case pomfret against murray Westminster Michaelmas term Geo a devise his real  and personal estate to b a attorney who make the will and c in trust to invest  the personal estate in land and settle the same on the defendant for life with  remainder over and make the plaintiff executor and give they l apiece the  plaintiff refuse to prove the will unless the defendant will give they l  videlicet l to b and l to c the defendant covenant to pay these sum accord and  the plaintiff have prove the will file their bill for the allowance and the  Lord chancellor refuse satisfaction principal for that the plaintiff be a  attorney and from the evidence it appear he have urge difficulty to extort  this allowance from the defendant though be say there may be case where such  allowance will be establish the case be I S by will devise his real and  personal estate to the plaintiff pomfret who be a attorney and make the will  and the other plaintiff in trust to invest the personal estate in land and to  settle the same on the defendant for life with several remainder over and make  the plaintiff executor and give they twenty pound apiece after the testator  death plaintiff before they will prove the will procure a covenant from the  defendant within six month after they shall have exhibit the will to pay the  plaintiff pomfret one hundred pound and the other plaintiff two hundred pound  the say sum to be raise out of the first dividend he shall be entitle to and  afterward the plaintiff to bring a bill of a account to have these sum allow  modern report Hardwicke Lord chancellor this be a case of great consequence  and of such a nature as I have not know come before this court and it be  incumbent on the court to proceed wary before they allow such a demand it have  be object that a bill ought to be bring by the defendant to set this deed  aside but I be of opinion that the defendant be proper to insist on his  objection to this allowance in his answer for as the plaintiff have bring a  bill for a account and to have these two sum allow if the defendant be right  in his objection the plaintiff ought not to have this allowance if so then the  question arise on the merit the point be two first on the general reason if  any agreement of this kind ought to be allow to take place second suppose some  such agreement may be good whether this can stand as to the first whether a  agreement may be make by the beneficiary and trust with the trustee to make a  allowance which shall be bind I think there be no occasion to determine I  shall think there may be such a case though this court will be very tender all  court of equity have consider trust as honorary thing they burden the party in  honour and in their nature be not thing which he shall make a advantage of  another reason be that a trustee who have the estate of another vest in he  have a great opportunity to make use of the power be thereby gain to distress  the party which this court can prevent therefore this court have always hold a  hard hand upon they yet possible a case may arise where a trustee may say I  will not take upon I the burden of the trust unless you will make I a  allowance and if he make no ill use of the power he have over the beneficiary  and trust I will not say the court will not make such allowance but I be of  opinion that be not the present case I think here be evidence of imposition  and a abuse of the power they have in their hand pomfret a man of law be  employ to make the will be one of the person name executor whether by his own  procurement do not appear he have a legacy and the general rule be where  executor have legacy it be presume to be for their trouble if he have think  fit to have renounce the executorship he must have lose his legacy pomfret be  a attorney be likely to make a advantage of this trust for there must natural  be a cause the testator die the first of June the next day there be a meeting  to consider of the probate of the will pomfret then say to the defendant your  uncle have put I in trust I can go through with it unless you will give I more  money the defendant answer you shall have make that objection when you make  the will and ask what he will have to this pomfret say he will be moderate he  will have only one hundred pound modern report er p the defendant do not  acquiesce but say it be too much he be Willing to double his legacy or he will  take out administration himself to this pomfret answer no he will hinder he it  have be say the plaintiff be at liberty to prove the will or not that the  defendant know his power that he may take out administration but that be not  the point it do not go on a modern report misunderstand of the law but the ill  use they make of the power they have the defendant have get trustee who  declare they will not prove the will nor let he have administration if he have  sue for administration they may have delay he and after all have prove the  will I consider the case in this light here be two executor who make use of  their power to extort this reward therefore this differ from the case of a  trustee come fair and say I will not take upon I the trust but renounce if you  will not make I a allowance the personal estate vest in they and can not be  divest but by their renounce nor the real estate but by a conveyance the  recital in the deed of covenant that it be at the defendant request be false  and may be compare to a marriage brokagebond not improper for that be as  voluntary as this yet the court will not suffer such bind to take place and  that be a answer to the plaintiff turn the fraud upon the defendant I think on  these circumstance these allowance ought not to be make