brown v quilter June whether lessee of a house who be under covenant to repair  accident by fire except the house be burn down and lessor who have insure have  receive the insurance money but neglect to rebuild be entitle to a injunction  till the house be rebuild against a action at law bring by the lessor for the  rend qure SC Amb serjeant hill ms jewel ms the authority of these case as well  as that of steel v wright determine by Lord Apsley cit t r have be much shake  if not entire overrule by the late case of hare v grove Anstr and Holtzappfell  v baker Ves the editor have not give any report of they the point in which  they differ from these subsequent decision be the circumstance that in all of  they the landlord have insure and receive the insurance money and therefore  have the value of the thing which be the subject of the contract with the  lessee as to he therefore no loss have happen accord the Lord chief baron in  hare v grove suggest that there may be some equity to say that he shall not  keep the house or its value and receive the rend also but shall either put the  value down again for the use of the lessee or remit the rend it be difficult  however to conceive as be observe in the last of these case p how that  distinct contract mere for the advantage of the lessor with which the lessee  have no concern can affect the right as between they Reg lib a fol Bramhall v  hall Eden er report date Eden Bramhall v hall defective execution of a power  refuse to be supply in favour of a natural son against person claim under a  subsequent valid execution of it that that that and that of June SC Amb  serjeant hill ms jewel ms Ann Hattersley be seize in fee of certain premise at  Dalton in the county of York previous to her marriage with George Bramhall  enter into article bear date the that of September whereby the say George  Bramhall covenant with trustee that the say Ann Bramhall shall have full power  and authority either by will or by deed as she shall think most convenient to  give away and dispose of the say premise from and after her decease to any  person or person whatsoever and their heir and assign for ever and without the  hindrance c of the say George Bramhall or any person claim under he and that  the say George Bramhall his heir c shall upon the request of the say trustee  do such further act for confirm the same Eden as shall be think requisite the  marriage take effect Ann Bramhall have a son by the say George Bramhall  previous to the marriage Eden er p call sometime Hattersley and sometime  Bramhall and who be then marry to the plaintiff by indenture of lease and  release of the d and that of September recite the article Ann Bramhall without  her husband in consideration of a portion then have or to be have by the say  Thomas Bramhall the natural son with Elizabeth his then wife and for natural  love and affection for her son and provide a maintenance and jointure for the  say Thomas and Elizabeth after her decease and settle the premise by virtue of  her power and authority rant bargain and sell the premise to trustee from and  after the death of herself to the use of the say Thomas Bramhall the natural  son for life remainder to Elizabeth his wife for her life for her jointure  with diverse remainder over but if the say Thomas Bramhall shall die and leave  no issue by the plaintiff then that the say trustee shall stand seize of one  moiety to the use of the right heir of the say Ann Bramhall and of the other  to the use of the plaintiff for life with like remainder over in Ann Bramhall  together with her husband Thomas Bramhall levy a fine of the premise and by  indenture bear date the that of November the use be declare to Ann Bramhall  for life remainder as to one moiety to trustee upon certain trust as to the  other to the same use as be limit by the deed of omit only the limitation to  Elizabeth for life George Bramhall and Ann his wife and Thomas Bramhall her  natural son be dead in Elizabeth his widow bring this bill to be let into  possession Eden of the estate for her life and for a account of the rend c  claim under the deed of the defendant by their answer contend that the  indenture of be voluntary and make without consideration and that the  plaintiff be not entitle to have any defect make good and that no portion be  pay with the plaintiff as recite in the deed the solicitorgeneral Mr jewel and  sir Anthony Abdi for the plaintiff it must be admit that the deed of be void  at law as a declaration of use but equity will supply all defect in it  Fothergill v Fothergill Freem Eq ab smith v Ashton Ch can stapilton v  stapilton atk the wife on her marriage reserve a power of appointment and the  husband agree to join by the deed of her power can be execute even at law the  husband join with her and if he have refuse this court will have order he and  though equity will not interpose for a volunteer yet in all case except  against purchaser and creditor it will upon consideration of natural affection  Mr York and Mr Hoskins for the defendant plaintiff be a volunteer and have  therefore no equity upon which to ground her application there be a total  defect in the commencement of the grant from the want of a fine where a fine  be levy it will in general let in all legal encumbrance but here the fine be  levy by different party and express to different use when there be any  meritorious consideration the court always find some equitable ownership or  agreement to support and carry into execution if a power in a settlement be  Eden defective execute in favour of child or creditor the court will aid so  also where a femecovert execute her power defective so in case of equitable  ownership where the estate be in the husband here there be no meritorious  consideration no blood no merit it be all bounty in Fursaker v Robinson Prec  can the court refuse to supply a surrender of copyhold for a natural daughter  on the ground of there be no consideration of blood stapilton v stapilton be  aid by the legal reason and the very peculiar circumstance of the case vane v  Fletcher p W shaw v standish vern the Lord chancellor I be of opinion that the  plaintiff be not entitle to relief for it do not appear that she be any thing  more than a volunteer and as nothing will pass by that deed at law either as a  declaration of use or in any other way equity can interfere to supply the  defect as be a defective execution of a power for it be mere voluntary as it  do not appear that any portion be then pay as the consideration of the deed or  any future portion afterward pay as seem to be intend or suppose to be by the  deed this defect likewise be pray to be supply against those who claim under a  subsequent effectual execution of the power and legal conveyance of the estate  a case much less favourable than if it have be against the heir only of the  grantors but even against those I be of opinion the plaintiff can have have no  relief for the deed of be not ground upon the consideration even of blood  accord to the commonlaw idea of blood which will have be Eden er p a good  though not a valuable consideration I know of no case Eden where a defective  execution of a power have be supply in equity in favour of a natural son to  who no meritorious consideration can arise bill dismiss Mr Sugden in his  valuable treatise on power be of opinion that Lord Northin tun be not correct  in hold a consideration to be necessary and rely upon the case of Rippon v  Dawding Amb which be decide on the authority of wright v Lord Cadogan post  observe that equity ought to have lend its aid on the principle that the  agreement have be make on marriage the husband will be compel to make a legal  settlement it be observable however that in those case the court interfere  against the heir at law of the contract party in the present case there be a  subsequent effectual execution against which the court refuse to interpose in  behalf of one who equity as arise from the marriage contract be in no respect  superior to that of the person claim under the subsequent valid execution Reg  lib a fol