c Mr bertie ux v lord Falkland S c Charles can vern Eq can ab salk Mod holt  Lord chancellor chief I holt chief I Treby breach of a condition whether to be  relieve Mr Carew be seize of a estate of near pound per and devise his estate  to trustee upon trust that in case mrs Willoughby daughter to the Lord  Willoughby and his near relation and heir at law shall marry the Lord  Guildford within three year after his decease that she shall have the profit  of his estate for her life and after her decease devise the same to her issue  by my Lord Guildford and for default of such issue to the Lord Falkland and  the heir of his body with remainder to one Mr Carew and if she do not so marry  then he devise to the Lord Falkland immediate the Lord Guildford and mrs  Willoughby be both infant under the age of sixteen there be a treaty between  the trustee of mrs Willoughby and the trustee of my Lord Guildford for a  marriage but it break off because they can not agree upon term and she marry  the plaintiff who be one of the son of the Lord Abington and my Lord Guildford  be also marry and now the plaintiff bring their bill to be relieve against the  breach of this condition and to have the trustee convey and the sole question  be whether equity can relieve against the breach of this condition it be  insist for the plaintiff that the plaintiff be a infant not fourteen at the  time this condition shall have be freeman perform and that she be not so  freeman er p much in the fault as her trustee that it be not perform who break  off the treaty upon term and however this be not a devise of the estate but of  the trust of a estate that equity may carry it far than in case of a legal  estate a trust be a creation of this court and the party here be heir at law  who be always favour but by the opinion of the chancellor and two chief  justice equity can not relieve against the breach of this condition for that  this be a condition precedent see ante c p note and that the plaintiff have no  interest until the condition perform and holt say he think that there can be  no relief in equity against a condition precedent but in many case there may  be against a condition subsequent which be to divest a estate be not favour in  law but to that the chancellor say possible a case may have happen where a  person may be relieve against a condition precedent as if it have appear that  the Lord f who be in remainder have by any fraud or artifice obstruct the  marriage there equity will have relieve fraud justify the interposition of  equity often contrary to and beyond the rule of law Garth v cotton atk because  he shall have have no benefit of such a contrivance as for the objection of  infancy they all hold that can make nothing for where a condition be annex to  the estate of a infant it be to be perform at the peril of the infant and that  be no more than be in the case of fry and porter Charles can Ventr and see  Chauncey v Graydon atk in which case Lord Hardwicke c say where there be a  condition annex to a devise and no notice require to be give nor any person  oblige to give notice there the legatee must perform the condition or they can  be entitle and if they do not where there be a devise over a forfeiture incur  but this general observation ought as we learn from the same great judge on  another occasion to be restrict in its application where the party upon who a  condition be impose be the testator heir at law then notice of the condition  be necessary to work a forfeiture for the heir at law be suppose to enter and  claim by descent and have no occasion to know the devise Burleton v Humphrey  Ambl which be say to be a hard case than this for there be infancy and the  infant have no notice of the forfeiture by the marriage without consent and  there the trustee do give a subsequent assent but all will not help as for its  be in the limitation of a trust that will make no difference for as to the  limitation that will be construe in the same manner as limitation of estate  for otherwise there will be different measure of inheritance which ought not  to be see the observation which conclude the last precede case also Garth v  Baldwin Ves sen Jones v Morgan Br and as to forfeiture by breach of condition  even subsequent there be a difference where a equivalent can be make ante c p  note as for nonpayment of money and convey of estate c but this be a case  which can admit of no equivalent unless it shall be say to be the same thing  to marry my Lord Guildford and Mr bertie beside it appear here that part of  the consideration of the testator so freeman settle his estate do arise from  my Lord Guildford because it be a provision for her issue by he which now be  impossible so that if the court can decree for the plaintiff it will be  difficult to know what decree to make holt say that the case of the Lord bath  and Montague Charles can be strong than this for there the duke of Albemarle  impose term of revocation upon himself to be do in the presence of three peer  and three commoner and in case of a voluntary settlement it can not be  dispense with and yet a power of revocation ought to be take favourable  because the relic of a ancient property it be agree that all letter and other  proof make or produce in this case to prove Mr carew intention be to be reject  and then the will be to stand or fall upon its own construction it be hold  also that if the condition have become impossible by the act of God which be  help in case of a subsequent condition that it will not have help in this case  because the estate be not to vest but upon the performance of it Knight v  Cameron Ves and as to the objection that the plaintiff be heir at law who be  always favour that make nothing so as to make he take against the express gift  of the ancestor nor in other manner than the ancestor give it A court of  equity will only upon a principle short of favour for it be at last but a act  of justice take care that what be not give away shall go because it be not  give away to the heir Stansfield v Habergham Ves so the plaintiff bill be  dismiss and a decree for my Lord Falkland upon his cross bill But upon appeal  this decree be in part reverse in dom proc see Colles p c journ h of l vol a  estate for life be adjudge to mrs bertie with remainder in tail to Lord  Falkland without presume to doubt the correctness of this final judgement it  may be permit to offer a query whether it be reconcileable with many other  decision both subsequent and previous see ante c p note freeman er p freeman  de term S mich in curian porter