case mary medcalfe widow and William ives William ives and Ann his wife by  cross bill plaintiff mary medcalfe and richard johnson and wife defendant June  the that upon appeal from the roll see lee v head king I SC cite viner pl Ves  a and his wife covenant in article before marriage in consideration of pound  the wife portion to release all the right that may accrue to they out of her  father personal estate by the custom of London the bill in this case be bring  to have a specific performance of article make on the marriage of the  defendant Richard Johnson whereby the say defendant and his wife covenant in  consideration of pound the wife marriage portion to release all the right and  interest that may accrue to they out of her father personal estate by the  custom of the city of London he be a freeman and also to set aside a award  allege to have be undue obtain upon a submission of the controversy between  the party concern the right to this orphanage part the article be date the  that day of February and the wife be then under age Reg lib b fol as to the  first part of the case the defence make for the defendant be that the  customary part be a mere possibility and contingency which may or may not  happen it can not be release and if it can that at the time of the article the  wife be a infant and so not bind by they beside that the pound be no  consideration for release such a interest the wife father one Russel have die  worth upward of pound Lord chancellor though hardship may happen on my  determination yet these be consideration too lose either for a judge at law or  in this court to lie any weight upon and I must determine accord to the fact  by the rule of law and of this court in this case there appear to be a  valuable consideration for the agreement in the article because at the time  the pound be give the defendant wife be entitle to no part of the estate of  her father and it be give for her advancement in the world and it be high  reasonable that atkins such kind of article shall be carry into execution and  that when a father be bountiful to his child in his lifetime that he shall  have his affair settle to his own satisfaction as to the objection of the  customary part be a possibility and mere in contingency it be of no weight for  there be no doubt but it may be release in equity so blundel v Barker p W Cox  v Belitha p W Lockyer v savage stram by if a mere voluntary release morris v  Burroughs post but here it be a covenant which the defendant be bind by in all  event and it be no objection to say the wife be under age for though in this  respect if the husband be dead the article will not bind her and she will by  survivorship be entitle to the customary share as a choose in action not  recover or receive by the husband yet he be alive it be a matter that accrue  to he in right of his wife and he may release it and his release will bind her  and therefore it be reasonable he shall perform his covenant blundel v Barker  p W morris v Burroughs post I find my opinion too on a old law well know in  the city by the name of Juds law whereby a husband be authorize to agree with  the father for the wife though she be under age see hear v barber post vol  upon this another question arise whether the orphanage share so to be release  by the defendant shall fall into the dead man part and go whole accord to his  disposition of the residue of his estate as a thing purchase by he or whether  it shall fall into his personal estate and be distribute with it accord to the  custom and at first I incline to think that it be in the nature of a purchase  by the father and so whole in his power to make a disposition of it by his  will but upon hear the attorney general to this matter I be of opinion that as  in equity thing covenant to be do be as thing actual do it must be consider as  if the husband have actual release and so be a extinguishment of his wife  right to the orphanage part and be a extinguishment of the right it leaves the  estate of the father as if it have never be charge with it and must therefore  be consider as a part of his general personal estate and not to go whole to  the executor of the father as a part of the dead man share case cite vern vern  I will atkins er p will so Pusey v Desbouverie p W morris v Burroughs post  post vol SC read v Snell post vol hall v Lumley other case cite in tomkyns v  Ladbroke Ves as to the award he decree that it ought to be set aside in  respect that the article be show only to one of the arbitrator and not to both  and he to who they be not show swear that if he have see they he believe he  shall not have make such award his lordship hold therefore that it be unfair  obtain but agree to the of award that the arbitrator be judge of the party own  choose Tittenson v Peat post vol and that therefore they can object against  the award as a unreason able judgement or as a against law but where as in the  present case arbitrator be deceive or where they make their award clandestine  without hear each party in such case a court of justice ought to interpose to  frustrate and avoid such award it appear that Mr Elleker the arbitrator  nominate on the part of the plaintiff and mrs Metcalfe be not inform of the  content and effect of the say article and both bill now at hear pray to set  aside the say award and release it be order and decree that the say award and  release execute in pursuance thereof be set aside Reg lib b fol see norgate v  ponder Nels Charles Rep vide Corneforth v gear vern Ridout v pain post vol Ves  S c Tittenson v Peat post vol anon ibidem chilcot v Lequesne Ves Knox v  simmonds bro Charles Rep Kampshire v young post vol note atkins in this case  the plaintiff bill be offer to be read as evidence for the defendant and be  object against it be say per Lord chancellor at law the rule of evidence be  that a bill in chancery ought not to be receive in evidence for it be take to  be the suggestion of counsel only but in this court it have be often allow and  the bill be read his lordship reverse the order of dismission and declare that  by the article of the that of February the defendant Johnson be to be consider  in equity as bar of any customary share in right of his wife or otherwise of  the personal estate of the testator William Russell Reg lib b fol