the father the objection be the trustee be  trustee for the first tenant in tail and that when the tenant in tail be seize  of the freehold then he have a power to bar and not before as to the case  there be but few Mr winnington go upon the reason before atkins er p mention  for the let in the jointure and a provision for young child which be still  carry it on in the family the argument make use of by the plaintiff counsel be  that here it be pray to execute the trust of article and to be sure it be true  but this court be not to decree every trust create by the party and though as  have be say before the court may not condemn the trustee if he consent yet it  do not follow that the court will compel the trustee and I think this the very  case which be intend to be prevent atkins by the trust wherefore the bill must  be dismiss townsend versus Lawton p wms be mention by LordHardwicke in support  of his opinion note on marriage land be settle to a for year if he so long  live remainder to b and his heir during the life of a to support contingent  remainder remainder to the first and every other son of a a have two son c and  d a the father have to the first and every other son of a a ha c mortgage the  premise he and his son covenant to suffer a recovery and to procure b the  trustee to join b the trustee by answer submit to the court the court will not  compel the trustee to join unless d the second son of the marriage will  consent Townshend versus Lawton p wms