case short versus wood Lord chancellor Parker Eq can ab pl where money be  direct to be lie out in a purchase of land and to be settle on a for life  remainder to b in tail remainder to c in fee if a and b bring a bill for the  money the shall not have it because of the contingency to c but if money be  direct to be lie out in a purchase of land to be settle on a for life  remainder to b in tail remainder to say b in fee a and b bring a bill shall  have the money decree they trust money be direct to be lie out in land and  settle upon a woman for life remainder to her first c son in tail remainder to  such son in fee and in the mean time and until a purchase can be find the  money to be put out at interest and the interest to go as the profit of the  land c the mother and son there be only one son come to a agreement that this  money shall be pay a three to the mother and twothirds to the son and bring a  bill against the trustee to pay it who submit to the court be indemnified Lord  chancellor on hear this cause by consent say that Lord Cowper have determine  that if a remainder man have but a chance for the estate or the money which  can not be bar without a recovery there in regard the tenant in tail may die  before such recovery suffer or may die in a vacation when a recovery can not  be suffer a court of equity who business it be to aid the intent of the party  ought not in violation of such intent to decree the payment of the money to  the tenant in tail but ought to decree it to be lie out in a purchase of land  to be settle accord to the direction of the peer William party in order that  the chance which be intend the remainder man may be preserve and when the  settlement be make the tenant in tail may if he think fit suffer a recovery  which matter be so decree by Lord chancellor Cowper in the case of one Mr  colwall and dr Shadwell see the case cite post in chaplin v Horner and where  the chance afterward actual happen in favour of the remainderman by the death  of the tenant in tail before any recovery suffer but that in the principal  case where the mother be tenant for life with remainder to the son in tail  remainder to the same son in fee so that the son may by a fine only bar these  limitation and which fine may be levy in vacation time as well peer William er  p as term it will be in vain for equity to decree a settlement which the same  moment that it be make may be cut off therefore his lordship direct the  trustee to pay the money to the mother and son pursuant to the agreement and  to be indemnified but say that if there have be two son or any person in  remainder he will not have decree the payment of this money it seem also that  if the son have be a infant ante legate v jewel the court will not have order  the payment of the money for during the infancy no fine can have be levy vide  Benson v Benson ante