atkins case SYMANCE v TATTAM Trinity term this court will not compel trustee  to join in a sale which will not only destroy contingent remainder but all the  use in a marriage settlement for they be guilty of a breach of trust in join  to destroy contingent remainder whether the settlement be voluntary for a  valuable consideration or by will see Woodhouse v Hoskins post vol a bill be  bring to compel trustee to join in a sale which will destroy the contingent  remainder and likewise the use in a settlement make before marriage the  limitation be to the husband for year if he so long live atkins to the wife  for her life remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder remainder  to the heir beget on the body of the wife remainder to the heir of the husband  and atkins er p the first declaration under it be that it be the intention of  the settlement to make a provision for the child of the marriage and a  covenant on the part of the husband that he will not bar the estate tail to  the wife but will preserve the use before limit and appoint Lord chancellor  there be many case in which the court will compel the trustee to join in such  conveyance as will destroy contingent remainder but then it must be in some  measure to answer the use original intend by the settlement and have be usual  do in the case of old settlement only as in winnington v Foley wms there in a  marriagesettlement the husband be make tenant for year if he so long live  remainder to trustee during the life of the husband to preserve contingent  remainder c remainder to the first c son of that marriage in tail male  successive a son be bear and of age the wife dead the son be in treaty for a  marriage which appear to be a beneficial one for the family Lord chancellor  Parker decree the trustee shall join with the father and son in bar this and  make a new settlement but I believe no instance where they have compel such  trustee to join with the father termor for year and the son to sell the estate  the old notion be that these trustee be only honorary but this have be vary  since for in the case of Pigot v Pigot Lord Harcourt be of a different opinion  and in Mansell v Mansell wms Lord chancellor king assist by Lord chief justice  Raymond and Lord chief baron Reynolds be of opinion that trustee for support  contingent remainder join to destroy they be guilty of a breach of trust and  that there be no diversity whether the settlement be voluntary or for a  valuable consideration or by will only but the reason of those case turn upon  what the court shall do after trustee have actual destroy the remainder here  the case be different for the application to the court be to compel the  trustee to do a act which will destroy the remainder there be another  difficulty beside which be the husband actual covenant in the settlement that  he will not bar the estate tail to the wife but preserve the use before limit  and even though the husband be dead the wife can not do any act by which she  can bar the estate tail notwithstanding the trustee shall consent to join with  her for she be absolute restrain from bar it by the that of Henry ch if any  woman which shall hereafter have any estate in dower or for term of life or in  tail joint with her husband or only to herself or to her use in any manor land  c of the inheritance c of her husband and shall hereafter be sole or with any  other aftertaken husband discontinue alien c or suffer a recovery of the same  such recovery discontinuance alienation c shall be utter void and of none  effect atkins if it have be a application only to destroy the contingent  remainder I shall have take more time to consider but here it will overturn  all the use of a marriage settlement which will be assume too much power and  will be make a decree to compel a breach of the husband own covenant the bill  be dismiss