case sir John Barnardiston versus LINGOOD February see Benyon v cook lr Ch n  SC barn Charles Rep sir I b remainder in tail in the estate in question be  distress convey two manor of the yearly value of pound expectant on a estate  for life in his uncle sir Samuel Barnardiston for the sum of pound to the  defendant his heir and assign from and after the decease of sir Samuel  Barnardiston without issue male sir I b bring a bill to be relieve against  this bargain as unconscionable Lord Hardwicke hold it a void conveyance even  in point of law for as the plaintiff have a remainder in tail only he can but  convey such estate as he have and not dispose of the inheritance see Lawley v  Hooper post vol note and Willis v Jernegan post sir John Barnardiston  remainder in tail in the estate in question be distress in his circumstance  convey the manor of ratton great and ratton Parva in Suffolk of the yearly  value of pound expectant upon a estate for life in his uncle sir Samuel  Barnardiston for the sum of pound only to the defendant Mr Lingood his heir  and assign for ever from and after the decease of sir Samuel Barnardiston  without issue male the original bill be bring by sir John Barnardiston to be  relieve against this bargain as be a unconscionable one and make without a  proper consideration atkins the cross bill by the defendant to establish the  agreement between he and the plaintiff for the sale of these manor and for a  specific performance Lord chancellor the first consideration be if the  plaintiff in the cross cause be entitle to a decree for a specific performance  of this agreement I be of opinion here be no ground for the court to make such  a decree for I be incline to think it a void conveyance even in point of law  for it be a conveyance of the manor therein mention to Mr Lingood habendum to  he his heir and assign for ever from and after the decease of sir Samuel  Barnardiston without issue male now as the plaintiff in the original cause  have a remainder in tail only he can but atkins er p convey such estate as he  have but this be a attempt to dispose of the whole inheritance of the estate a  person who convey a estatetail convey totum position suum which be a estate  for life see the essay on use and trust it be one thing where a estatetail  take place in possession and where it be foe vest in going to be this be  habendum a remainder after the death of tenant for life and consequent vest  nothing in the defendant foe a spring use can be limit and as this deed only  carry a estate for life it be not such a estate as the party contract for and  be therefore void Videathe case of brain versus Deakin in the house of lord in  the case of a hard bargain where it be not absolute execute but executory only  the constant rule of the court be not to carry it into execution the uncle sir  Samuel Barnardiston be live who be in possession of the estate and the father  of the plaintiff likewise be live under who the plaintiff claim as last  remainderman at the time of this agreement the party too be not absolute sure  whether the estate consist of one or two manor so that the plaintiff do not  know for certain what he sell nor the defendant what he purchase and take it  then in the fair light the court ought not to decree king specific performance  of a bargain make entire in the dark this be the case I can think of leave the  plaintiff in the original cause at the defendant mercy to put a judgement of  pound in suit which he compel or rather draw in the plaintiff to give at the  time of the agreement as a security for the performance of it atkins I be of  opinion therefore upon the circumstance of this case it S just in the court to  set the thing right for the benefit of all the party and in the first place I  must relieve the plaintiff in the original cause and for this purpose do  decree that the judgement shall stand as a security only for the defendant  principal interest and cost and no further for without doubt there be all the  material ingredient in this case as well as in those which have be cite of  come Arglasse versus Muschamp vern and Bernee versus Pitt vern and knot versus  Johnson and Graham vern to set asideathis agreement as a catch bargain against  a necessitous and improvident heir the very advance money in such small sum as  have be do in the present case as three guinea six guinea c show the plaintiff  to be in the utmost distress and as to the hazard the defendant run of its be  a lose bargain it be a circumstance in common only with all people who be  dealer in this way and if this have be a reason for carry such a agreement  into execution there never will have be any of they set aside but what the  court be guide by in all these case be the take a undue advantage of a heir be  in distress and necessitous circumstance and this be the principal ground of  these decree here be no more than three hundred pound give for a estate of  three hundred pound a year which be but one year purchase of a reversion that  be to fall in upon the death of a person who be turn of fifty and not likely  to marry so that the hazard the contract party run be very small the  conveyance be date on the that of January and the first receipt the plaintiff  give which be for fifteen guinea be but the may before express recite to be in  part of payment for the reversion of ratton great and ratton Parva pound in  another pound S in another and pound in another receipt and so on and all of  they recite to be in part of the purchasemoney and if this have be a fair  transaction the court will have decree the plaintiff to convey on such receipt  but can this be say to be a fair way of purchase estate to furnish a young  heir with money from hand to mouth and bare enough to buy he necessary in the  lifetime of his ancestor atkins as to the hazard which the purchaser run I  have say before that this court have always extend their relief in such case  and with the great justice in the world for the sake of the public to prevent  people game as it be to the prejudice and damage of young improvident person  and the heir of family I can do proper justice in this case unless I decree  cost to the defendant in the cross cause I shall reserve the consideration of  cost in the original cause till the master shall have take a account of what  be due to the defendant in the original for principal and interest at the rate  of pound per cent on the sum advance by he at atkins er p different time the  defendant Linqood be decree to pay the plaintiff his cost in the original  cause and the cross bilft be dismiss with cost Reg lib a fol