case king versus cotton mos Eq can ab pl if a parent make a voluntary  conveyance in trust for his child and keep it in his own power or in the hand  of his agent and it be get from he this ought not to bind he but where a feme  have issue by her first husband make a suitable provision for they before a  treaty for her second marriage this be good and not liable to be avoid by a  second husband the former decree vide ante be order to be without prejudice to  any relief which the then defendant king may have be now prefer his bill  against the several young child of his wife the lady cotton by her former  husband sir Thomas cotton and also against the lady cotton his wife to set  aside the several settlement make by her before her marriage with the  plaintiff as be make without his privity and while she appear the visible  owner of the estate and thereby induce he to marry her all which settlement be  make by his wife in trust for herself until her second marriage and afterward  for young child respective but it be now prove that these provision by lady  cotton for her young child be make before her marriage treaty with the  plaintiff king be begin and in a public manner that she herself desire they  may be public that she make a entertainment for several of her tenant whereat  be present she acquaint they her young son Stephen be to be their landlord in  case she marry again and if she peer William marry her second husband shall  marry her for love and it appear that she have reserve to herself out of these  voluntary settlement her original jointure make by sir Thomas cotton be pound  per annum rentcharge that she have nine young child by her former husband sir  Thomas who at best be very slender provide for and far that the plaintiff Mr  king when he marry lady cotton be in very mean circumstance a halfpay  lieutenant in Ireland bad two son by a former wife and that he have a  considerable sum of money with lady cotton as she have be executrix and  residuary legatee of her former husband sir Thomas so that it be evident there  have be no fraud or imposition on the plaintiff Mr king who do not so much as  pretend be can make any settlement or jointure on lady cotton for these reason  the Lord chancellor dismiss the plaintiff Mr king bill as to that part of it  which seek to set aside any of the settlement make by lady cotton in trust for  her young child say it be a very reasonable thing for a widow while it be in  her power to make a provision for her child by her former husband and this be  before her treaty of marriage with Mr king it have be impossible to have ask  he to be a party thereto he not be then think of that though a assignment have  be make by the lady cotton only to a friend and not a child a mere voluntary  gift before the marriage treaty in a case so circumstance as this be may be  bind and as to the Southsea stock though there be no actual assignment by deed  but only a covenant to transfer yet this be such a assignment as will bind Mr  king for it be not like a bind from lady cotton to pay money since here Mr  king be to pay none nor to part with anything which be his it be only a  provision make peer William by lady cotton before her marriage treaty with the  plaintiff that in case of her marriage such a part of her estate shall go to  her child which be but reasonable and yet contrary to this provision make for  the child he himself have sell this stock and receive the money beside a far  sum of pound Southsea stock which lady cotton have not assign that here the  young child have the law on their side and have recover damage in a action of  covenant which benefit he can not take from they note they recover not only  the value of the stock but also all the dividend since the second marriage  peer William er p in this case one point arise concern which the court give no  opinion and it be this lady cotton a jointress for life of a estate at Easher  in Surrey demise the same to trustee for ninetynine year if she so long live  in trust for herself during her widowhood and after her marriage then in trust  for one of her young son John Salisbury cotton and the heir of his body and if  he die without issue the remainder in trust for her next young son the  defendant Lynch Salisbury cotton John Salisbury cotton die without issue and  intestate and the question be whether the trust of this term shall go to his  mother as administratrix to he subject to the statute of distribution or to  the next son in remainder it be insist for the lady cotton that in the  limitation of the trust of the term to John Salisbury cotton and the heir of  his body with remainder over such remainder over be only of a trust of a term  be void on the other side it be contend that the only reason why peer William  the trust of a term can not be limit to one and the heir of his body with  remainder over be because this will make a perpetuity but here can be no  perpetuity in regard the whole term be to determine whenever lady cotton shall  die just as if she have make a lease of her jointure land to a trustee for  ninetynine year if she so long live in trust for a and the heir of his body  but if a shall die without heir of his body live lady cotton then to b this  have be good therefore qure though it seem rather to be a good limitation of  the trust and within the reason of the duke of Norfolk case and the several  other subsequent resolution ground thereupon in hill the cause have stand over  from time to time that the party may accommodate the matter in dispute Reg lib  a fol peer William de term S michaelis