a by will devise the residue of his personal estate to I S provide she marry  with the consent of b and c his executor who be but executor in trust and if  she shall marry otherwise then he devise over the same to I n one of the  executor die after which I S without the consent of the survive executor marry  whereupon I n bring his bill for the residuum she may marry without the  consent of the survivor and the master of the roll think this a frivolous bill  dismiss it with cost Trin Peyton and bury will Rep it be very clear that the  plaintiff the devisee over have no Title to the residuum saint in the nature  of the thing and accord to the intention of the testator this can not be a  condition precedent for at that rate the right to the residuum may not have  vest in any person whatever for twenty or thirty year after the testator death  since both the executor may have live and I S continue so long unmarried  during all which time the right to the residuum can not be say to be in the  executor they be express mention to be but executor in trust beside the  bequest of the residuum be first to I S which if the will have stop there will  have be a absolute devise so that the follow condition annex must be a  subsequent not a precedent one now the rule a of law be that if there be a  subsequent condition which become impossible by the Art of God this excuse and  discharge the grantee from the condition law non think ad impossible which  construction ought the rather to prevail with regard to a condition so odious  as that in the present case be which restrain the freedom of marriage and be  void by the civil law b when annex to a personal legacy the plaintiff come to  establish a forfeiture and will have the court add these word to the will  which the testator may but do not videlicet that I S shall not marry without  the executor consent or the survivor of they and which the testator may omit  upon good reason as intend that both the executor shall confer together about  the marriage of I S in order that one by argument may convince the other touch  the suitableness of a match which can now be do when only one be leave per his  honour ibidem where there be a condition that a feme shall marry with the  consent of two executor and one without reason be against the match the court  will dispense with his consent per his honour who say he have know such a case  to have happen that this case of Peyton and bury be not like the case put out  of Litt sect of equity case abridge er p a feoff which ought to be make cy  press c because there the first feoff be not intend to keep the estate to his  own use but only as a instrument for convey it back to the feoff and his  family of which while any be leave the rein feoff ought to be make as near the  intent of the condition as may be but in the present case I S be to take the  devise of the surplus to her own use moreover this consent direct to he have  be like a bare authority and so different from that which be couple with a  interest can not survive without express word for that purpose per his honour  in the case of Peyton and bury ibidem a vide Inst b a devise of a legacy to a  child upon condition that she marry with the consent of the executor but if  she shall not marry with such consent then the legacy to go over though this  be against the rule of the civil law accord to which maritagium debet be book  yet it be a good condition by our law and when the legacy be once vest in the  devisee over equity can fetch it back again say per the master of the roll  Trin in the case of cleaver and spurling will Rep vide ibidem S p arg