case Ayliffe versus murray October two person executor and trustee under a  will will not prove the will nor suffer the beneficiary and trust to take out  letter of administration cum will annexo till he have execute a deed by which  he be to pay a hundred pound to one executor and two hundred pound to the  other within six month after they shall have exhibit a inventor Lord Hardwicke  declare the deed be undue obtain and decree a allowance shall be make for the  sum of pound and to the plaintiff two person who be both executor and trustee  under a will and one of they a attorney that draw up the will refuse to act in  the trust unless beneficiary and trust will give they beside their legacy some  consideration for act in the trust he refuse to do it for some time but at  last consent and execute atkins a deed for pay pound only to Bryan Ayliffe one  of the trustee who be a attorney think some profitable suit may arise out of  the will and therefore ask no more but to Mr pomfret the other trustee pound  because be no lawyer he have not the same advantage with his cotrustee this  contract be obtain from the beneficiary and trust only two day after testator  death but then it be settle by his counsel at three several meeting for that  purpose before he execute it the trustestate be pound a year in value consist  chief of leasehold estate which the trustee be direct by the will to renew  from time to time beside other necessary trouble atkins er p the pound to  pomfret and the pound to Bryan Ayliffe under the contract be to be pay to they  over and above their legacy within six month after they shall have exhibit a  inventory to the ecclesiastical court and such payment be to arise out of the  dividend and interest which shall become due to the defendant the bill be  bring for a specific performance of the agreement and for a account the  principal suggestion of fraud on behalf of the defendant be that the plaintiff  and his cotrustee threaten that they will not prove the will themselves nor  suffer the defendant to take out letter of administration cum testament annexo  unless he will agree to their proposal and that this be the sole inducement of  the defendant execute the contract Lord chancellor this be a case of very  great consequence and it be incumbent upon the court to proceed upon wary step  before they establish such demand that a trustee can contract with beneficiary  and trust or purchase part or the whole trustestate from the beneficiary and  trust though for a valuable consideration but that a court of equity will set  it aside must depend upon circumstance and be not a general rule vide  Whelpdale v Cookson Ves twine v morris bro Charles Rep fox v Macreath bro  Charles Rep Norris v Le neve post vol if the defendant be right in his  objection to these allowance undoubted he may have bring his crossbill to set  they aside but I be of opinion where a plaintiff bring his bill pray a account  against a person and allowance in that account the defendant be as proper to  make objection as if a crossbill have be bring with regard to the merit  whether upon general ground a trustee may make a agreement with a beneficiary  and trust for a extraordinary allowance over and above what he be allow by the  term of the trust I think there may be case where this court atkins will  establish such agreement but at the same time will be extreme cautious and  wary in do of it in general this court look upon trust as honorary and a  burden upon the honour and conscience of the person entrust and not undertake  upon mercenary view and there be a strong reason too against allow any thing  beyond the term of the trust because it give a undue advantage to a trustee to  distress a beneficiary and trust and therefore this court have always hold a  strict hand upon trustee in this particular Robinson v pet p W gold v  Fleetwood cite in note a ibidem post if a trustee come in a fair and open  manner and tell the beneficiary and trust that he will not act in such a  troublesome and burdensome office unless the beneficiary and trust will give  he a further compensation over and above the term of the trust and it be  contract for between they I will not say this court will set it aside though  there be no instance where they have confirm such a bargain but in the present  case the proceed be not so fair and open for Mr Ayliffe be a attorney draw the  will himself and be likely in the way of his profession to make a considerable  profit of the trust as there be a account to be settle a conveyance to be make  and several other thing to be do in the law way and beside if the legacy be  too small why do not Ayliffe make the objection at the time he draw the will  as the defendant very proper observe when Ayliffe ask for a additional  allowance it have be say that the defendant brother swear in his deposition  that Ayliffe say he will hinder Murray from administer or word to that effect  carry too great a latitude but I think it very proper for where a man swear to  word if he be mistake in any of they he be perjure and therefore swear Ayliffe  say he will hinder Murray from administer or to that effect be very right and  I have often object to affidavit for want of they I consider the case in this  light two trustee be make a ill use of a authority they have under the will to  extort a reward from a beneficiary and trust if they have tell he give we a  far atkins reward or we will renounce they have act fair and something may  have be say in favour of the contract the personal estate be vest in they  before probate and can not be get out of they without a actual renunciation  the real estate likewise vest in they and can not be take out of they but b a  actual assignment and sensible of these difficulty upon the defendant the  plaintiff will not act in order to force he into their term this case have be  compare to several other case of fraud and among the rest atkins er p to  marriagebrocage bind and not improper for the person who have the reward there  have as much trouble as the trustee have here and the party give the reward in  those case full as Willing as the defendant in this and yet the court always  set those bargain aside as unconscionable consider the ill consequence of such  a case suppose it shall be necessary that a will shall be immediate prove as  in the case of a widow and child shall a trustee in who the testator repose a  trust and confidence and depend upon his honour and kindness insist upon such  hard term as to have a unreasonable reward before he will either prove the  will or act in the trust therefore upon the whole I declare that this deed be  undue obtain from Mr Thomas Murray and decree no allowance to be make for the  sum of pound and pound and direct both the plaintiff pomfret and the  representative of Bryan Ayliffe to pay cost as to so much as relate to the  deed general cost reserve