case Marlow versus PITFEILD Eq can ab pl distinguish in re nat permanent  benefit bldg socy l r Ch in re Howarth l r Ch n see York rly wagon   v maclure  Ch d one borrow money during his infancy and apply it to the buy of necessary  and afterward come to age devise his land for payment of his debt this debt  contract during infancy be within the trust see Davis v Austen bro c c and Ves  jun lee v brown Ves Cory v Gertcken mad Fonb Eq book c S one pitfield a infant  who estate be considerable but consist chief of a reversion after his father  death have marry without his father consent be thereupon discard by he and  force to take a house for himself and his wife not long after this he attain  his full age and have during his infancy borrow money which money so borrow  amount to pound and therewith buy some necessary make his will devise his real  estate to trustee for the payment of his debt with interest peer William the  question be whether the money actual advance to the testator Pitfeild during  his infancy be to be pay within this trust his honour the master of the roll  take time to consider of it and now give his peer William er p opinion that  this money actual lend to the testator though during his infancy be within the  trust and ought to be pay first the court admit that if a infant be sue in a  assumpsit for money lend he during his infancy the defendant may plead non  assumpsit and give the infancy in evidence which demonstrate that the promise  or contract be void and therefore to be give in evidence on non assumpsit as  be resolve by Treby chief justice salk and the diversity be betwixt the deed  or bind and the bare promise of a infant for though the latter be mere void so  as to enable the defendant to plead non assumpsit yet in case of the former  the infant can avail himself of the plea of non be factum but must plead his  infancy second though the law be that if one actual lend money to a infant  even to pay for necessary yet as the infant in such case may waste and  misapply it he be therefore not liable accord to the resolution in salk it be  however otherwise in equity for if one lend money to a infant to pay a debt  for necessary and in consequence thereof the infant do pay the debt here  although he may not be liable at law he must nevertheless be so in equity  because in this case the lender of the money stand in the vide ante Harris v  lee place of the person pay videlicet the creditor for necessary and shall  recover in equity as the other shall have do at law peer William three his  honour think that as equity shall take care of creditor so it ought to show  its concern for infant and not give any encouragement whereby these may be  draw in during their infancy to take up such sum as may ruin they and  therefore have there be in the principal case the least circumstance of fraud  or have the money be advance to supply the infant extravagancy he shall have  be of a different opinion but here the principal sum be but pound and the  infant estate considerable and he be on his father displeasure leave destitute  and oblige to borrow money for his necessary support it can not be imagine but  have the testator be now live and be ask the question whether the debt which  he have actual and without fraud contract shall be pay within the trust he  will have say that they ought to be pay wherefore consider all circumstance  and particular since he do not bare desire that his debt shall be pay but with  interest also which be unusual it be decree that this money actual lend as  aforesaid though during the testator infancy be within the trust