case duke of hamilton ux versus Lord Mohun Lord chancellor Cowper salk vern  pale yellow Chan Eq can ab p Mod husband before marriage covenant to release  his wife guardian of all account not bind duke Hamilton marry the daughter and  heiress of the Lord Gerrard and the article of marriage be agree on with great  deliberation one of which be that duke Hamilton shall within two day after  marriage for the peace of the family release to the lady Gerrard be the mother  and guardian of the young lady all account of the mesne profit of the estate  it be insist upon by the mother at that time and admit by the duke that the  charge of the education of the young lady and the interest pay by the mother  upon a mortgage of good part of the estate which have be discharge by her as  guardian will come to as much as the profit of the estate also it be admit by  the party that the mother be entitle to her dower of a three of the estate  which be in mortgage for a term of year but the mortgagee have never enter  peer William upon the premise and in the marriage article the duke bind  himself in the penalty of pound to the lady Gerrard for the give this release  within the say space of two day after the marriage duke Hamilton be sue upon  these article at law and bring his bill in equity to be relieve against they  and for a account of the mesne profit first it be urge for the defendant who  be executor to lady Gerrard that here be no surprise or misrepresentation but  a very solemn agreement and which tend to the peace of the family second that  if the duke have after the marriage give such release equity will not have  relieve against it and for the same reason it ought not to relieve against a  covenant for the give such release three that if agreement though upon good  consideration and deliberation can not be make it may turn to the disadvantage  of infant for then no guardian can be secure from suit which will end in  discourage all treaty of marriage on behalf of those that be in wardship to  they but Lord chancellor say that admit there be no surprise in the gain of  this covenant from duke Hamilton as there seem to be none it be agree upon  after great deliberation and advice of counsel on both side and admit there  have be no concealment of the matter to be account for though in this case the  particular of what be to be release do not so full appear as they may end  ought to have do peer William er p yet this covenant to make such release  ought to be set peer William aside as it seem to be extort from the duke by  one who have a power over the young lady court by he by one who have a power  over her as her parent which ought not to have be make use of in this manner  that it be as if the mother shall say you shall not have my daughter unless  you will release all account that this agreement be within the same reason as  a marriagebrokage agreement which have be so often condemned in equity salk  vern a bind to give money if such a marriage can be obtain be ill and by the  same reason a bind to forgive a sum of money must be ill also that the case of  a mother or guardian insist upon gain for consent to a marriage must be a much  more frequent mischief and in all probability often happen than a agreement of  this nature with a three person that it be most natural in this case to treat  with the guardian and to tolerate such a agreement will be pave a way to  guardian to sell infant under their wardship and the great the fortune be the  great will be the temptation to treat in this manner with the guardian in  order to such a marriage and though such release have it be give after  marriage by the husband of all account to the guardian may be good it will be  because if such release be give after marriage it must be presume to be give  free peer William whereas this covenant can not be suppose to be make free in  regard the duke may reasonable apprehend he must have lose the young lady if  he have refuse the covenant that this be within the common case of equity  relieve a heir against any private agreement with his father upon the marriage  of the heir as where the father covenant to settle a estate on the marriage  and the heir private agree to repay back so much out of it to the father the  heir be under the awe of his parent in such case and not suppose to act free  for which reason a court of equity believe against all such private agreement  and therefore Lord chancellor relieve against this covenant to give a release  second as to the point of dower it have be object for the plaintiff that this  be a gift in law not in equity and that there can be no dower of a trust nor  consequent of a trust term and suppose a judgement in dower have in this case  be recover yet there must have be a to be remiss execution during the term and  it be so at law be able sequitur law and lady Radnor and Vandebendys case be  cite case in parliament but Lord chancellor contra there ought to be a  allowance of the three part of the profit for dower to the mother or her  representative the case of lady Radnor v Vandebendy be where there be a  purchaser of the land against who the dowress seek relief in equity as to her  dower whereas here when the mortgagee never insist to enter for his mortgage  it will be hard that the heir shall insist upon it to prevent the dower beside  she have there be occasion peer William can have redeem the mortgage and as to  the want of a formal assignment of dower that be nothing in equity for still  the right in conscience be the same and if the heir bring a bill against the  mother for a account of profit it be most just that a court of equity shall in  the account allow a three of the profit for the right of dower Graham v Graham  Ves note Charles can Osburn v chapman be cite as a strong case vide the case  of sir Nicholas butler v sir Henry Chauncey cite in the Abr of Cas in chancery  as to the ground of the interference of this court in transaction between  guardian and ware vide Osmond v Fitzroy post Vol III Hylton v Hylton ves and  pierce v wear therein cite which be hear before Lord Hardwicke on the that  November where Samuel wear have be guardian of Thomas hall who be entitle to a  very considerable fortune under the will of two relation do by the direction  of the say Thomas hall immediate upon his come of age invest a sum of pound  part of the personal estate of the say Thomas hall then in the hand of the say  Samuel wear in the purchase of pound east India stock in his the say Samuel  war in his name and on the d of January follow the say Thomas hall confirm the  say pound stock to the say Samuel wear by a deed of gift of that date the bill  be peer William er p file after the death of the say Thomas hall by the person  claim under he to open the several account of the say Samuel W ring which have  be allow by the say Thomas hall in his lifetime and as to the sum of pound  stock the chief point make by the bill be that it be to be consider as a  ademption of a legacy of pound give to wear by the will of the say Thomas hall  make just before he come of age wear by his answer insist upon it as a bounty  from Thomas hall in respect of the care and attention show by wear in the  management of hall affair but Lord Hardwicke set aside this deed of gift on  the ground of the relation in which wear stand to hall as appear as well from  the mention make of this case by Lord Hardwicke himself in Hylton v Hylton as  from the word of the decree which be these his lordship declare that the sum  of pound east India stock have be retain by the say Samuel wear guardian of  the say Thomas hall the infant out of his estate just on his attain his age of  on pretence of a reward or present for his trouble in the guardianship ought  not under the circumstance of this case to be allow by this court and do  therefore order that the say paper write of the d of January be deliver up to  the plaintiff to be cancel Reg lib b fol see further as to case of this kind  in Turton v Benson post and Robert v Robert post Vol III salk and post lady  William v sir Bourchier Wray husband seize in fee mortgage for year and marry  the mortgagee never enter the wife on the death of her husband shall be endow  vide bank v Sutton Vol two hill v Adam atk S c Amb nom Swannock v Lyford    light a note Willoughby v Willoughby t r maundrell v maundrell Ves and S c on  bee Ves peer William de term S the number three