case reeves against reeves by marriagearticle the old son be make tenant in  tail proviso that the father may sell the land by the consent of the trustee  and purchase other land and settle they to the like use be purchase other land  but do not settle they to the like use yet hold good S c Eq ab the father of  the plaintiff and the defendant in consideration of his marriage with their  mother and of a portion in money do in the year article to settle his estate  to the use of himself for life then to his intend wife for life then upon  trustee to preserve contingent remainder then to the first son of that  marriage and to all and every other the son c in tail male with several  remainder over with power to make a jointure to any other wife of a thousand  pound ayear and a proviso that it shall be lawful for he by and with the  consent of the trustee to sell the estate and with the money arise by such  sale to purchase other land and to settle the same to the like use as in the  say deed date in the year afterward the father sell the land and with the  money purchase other land now in question and in the year he settle the new  purchase land by and with the consent of the trustee in the first settlement  to the use of himself for life remainder to the defendant for life who by the  first settlement have a estatetail remainder to trustee to preserve contingent  remainder then to his modern report first and every other son in tail male  with several remainder over with a power to make a jointure to any woman he  shall marry of the yearly value of six hundred pound and soon after the father  die then the defendant who be his old son in consideration of his marriage and  of a marriageportion by deed date convey the new purchase land to trustee to  the use of himself for life then to his intend wife for life then to trustee  to preserve contingent remainder then to his first and every other son in tail  male with several remainder over the defendant Thomas reeves have only a  daughter and no issue male by his say marriage will now sell these land allege  that the remainder limit to the issue male be voluntary not be within the  consideration of the settlement make by he in the year therefore this bill be  exhibit by the next in remainder to obstruct the sale and to oblige the  trustee to enter to preserve the contingent remainder and that the deed and  evidence may be bring into court to know how the title stand be suggest that  by the marriage article of their father date in the year he covenant to settle  his estate as aforesaid but with a proviso to sell the same by and with the  consent of the trustee and to purchase other land and to settle they upon the  same use as in the first settlement c and it be argue for the defendant that  the settlement in make upon the marriage of the father both of the plaintiff  and defendant though mention to be by article only be and be a good settlement  by way of covenant to stand seize and that the defendant be by the express  word of that settlement make tenant in tail of the land sell and the proviso  be to settle the new purchase land to the same use as in the first settlement  it be not in the power of his father to make he modern report er p tenant for  life by a other settlement whatsoever so that he must still remain tenant in  tail of the new purchase land and that settlement make by his father in the  year when he purchase those land as far as it cross the limitation in the  first settlement be entire void be voluntary so that the settlement make by  the defendant in the year upon his marriage be good and such of the land which  be not contain in that settlement the defendant may sell and the plaintiff  have no right to contest the sale even of modern report those land he be no  way within the consideration of that settlement on the other side it be insist  for the plaintiff that this settlement make by the father in the year of the  new purchase land appear on the very face of it to be make in consideration of  the settlement make by he in the year which though mention to be by article  yet strict speak those article amount to a covenant to stand seize and the  settlement make in be in execution of that covenant and acquiesce under ever  since it be make must now be take as a full and entire execution of that  covenant and though the father can not be compel by a court of equity to make  the defendant tenant for life who by the first settlement be tenant in tail  yet the father have of his own accord and with the consent of the trustee make  this settlement and no objection make to it during his life the defendant  shall not be admit to say it be not good it not correspond with the proviso in  the first settlement this be not like the case of wakele v wakele where the  father on his intermarriage c article to convey his estate to the use of  himself and his wife for life remainder to the heir of their two body and  afterward he have issue a son who come of age the father by his last will  which he mention to be in execution of the article devise the estate to his  son for life remainder to his first and every other son c in tail male with  several remainder over and afterward the son bring his bill in this court to  be relieve against this devise it not correspond with the article and the  court declare that though by the equity of the article the son shall be tenant  in tail and if he have sue in this court to compel the father to a execution  of the say article the court will have decree a estatetail to he yet if the  father by the consent and approbation of the trustee have make such a  settlement this court will never set it aside but in that case the father have  do it by his last will without the consent of the trustee and without the  consent of the son who be then of age and by that mean the son have no power  to make a jointure or any charge on the land to make provision for young child  that devise be set aside but in the principal case the settlement in be make  by the consent of the trustee in the first settlement which modern report be  therefore good and a full execution of the covenant in that settlement and so  be Matthew case who by his father marriagearticle be make tenant in tail but  some time afterward the father make a settlement by which matthews be make  tenant for life with a power to settle a jointure of six hundred pound ayear  on any woman he shall marry and be about to marry it be the opinion of several  eminent lawyer he can make no great jointure for though he be tenant in tail  by the article and if it rest there he may have make what jointure he think  fit yet be tenant for life by a subsequent settlement vary from the article he  can not make the jointure beyond six hundred pound ayear and thereupon he  apply to the parliament and obtain a Act to make up the jointure a thousand  pound ayear but that his estate in possession and all the remainder over shall  continue as before next the counsel for the plaintiff cite the case of Burton  v Hastings a Eq Abr pl pale yellow Eq Rep a in this court which be thus  videlicet by the marriagearticle the wife estate be to be settle on the  husband and wife and on the heir of their two body to be beget and afterward  it be settle to the use of the husband and wife during their life remainder to  the first and every other son of the husband in tail male remainder to the  heir of the body of the wife they have no son and but one daughter the husband  die and his widow marry again and then the husband and wife join in a fine and  settle the estate to other use thereupon the daughter exhibit her bill and  pray relief on the article because by the equity thereof the husband and wife  modern report er p ought to be but tenant for life and the subsequent  settlement can not enlarge the estate of the wife to a estatetail general  videlicet to her and the heir of her body but she have no relief the Lord  chancellor Cowper declare be can not relieve against the settlement though if  it rest on the article without any settlement make he will have decree that  the article shall be carry into execution it be far insist for the plaintiff  that he be proper in this application and have reason to pray the aid of this  court and for that purpose a case be cite between sir Richard mead and the  Lord kerry which be thus videlicet the late Lord kerry in consideration of a  marriage and a marriageportion settle his estate to the use of himself for  life then to trustee to preserve contingent remainder modern report then to  his first and every other son in tail male c and before lie have any issue he  borrow money of the plaintiff and for secure the repayment thereof with  interest he levy a fine c and upon a special verdict find in the cause the  question be if the charge be good against the present lord for that on his  father levy the fine the trustee do not enter to preserve the contingent  remainder so that it be very proper that the plaintiff in the principal case  shall come into this court to compel the trustee to enter in order to preserve  the contingent remainder especial since the plaintiff be a purchaser under the  settlement make in the year for that his father who make that settlement have  thereby abridge his power of charge the estate with a thousand pound ayear  which by the settlement make in the year he have power to do the court every  remainderman have a right to come into this court and pray the aid thereof to  compel person to bring in the deed and evidence relate to the estate but this  be a bill of the first impression as to the prayer for the trustee to enter to  preserve contingent remainder for their title be mere at law neither do it  appear in the cause that the trustee refuse to enter now if this case be  consider upon the deed make in the year the defendant be tenant in tail of the  land thereby settle but the deed make of the new purchase land be intend to be  a family settlement and a full execution of the covenant in the deed make by  which deed the defendant be make tenant for life he shall not be at liberty to  encumber any part of the land thereby settle by his father therefore the  decree be for the plaintiff and in pronounce this decree the Lord chancellor  say that where a settlement be make by the father or other lineal ancestor in  consideration of the marriage of his son in such case all the remainder limit  to his child and their posterity be within the consideration of that  settlement but when it be make by a brother or any other collateral ancestor  on his intermarriage there after the limitation to his own issue all the  remainder limit to his collateral kindred be voluntary and not within the  consideration of the marriagesettlement