case uvedale versus halfpenny at the roll Eq can ab pl I in a  marriagesettlement a term for year for secure young child portion be by  mistake make subsequent to the estatetail limit to the son this help in equity  in a settlement the land be limit to the husband for life remainder as to part  to the wife for life remainder of the whole to the first c son in tail male  remainder peer William er p to trustee for year to raise portion for young son  and daughter of the marriage and the trust of the term be declare to be to  secure maintenance for the young son and daughter from the husband death and  to pay the portion of the young son at twentyone and of the daughter at  twentyone or marriage which shall first happen there be also a covenant to  surrender copyhold land to trustee in trust by rend issue and profit to raise  the say portion for the young son and daughter of the marriage at such time  and age as aforesaid and as a additional security for the same a bill be bring  to rectify the mistake in the settlement in peer William place the term after  the limitation in tail to the son whereas the term shall have come in before  such limitation in tail the husband be dead leave several daughter one of who  be marry to the plaintiff uvedale and the old son as to such part of the  premise of which he be tenant in tail in possession have suffer a common  recovery object for the defendant what be ask by the bill be that the court  shall make a new and different settlement which it be not in the power of the  court to do especial in this case where there be a competent provision for the  daughter and young child out of the copyhold estate and if the term shall take  place before the limitation to the son it will great distress the old son and  heir master of the roll I will not destroy the settlement but set it right  accord to the intention and agreement of the party and by the declaration of  the trust of the term the intention and agreement of the party manifest appear  to be that the land shall be charge with the payment of portion for the young  son and daughter at certain age videlicet for the son at twentyone and for the  daughter at twentyone or marriage and maintenance to begin from the death of  the husband and this appear I do not regard the place of the term but will  help the mistake which will otherwise prevent the agreement of the party from  take effect and this I be the rather induce to do as it be in the case of a  settlement make pursuant to article before marriage so that the young child  and daughter be as much purchaser of their portion as the old son of his  estatetail limit to he by the settlement peer William beside young child as to  their provision though by a will be look upon in nature of creditor and the  agreement be to charge the land with portion Payable at certain and usual time  with maintenance from the husband death until the portion shall become Payable  it be very plain that equity will charge the land accord to the intention and  agreement of the party and will effectuate the same nor be it reasonable to  say that the provision by the copyhold shall be all that the young child be to  have when by the express word of the settlement the surrender of the copyhold  be intend but as a additional security and to come in aid only of the freehold  estate it be a further demonstration that the limitation in tail to the first  c son previous to the term for make provision for young son oh be a mistake  because the remainder in tail to the young son must be spend before the  portion for these very young son can take place and in regard the wife who be  the mother of these young child consent to the raise of the portion let her if  she agree thereto make a conditional surrender of her estate for life to be  void on nonpayment of pound in six month and lot a new term be raise for year  for secure the maintenance and portion as they become due and since the  recovery as to part of the land have already bar the limitation in tail with  regard to those land subsequent to the term for year let the remainder in fee  be limit to the old son peer William but with respect to the land in jointure  of which no recover that have be yet suffer let there be a new settlement make  thereof to the son in tail subsequent to the term of year for raise the  portion the cost to go out of the estate Reg lib b fol so Kentish v Newman  ante vol Targus v puget ves and these case be the same in principle with  Trevor v Trevor ante vol west v Errissey post c on the general head of relief  against mistake in deed peer William er p c vide Simpson v Vaughan atk Henkle  v royal exchange assurance company I ves baker v pain ves Harwood v Wallis  cite ves Southsea company v DOliff cite ves Eden v earl of Bute bro p c  countess of Shelburne v earl of inchiquin bro c c Jalabert v d of chandos Eden  ex part Symonds Cox burt v Barlow bro c c mosely v virgin Ves Thomas v Frazer  ib burn v burn ib Stangroom v marq Townshend Ves Woollan v hear Ves grey v  Chriswell Ves clinan v cook Sch l Underhill v Horwood Ves Ramsbottom v Gosden  V b rob v Butterwick price Beaumont v Bramley turner ball v story S S see also  on the head of relief against mistake in marriage Settlements where the  existence of the mistake be ascertain from article or some other previous  instrument pursuant whereto the settlement be or ought to have be make Langley  v furlong dick Randall v Willis Ves Barstow v Kilvington Ves Jenkins v  Quinchant ib in note Burrell v Crutchley Ves where the existence of the  mistake be collect from the frame of the settlement itself e of Northumberland  v e of Egremont Eden doran v Ross bro c c Ves jun pain v collier Ves jun hope  v Lord clifden Ves Hume v rundell S S