case Chauncey versus TAHOURDEN August a executor bring a bill for the  discovery of the defendant marriage who demurrer for that if she be to  discover what be ask it will be a forfeiture of her legacy of epound as it be  give conditional if she marry with the consent of the trustee under the will  Lord Hardwicke allow the demurrer as she can answer to the marriage without  show at the same time it be against consent the bill be bring by the plaintiff  executor of a will for a discovery of the defendant marriage the defendant  demurrer because if she be to discover what be require of her it will be a  forfeiture of her legacy which be no less than pound for it be give her  conditional provide she marry with the consent of the trustee under the will  atkins the counsel for the plaintiff insist that the defendant ought to  discover and compare it to a case before Lord chancellor Talbot where a  husband give a estate to his wife by his will while she continue a widow with  a limitation over to the plaintiff in the cause in case of her second marriage  the remainderman bring a bill against the widow for a discovery of her second  marriage she demurrer as it subject her to a forfeiture but he overrule the  demurrer Lord chancellor in the first place this be a harsh demand in a court  of equity atkins er p for it must be admit that if a person incur a forfeiture  by discover he may demurrer I have know a bill bring here and in the court of  exchequer for discovery of waste and the demurrer allow in both court because  the plaintiff have not waive the penalty in the case mention by Mr clark of a  usurious contract it be a bill only to perpetuate testimony and do not seek to  discover from the defendant upon oath whether the contract be usurious the  legacy be give here at the age of or day of marriage with the consent of such  and such person but if she marry without the consent of those person it be  give over therefore this will tend to make her forfeit the legacy if she be to  set forth whether she be marry before but in the case before Lord Talbot it be  a limitation over of a estate and not a condition and therefore can not proper  be call a forfeiture so Lucas v Evans post vol Chauncey v Fenhoulet Ves contra  Monnins v Monnins Charles Rep I will put this case suppose a man shall bring a  bill to set aside a usurious contract and in the interrogatory part shall ask  the defendant what interest he agree to take how can he set forth what  interest he agree to take without discover at the same time the very interest  he have take anon Eq ab pl earl of Suffolk v green ante vol Harrison v  Southcote ante vol so here when the bill ask her to discover whether she be  not marry how can she answer that without show at the same time it be a  marriage against the consent of the trustee and by that mean subject herself  to a forfeiture therefore the demurrer must be allow Wrottesly v Bendish p W  Chauncey v fen owlet Ves see fane v atlee Eq ab pl Lord Uxbridge v Steveland  Ves