case Peyton versus bury at the roll Eq can ab pl Sel can Charles one devise  the residue of his personal estate to I S provide she marry with the consent  of his two executor on the death of one the condition be a subsequent one be  become impossible and she may marry without the consent of the survivor one by  will bequeathe the residue of his personal estate to jane style provide she  marry with the consent of a and b his executor who be but executor in trust  and if jane style shall marry otherwise then the testator devise over the say  residuum to I n one of the executor die after which jane style without the  consent of the survive executor intermarry with a common mariner whereupon I n  bring his bill for the residuum insist for the plaintiff that this be a  condition precedent which be not to vest any thing in jane style until her  marriage with the consent of both the executor and she not have marry with  such consent be not entitle to the residuum consequent the same be well devise  over to the plaintiff or take it to be a condition subsequent still jane style  ought to have perform it cy pres as near as may be to the intent of the  condition by have the consent of the peer William survive executor that it  will be hard if there be five or six executor that the death of any one of  they shall discharge the condition and it be compare to the case in Litt sect  if a feoff be make upon condition to reinfeoff the feoff and his wife and the  heir of their two body and for default of such issue the remainder to the  right heir of the feoff if the husband die live the wife before any estate in  tail make to they then ought the feoff by the law to make a estate to the wife  as near the condition as possible videlicet to the wife for life without  impeachment of waste remainder to the heir of the body of the husband on her  beget remainder to the right heir of the husband so here though jane style can  not have the assistance and advice of both the executor one be dead yet ought  she to have take the advice of he who be live master of the roll it be very  clear that the plaintiff the devisee over have no title to the residuum saint  in the nature of the thing and accord to the intention of the testator this  can not be a condition precedent for at that rate the right to the residuum  may not have vest in any person whatever for twenty or thirty year after the  testator death since both the executor may have live and jane style continue  so long unmarried during all which time the right to the residuum can not be  say to be in the executor they be express mention to be but executor in trust  beside the bequest of the residuum be first to jane which if the will have  stop there will have be a absolute devise so that the follow condition annex  must be a subsequent not a precedent one now the vide Inst rule of law be that  if there be a subsequent condition which become impossible by the act of God  this excuse and discharge the grantee from the condition law non think ad  impossible peer William which construction ought the rather to prevail with  regard to a condition so odious as that in the present case be which restrain  the freedom of marriage and be vide ante void by the civil law when annex to a  personal legacy the plaintiff by his bill come to establish a forfeiture and  will have the court add those word to the will which the testator may but do  not think fit to insist upon that jane style shall not marry without the  consent of the executor or of the survivor of they and which the testator may  omit upon good reason as intend that both the executor shall confer together  about the marriage of jane style in order that the one by argument may  convince the other touch the suitableness of a match which can now be do when  only one be leave his honour far observe that he have know the case happen  where the consent of both the executor be require by the will one on a proper  match be propose do consent but the other be obstinate and will not which be  lie before the court and the dissent of the executor appear to be without a  just cause the want of peer William er p such consent be supply that this be  not like the case put out of Littleton of the feoff which ought to be make cy  pres c because there the first feoff be not intend to keep the estate to his  own use but only as a instrument or conduitpipe for convey it back to the  feoff and his family of which while any be leave the reinfeoffment ought to be  make as near the intent of the condition as may be but in the present case  jane style be to take the devise of the surplus to her own use moreover this  consent direct to he have be like a bare authority vide ante Mr justice Eyre v  countess of Shaftesbury peer William and so different from that which be  couple with a interest can not survive without express word for that purpose  townsend v Wilson b a mad see   Litt a hargrave note Sugden power Ch S  wherefore think this a frivolous bill his honour dismiss it with cost Reg lib  b fol vide Bellasis v ermine Charles can fry v porter Charles can Jervoise v  duke vern Stratton v Grimes vern Aston v Aston vern creagh v Wilson vern  gillet v Wray ante vol piggot v morris Sel can in Charles Semphill v baily pre  Charles king v wither pale yellow Harvey v Aston can tempt Tal Com Rep and I  atk S c S c will pullen v ready will Underwood v morris atk Daley v  Desbouverie atk Elton v Elton will Chauncy v Graydon atk Reynish v Martin atk  S c will Wheeler v Bingham atk and will S c long v Dennis burr Blac Rep  Hemmings v munckley bro c c S c Cox Scott v tiler bro c c S c dick in which  several other case be cite merry v rives Eden Stackpole v Beaumont Ves  OCallaghan v Cooper Ves Dashwood v Lord Bulkeley Ves knight v Cameron Ves  clarke v Parker Ves DAguilar v Drinkwater v b Pollock v cross I mere Lloyd v  Branton mere marples v Bainbridge I mad Malcolm v OCallaghan mad Worthington v  Evans S S long v ricketts S S a condition in a will require the consent of  executor c to the marriage of the legatee be satisfy by her marriage in the  life of the testator with his consent or even subsequent approbation Crommelin  v Crommelin Ves Parnell v lion V b Wheeler v Warner S S see also Duffield v  Elwes I S S and such a condition when once satisfy by marriage with consent of  the executor will not revive upon the legatee become a widow Hutcheson v  Hammond bro c c vide Harvey v Aston atk Graydon v Hicks atk Dashwood v Lord  Bulkeley Ves clarke v Parker Ves goldsmid v goldsmid Ves coop