Barnardiston Glanville and pain April on the that of march previous to the  marriage of Abraham pain with rise his wife article be enter into whereby in  consideration of pound portion that Abraham be to have with rise Abraham agree  to make a settlement of pound per annum on rise for life by way of jointure  and to the heir of her body by Abraham beget on the same day a settlement be  make by Christopher the father of Abraham of certain freehold land the value  whereof do not appear this settlement be make by Christopher on the one part  Abraham and rise on the other part and trustee on the three part this  settlement be that as well for and in consideration of the marriage intend to  he have between Abraham and rise and for and towards settle part of a jointure  on rise and for settle the estate in the name and blood of Christopher the use  of one moiety be to Abraham for life the remainder to rise in part of her  jointure the remainder to the heir of the body of rise by Abraham beget as to  the other moiety it be to Christopher for life the remainder to mary his wife  for life the remainder to Abraham for life the remainder to the heir on the  body of rise beget in this settlement there be a power to make lease in this  manner that after the death of Christopher and mary it shall be lawful for  Abraham to demise the premise for three life or any number of year  determinable on three life so as not less than the rend of l S per annum shall  be reserve another settlement be make on the same day of a leasehold estate it  recite the marriage agree on and that the husband be to receive a portion of  pound of his wife namely pound down and pound more as soon as he shall settle  pound per annum on his wife for life by way of jointure and to the heir of her  body beget by Abraham and over and above what be already Barnardiston settle  on the that of April follow the marriage ensue the same day the father of rise  give a bind for secure the payment of the pound in case the pound per annum  shall be settle beside what be already settle in Abraham make a settlement of  a leasehold estate of pound per annum for the benefit of his wife for her  jointure be limit to trustee to permit Abraham to receive the profit for his  life the remainder to rise for her life the remainder to such second husband  as she shall afterward marry the remainder to the executor and administrator  of Abraham rise die in after her death Abraham pain take to himself the  custody of all the deed by this marriage there be issue one son the son die  and leave a daughter mary who intermarry with Glanville and thereupon the  present bill be bring by Glanville and his wife against Abraham pain in order  to compel he to make a settlement of the per annum in pursuance of the  marriage article Mr Talbot argue on the part of the plaintiff and for  authority cite vern Lord chancellor say that his opinion be the plaintiff be  entitle to relief be very plain that here be a portion of pound which be agree  by the article to be pay to Abraham these article be make in and at that time  money be of much more considerable value than now it S it be very plain too  that by these article a settlement be intend to be make for the benefit of the  issue of the marriage as well as for the benefit of the wife but if thing be  to remain as they be here will be hardly any provision for the issue at all it  be indeed true that the clause of the heir of the body be interline in the  marriage article and in the attestation by the witness no notice be take of  this interlineation but consider that Barnardiston er p here be the like  clause of a provision for the heir of her body insert in the settlement of a  Barnardiston freehold estate on the same day that the article bear date and  consider that the bind take notice of the same his lordship say that he must  take it that this interlineation be duly insert and if this be so there be no  pretence to say that the settlement of the freehold estate make on the same  day with the article can be any performance of they it be express declare by  that deed that it be only make for part of a jointure beside it be reasonable  to believe that this freehold estate be but of small value there be a power to  make lease in it reserve not less as the deed say than S per annum nor can the  settlement of the leasehold make on the same day with the article be any  performance of they it be declare by that deed that the leasehold be to be  settle over and above what be settle before a question have be whether the  settlement which be make of another leasehold estate in shall not go in  satisfaction of these article but there be no foundation to say that it can be  any satisfaction with regard to the issue this leasehold estate be limit to  the executor of the husband after the death of the husband and wife have  indeed that settlement be on the issue of the marriage instead of limit the  remainder to the executor his lordship say that after this length of time he  will not have relieve but as it be limit to the executor of the husband that  settlement can be consider as a performance of the article upon these ground  his lordship say it be clear that the several deed can be no performance of  the article provide the construction of the article contend for be true namely  that under these article the issue be intend to be purchaser and that the  limitation ought to be in strict settlement to they it become necessary then  to consider the construction of the article and as to that the principle be  clear that in general where in marriagearticle a settlement be agree to be  upon the party and the heir of their body the settlement shall be make in  strict settlement it have be say that the present case Barnardiston differ  from that general rule because by the article the jointure be to be make on  the wife for life the remainder to the heir of the body of the wife by the  husband beget without any limitation be make to the husband but the present  case be the strong for want of the limitation to the husband be insert since  by this mean it will not be in the power of the husband to destroy the  contingent remainder make to the issue another objection have be make that  these article have a plain reference to the settlement of the freehold estate  and by that settlement the husband be make tenant in tail and therefore it be  contend that these article shall have the same construction likewise but on  the face of that settlement there appear to have be a plain blunder in make  the husband tenant in tail there be a power insert in it that he shall have  liberty to make lease for three life which power have he be intend to have be  tenant in tail he will have have by the statute of h the same mistake appear  too from the consideration in the deed which be that the estate shall be  settle in the name and blood of Christopher the father for it be not a proper  mean of obtain the end to give a estate tail to the son and because the  conveyancer be mistake in draw the settlement that will be no reason that the  court be to mistake likewise the case of west and eresy a few year ago in the  house of lord be extreme applicable to the present purpose that case go far  too than the present one for there by the settlement as well as article the  husband be make tenant in tail and yet the house of lord direct that the  husband shall be tenant for life only limit the remainder in strict settlement  and so his lordship be please to decree accord