case tailor versus Dulwich hospital in Surrey see mill v Hawker l r ex Lord  chancellor Parker Eq can ab pl a college restrain by its constitution from  make any lease except for twentyone year and at rackrent make order recommend  it to their successor to renew at less than the rackrent this not favour as  tend to a breach of the statute see Lydiatt v Foach vern the hospital or  college of Dulwich be seize in fee of several land in right of the college and  the statute relate to the constitution of it restrain from make lease of the  land other than for twentyone year at the rackrent in the hospital make a  lease to John tailor the plaintiff intestate for twentyone year under what be  then the rackrent which be to expire at Michaelmas the lessee have improve the  premise by building two house and at the college audit which be keep twice a  year every four of march and four of September a entry be make in the register  by which in consideration that the say John tailor have build two house on the  premise and thereby improve the same therefore it be recommend that at the end  of the lease the college shall make he a new lease for twentyone year at the  ancient rend without raise it and this entry peer William be sign by the  masterwarden and most of the fellow afterward when the lease be near expire  upon the intestate apply for a new one the college at the audit hold on the  that of march the lease be to expire on the Michaelmas follow make a order  that the intestate shall have a new lease of the premise from Michaelmas next  at the old rend and under the same covenant as the former and this order be  sign by the master warden and most of the fellow the intestate die about the  time of the next audit September whereupon the widow have take out  administration at the audit in march follow apply for a new lease accord to  the order but be refuse she now bring a bill to compel the college to make her  a new lease of the premise in pursuance of their own order and Allen the  masterwarden be the plaintiff principal witness it be allege that the order  for make a new lease to the intestate do amount to a agreement andconsequently  the bill be proper to compel a execution of it Lord chancellor the  masterwarden Mr Allen who appear as a witness in the cause betray his trust in  relation to the college and have act inconsistent with the oath he have take  as warden neither do I like the recommendation make by the masterwarden and  fellow to make a new lease to the intestate tailor at the old rend it be no  less than a recommendation to their successor to wrong the college and break  their statute which say that no lease shall be make but at the rackrents as to  the sign of private person namely the masterwarden and fellow that can be such  a contract as bind the college for a contract to bind that or indeed any  corporation as peer William to its revenue must be under its common seal it be  true there will have be some equity if the intestate have after this order for  a new lease at the old rend lie out money in improve or building on the  premise in confidence and reliance on such order peel v Armitage Ves martial v  Queenborough S S however even in that case he shall have have his reparation  only from the private person sign the order not against the college as to the  repair do by the lessee since the order for the new lease these be no more  than what by his old lease he be oblige to do for which reason dismiss the  bill with cost see Watson v Hemsworth hospital Ves see win v Bampton atk  macher v foundling hospital I v b Maxwell v Dulwich college Fonb Eq b c S peer  William er p