ambler case partyn against roberts that July the court will not rectify a  settlement which vary the interest of a adult from what it appear to be under  the article to his disadvantage unless where it be clear intend that the  settlement shall pursue the article leg v Goldwise can tempt Talb Cordwell v  mackrill post highway v banner bro c c green v ekins atk lib Reg b foe b David  Robert be entitle to a estate in fee as heir to his mother expectant on a  estate for life which his father have therein as tenant by the courtesy and be  also entitle to a remainder in tail in another estate expectant on the death  of his father with remainder over to his brother and sister under a marriage  settlement of his father in and be about to be marry to Elizabeth meller by  article that November he and his father agree to settle pound ayear part of  his mother estate on the husband for life subject to a annuity to the wife by  way of jointure with remainder to trustee for year to raise portion with  remainder to first c son of the marriage with remainder to the daughter of the  marriage in like manner remainder to the heir of the body of David Robert  remainder to his brother Roger and his issue male in strict settlement  remainder over to his several sister in like manner with remainder in fee to  the right heir of David Robert as to the residue of the mother estate after  the death of David Robert and subject to a term of year for portion and to a  power to be vest in David Robert in case he shall survive Elizabeth and shall  have any issue by her to make a settlement on any aftertaken wife or wife by  way of jointure and upon the issue of her or their body and in default of such  issue of such subsequent marriage then to the same use and in like manner as  the pound ayear be agree to be settle and the estate of the father be agree to  be settle as the pound ayear be the marriage take effect and afterward by  indenture of that and that February a settlement be make which after recite  the article and declare the intention of the party to be for continue the  estate in the name and blood of the Robert as long as it shall please almighty  God and that it be in pursuance of the article the several estate be settle in  strict settlement and instead of limit they to the heir of the body of David  in ambler default of issue of that marriage they be limit to the issue of any  subsequent marriage with a power for David Robert to make a jointure and  provision on a aftertaken wife and issue of subsequent marriage which be to  take place of the limitation to the issue of that marriage David Robert be  great in debt on his father and his own account in obtain a Act of parliament  for sale of part of the estate and by way of compensation settle a small  estate to the use of the settlement in and give up and release his power which  he have of do waste and be declare by the act to be only tenant for life  ambler er p without such power the brother be dead the survive sister and the  son of one of they that be dead join in and give their consent to the Act  David Robert be still involve in debt in suffer a recovery of these estate at  the great session in Wales and declare the use to trustee for year in trust  after the death of himself to raise money by sale or mortgage to pay his debt  in Elizabeth die without issue and in the present bill be file by the  plaintiff who be a creditor of David Robert to have the settlement rectify and  make accord to the article by which mean David Robert will in the event that  have happen be tenant in tail and to have a execution of the deed of trust  declare the use of the recovery it be insist by plaintiff counsel that he be  entitle to a estate tail by the word of the article that it be but reasonable  that after the limitation to the issue the estate shall go in the old channel  that it be a mistake in the settlement and that the Act of parliament make no  alteration with respect to the right of the party but be obtain with another  view that the person who oppose the rectification be sister or sister child  who be only volunteer in the settlement on the other side it be argue saint  that the limitation to the issue of a subsequent marriage in the settlement  ambler be a explanation of the intention of the party and their meaning in  limit the estate to the heir of the body of David in the article dly that if  by the article David Robert will be entitle to a estate tail yet that the  settlement be make on a new agreement that David Robert be adult at the time  and know what he be do and have not only acquiesce in it ever since but  confirm it by the Act of parliament that the sister and their issue be not  volunteer part of the estate move from the father without who concurrence  David can not have bar the entail which be limit over to his brother and  sister by the settlement of and Osgood v stride p wms be cite for that purpose  Lord Hardwicke chancellor there never be such a decree as be pray by this bill  I have not have any doubt since the settlement and Act of parliament be read  almost all the case that have be determine on this head be of settlement in  prejudice of the issue of the marriage and there can be no presumption of a  new agreement where the party to the settlement be adult and it differ from  the article this court will not alter the settlement except where it be say  and intend to be pursuant to the article honour v honour p wms and west v  Evrissey p wms be determination of this sort David Robert be capable of judge  for himself and may if he please vary the settlement from the article it  recite for continue the estate in the name and blood of Robert that can not be  by give he a estate tail as in the article nor any other way so effectual as  that in the settlement by limit they to the issue of a subsequent marriage it  be no mistake not to be presume but do with design the power of jointuring on  second wife be void by the article it be confine to the case of his survive  Elizabeth and have issue the reason may ambler be because if he have no issue  he have it in his power to do it by virtue of the limitation to he in tail by  the settlement that power be give to he at large because he have part with the  estate tail but if it be not strong on the settlement yet the Act of  parliament make it a clear case it be a waiver of his equity it will be so if  instead of a Act of parliament it have be only a private deed if it will be so  if the bill have be bring against David Robert the be bring by a creditor make  no difference for the change of David Robert interest under the settlement be  not to be consider as fraudulent with respect to his creditor every voluntary  settlement be not but if it be this bill be not bring on that foundation bill  dismiss ambler er p