case Hollis against car article of a greement recite a intend marriage  covenant to settle a jointure in consideration of a marriageportion and  conclude thus and it be hereby agree that a fine shall be levy to secure the  payment of the say portion amount to a covenant to levy the fine and the court  of chancery may decree the execution of it in specie S C finch c r S C Freem  finch Lord chancellor have call to his assistance wile and Wyndham justice to  give their opinion what relief the plaintiff be to have for the recover of six  thousand pound which be his lady portion after those judge have speak short to  the matter he put the follow case the plaintiff by his bill demand six  thousand pound due to he for his wife portion with interest for nonpayment  accord to the purport of certain article of agreement date in August and  mention to be make between old sir Robert car the defendant rather his lady  and his son the now defendant and Lucy car his daughter on the one part and my  Lord Hollis and sir Francis his son the now plaintiff on the other part modern  the article mention a agreement of a marriage to he have between the say sir  Francis Hollis and Lucy car with covenant on the plaintiff side to settle a  jointure c and on the other side to pay six thousand pound and it be agree in  the article that a fine be intend to be levy of such land c for secure the  payment of the six thousand pound the marriage take effect but old sir Robert  car do never seal these article the lady car seal before and the defendant  after marriage sir Francis have issue on his lady Lucy one child since dead  the lady be likewise dead the jointure be not make nor the portion pay  afterward in the year a Act of parliament be make for settle old sir Robert  car estate whereby the trustee therein name modern er p be appoint to sell it  for payment of debt and raise this portion by which act all conveyance make by  old sir Robert car since the year be make void except such as be make upon  valuable consideration but all those make by he before the say year with power  of revocation if not actual revoke be save and in the year he have execute a  conveyance by which he have make a settlement of his estate in tail with a  power of revocation but it do not appear that he do ever revoke the same the  great part of the land appoint by this Act of parliament to be sell by the  trustee be the land comprise in that settlement and now after the death of sir  Robert car the plaintiff exhibit his bill against the son not know that such a  settlement be make in the year till the defendant have set it forth in his  answer and by this bill he desire that the trustee may execute their trust c  and that he may have relief on the defendant side it be urge that after the  marriage there be a bind give for a additional jointure and it be upon that  account that the defendant be draw in to execute these article and if the very  reason and foundation of his enter into they fail then they shall not bind he  in equitv and in this case it do fail because the plaintiff have disable  himself to make any other jointure by a preconveyance make and execute by he  of his whole estate and if this agree mean will not bind he then this court  can enlarge the plaintiff remedy or appoint more than what by the article be  agree to be do neither can the defendant seal encumber the estate tail in  equity because the land be modern not then in he his father be tenant in tail  and then live and the subsequent descent by which the land be cast upon he  alter not the case for the very right which descend be save by the Act from be  charge but on the other side it be argue that though the marriage do proceed  upon the defendant seal yet the assurance which be to be make be a principal  motive thereunto and it be agree before marriage though not execute it be very  just that he shall seal afterward and though the additional jointure be not  make yet there be no colour that the defendant shall break his article for  that reason because if the bind be not perform it be forfeit and maybe sty and  nothing appear in the case of any conveyance make by sir Francis whereby he  have disable himself to make a additional jointure and be have express deny it  upon his oath and though it be object that the money be raise by the old lady  car and by the direction of the trustee lodge in the band of one cook who be  become insolvent it be answer that there be no proof of the consent of the  trustee and therefore this payment can alter the case the Lord chancellor  after the matter thus state deliver his opinionThat the six thousand pound  unpay and unsatisfy be due to the plaintiff for though the marriage have not  take effect yet the covenant bind the defendant because a deed be good for a  duty without any consideration second the plaintiff have remedy against the  person of the defendant at law for this six thousand pounds Thirdly he have  remedy against such of the defendant land which be not comprise in the  settlement make in the year for as to they the trustee may be ei join to  execute the trust and be desire the opinion of the two justice if any  thingmore can be do in this case Wyndham justice be of opinion that nothing  more can be do but to make a decree to enforce the execution of the trust and  wile justice say that the plaintiff have his remedy at law against the  defendant and upon the Act of parliament against the trustee but upon these  article no decree can be make to bind the land for that will be to give a much  better security than the party have agree on but if there have modern be a  covenant in the article that a fine shall be levy it may have be otherwise it  be only that a fine be intend to be levy but as to that the Lord chancellor be  of opinion that it be a good covenant to levy a fine for the word article of  agreement c go quite through and make that clause a covenant but because wile  justice be of another opinion he desire the attorneygeneral to argue these  three point modern er p first whether this be a covenant to levy a fine or not  second if it be a covenant whether this court can decree he to do it for  though the party have a good remedy at law yet whether this court may not give  remedy upon the land three if it be a covenant to levy a fine and the court  may decree the defendant to do it yet whether such a decree can be make upon  the prayer of this bill it not be particular pray for the plaintiff conclude  his bill with pray relief in the execution of the trust c in Trinity term  followin g these point be argue by Maynard sergeant sir John churchill and sir  John king for the plaintiff Mr attorney and Mr solicitor and Mr Keck for the  defendant all in one day and in the same order as name the counsel for the  defendant urge that this be no covenant in law to enforce the defendant to  levy a fine it be agree that there be no need of the word Cicovenant to make a  covenant but any thing under the hand and seal of the party which import a  agreement will amount to a covenant so in roll Abr these word in a lease for  year videlicet that the lessee shall repair make a covenant so in the case of  indenture of apprenticeship there be not the formal word of a covenant but  only a agreement that the master shall do this and the apprentice shall do  that and these be covenant but in all these case there be something of a  undertake as in roll walker v walker if a deed be make to another in these  word videlicet I have a write in my custody in which W stand bind to b in one  hundred ipounds and I will be ready to produce it this be a covenant for there  be a present engage to do it but there be no such word here it be only a  recital that whereas a fine be intend to be levy to such use c it be only  introductive to another clause without positive or affirmative word and  therefore can never be intend to make a covenant but be modern recite to  another purpose videlicet to declare the use of a fine in case such shall be  levy if article of agreement be execute in consideration of a intend marriage  and one side covenant to do one thing and the other side another thing be it  ever imagine that upon these word whereas a marriage be intend c that a action  of covenant may be bring to enforce the marriage and yet there be as much  reason for the one as the other therefore since the party have neither make  nor intend it for a covenant it be not necessary that it shall be so construe  if this be a covenant the party at commonlaw can only bring a action of  covenant and recover damage for not levy of the fine and that the plaintiff  may do now upon the express covenant for nonpayment of the money but then the  breach must be assign accord to the word videlicet that the defendant do not  levy a fine as I ntended who may plead that a fine be never intend to be levy  and by what jury shall this be try it may be object that every article stand  upon its own bottom and the title of they be article of agreement extend to  every paragraph but as to that each of these article be to be consider by  itself and every paragraph begin videlicet it be covenant c which show it be  never intend to make it a covenant by the title of the article and the rather  because it be unreasonable to make such a construction for it be not to be  suppose that a man will covenant that a fine shall be levy as in this case by  a and b and himself when it be not in his power to compel another second admit  it to be a covenant yet it will be very hard to decree the execution of a fine  in specie for the father of the defendant be alive when he execute the deed  and the father be tenant in tail who never seal the son can have no present  right who do seal and if matter have stand now as then how can a court of  equity decree a fine by which a right may be extinguish but can never be  transfer and by which no use can be declare for though such a fine be good by  estoppel before the tail descend to the issue yet no use can be declare  thereupon nor upon any fine by estoppel and there be no reason why length of  time shall put the plaintiff into a better condition than he be when the  article be execute three modern and last since here be a particular relief  pray in nowise concern the levy of this fine but only a relief in the  execution of the trust this court can decree the defendant to levy one it be  against the constant course and rule thereof modern er p but on the other side  it be say by the plaintiff counsel that the word do declare the intent of the  party that a fine shall be levy and it be the intent which make the agreement  and where there be a agreement a action of covenant will lie if a man covenant  to do such a thing in consideration of a marriage and then there be this  clause videlicet whereas it be intend that he shall marry before Michaelmas  that then c certain upon the whole deed here be a good covenant to marry  before Michaelmas in this case it be covenant that six thousand pound shall be  pay and that it shall be secure as herein be after mention then it be declare  that a fine be intend to be levy for that purpose this be a good covenant to  make a security by a fine but if the particular manner how the security be to  be make have be omit yet upon the word covenant to secure it the court have a  good ground to make a decree to levy a fine that be the only way to secure it  second as to the objection that the defendant have but a possibility of have  the estate when he enter into this covenant admit it to be so yet why shouO  that be a reason to hinder he from make good the security when be have it if  father and son covenant to make a assurance and the father who have the estate  in possession die the decree must then operate upon that estate in the hand of  the son three here be a general crooked for a proper relief in which the  plaintiff case be include and therefore pray d judgement for he the Lord  chancellor present after the argument on each side deliver his opinion that  upon the whole frame of the article there be a covenant to levy a fine for  wherever there be a agreement under hand and seal covenant lie a lev case in  Chan a that in this case there be a plain covenant if the first article of  give far security be couple to that paragraph of intend to levy a fine for  that be the far security intend so that the meaning of the party run thus I do  intend to levy a fine which be for the secure of six thousand pound and this  appear to be their agreement now there be many case where word modern will  make a covenant because of the agreement when the general word of covenant  grant c be want as yield and pay wonder lll make a covenant b see the case of  Hays v Bickerstaff ante and cook v Herle post b for the reason aforesaid and  therefore the party have provide himself of real as well as personal security  by these article he say he will not deprive he of it especial when it may be  more trouble to bring ail action of covenant for the not levy of the fine for  upon that many question may arise as who shall do the first act c for these  reason he decree the execution of the fine in specie trinity term the  twentyeighth of Charles the second in the common plea sir Francis north Knt  chief justice sir Hugh Wyndham Knt sir Robert Atkins Knt sir William Scroggs  Knt Jus ice sir William Jones Knt attorneygeneral sir Francis winnington Knt  solicitor general