case Beckley versus newland distinguish Debenham v ox Ves sen see Wethered v  Wethered sim Higgins v hill lt Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl two article that  whatever I S shall by his will leave to either of they shall be equal divide  betwixt both such agreement good also if after this one of they contrive that  I S shall leave part of his estate to a three person in trust for he this be  within the article the plaintiff Simon Beckley and sir George Newland marry  two sister who be cousin and presumptive heir of Mr Turgis a very rich man and  Beckley and Newland have be for many year partner in the business of a  scrivener and Mr Turgis have make and revoke several will but at length make a  will in favour of sir George new peer William er p land whereby he leave a  great real and personal estate to sir George but give only a small real estate  to Mr Beckley before the execution of this will the plaintiff Beckley and sir  George Newland enter into article whereby they agree that whatsoever shall be  give to either of they shall be equal divide and the word of the article be  plain as to the equal division of the personal estate of Turgis which shall be  give by the will to either Beckley or sir George Newland but as to the real  estate the word of the article be doubtful and peer William seem rather not to  extend thereto however the plaintiff Beckley bring a bill against the executor  of sir George Newland for a account of the real and personal estate which come  to Newland by Turgiss will Obj these article be unfair and not to be encourage  videlicet to agree to dividea man estate while the man be live and to share  that in which the party at the time of make the agreement have no manner of  right and possible may never have and it be to disappoint the will of the  testator who in all probability will have give nothing to either of the party  to this agreement in case he can have foresee that his disposition shall be  frustrate as soon as ever he shall die nay in his lifetime be agree to be  divide Lord chancellor a performance of these article ought to be decree  though there be no other consideration for they than the mutual benefit of the  chance the agreement to share c be not disappoint the intent of the testator  for he do not design to put it out of either of the devisees power to dispose  of the estate after it shall come to he but on the contrary where the testator  give it to either of they he by implication give that person a power to  dispose of the say estate when it shall come to he vide Hobson v Trevor post  and it seem to have some weight that if there have be no such agreement for  the share of the say Turgiss estate yet by law in right of their wife who be  heir presumptive to the say Turgis these person will have come in for equal  peer William share and to covenant to do that which the law will of itself  have do have the party die intestate can be unreasonable for that will be to  say that the law itself be unreasonable or unjust suppose there be two  daughter and the father shall leave almost all the estate to the old and  nothing or very little to the young if there shall be such a agreement as in  the principal case sure it will have be no more than what everyone will have  wish for though I be far from ground my decree only upon this circumstance as  to the article for share the land if it can be prove that after enter into  they sir George Newland have procure the testator to devise any land to some  three person in trust for the say sir George Newland this will have be take as  a devise to sir George himself and will have become liable to be share within  the article dly but then in the present case it be insist upon by the  plaintiff Beckley that after these article enter into sir George Newland  prevail with the testator to devise the great part of his land to the son of  sir George Newland who be then infant and that as soon as the son be come of  age sir George get his two son to who Mr Turgis leave the bulk of his real  estate to convey the land to sir George and his wife for their life with  remainder to trustee for a term of year in trust to raise pound apiece for  portion to his two young son that be not provide for by Mr Turgiss will so  that in effect sir George have the management peer William and disposal of  this estate in the same manner as he will have have if the estate have be his  own and give to himself in fee Lord chancellor if this estate have continue in  the son of sir George I will not have compel they to convey a moiety to the  plaintiff Beckley accord to the article there be no write to manifest the  trust as the statute of fraud and perjury require but if the son shall convey  the estate leave they by Mr Turgis to their father sir George without any  consideration then I think I may just decree that sir George Newland the  father shall convey a moiety of the premise to the plaintiff Beckley agreeable  to the article however where one of the son as in the present case have settle  the premise leave he by Mr Turgis on his own wife and the issue of the  marriage and such settlement be either previous to the marriage or pursuant to  the marriage article I can reach these land which be now as it be in the hand  of a purchaser peer William er p but upon read and consider the article by  which it be agree that all legacy and sum of money which shall be give by the  will of Mr Turgis to either of they the say sir George Newland or the  plaintiff Beckley shall be equal divide betwixt they notwithstanding it be  afterward say that all benefit or advantage accrueing to either of they by the  say will shall be also divide yet it be here say the same shall be divide  between they their respective executor and administrator and forasmuch as  though there be some small parcel of land devise by the will of Turgis to Mr  Beckley and his heir yet as he do not offer by his bill to divide this his  lordship take it that these article do not extend to any part of the real  estate devise by the testator Turgis peer William dly it be observe that  though the testator Turgis have by his will devise all those land to the son  of sir George Newland yet he have limit the premise to sir George Newland  himself until the young of his son shall attain twentyone for and towards the  maintenance of his say son from whence it be urge that so much of the profit  of these land as do exceed their maintenance will be for the benefit of sir  George and consequent shall fall within the article and be divide between he  and the plaintiff Beckley and there be proof that sir George Newland take it  so and have declare the same to Beckley and then notwithstanding it have be  pretend that this be only a trust for the son of sir George Newland and that  their father will be Accountable to they for the surplus beyond what their  maintenance will come to yet it be hope that the court will construe this to  be a beneficial devise to sir George and that it can not be understand  otherwise since it enable he out of this fund to educate his own two son which  of course he will have be oblige to have do though no such estate have be  leave they but by Lord chancellor by the same reason that the article be  construe to extend only to money and personal estate they shall not extend to  this devise of the land to sir George Newland though but during the minority  of the son for though the word legacy be usual take for the bequest of a  personal thing and on the contrary a gift of land by will be common and more  proper call a devise yet the word legacy may in a extensive sense be  understand to peer William comprehend Brady v Cubitt Doug any kind of estate  real as well as personal leave by the testator will to any person nevertheless  in the present case for the reason aforesaid decree only the personal estate  give by Turgiss will to either of they the say sir George Newland or Beckley  to be equal divide hereupon it be say that sir George Newland have die  insolvent and though it shall be admit that these article will let in the  plaintiff Beckley as a creditor by specialty yet there will not be enough to  pay he Lord chancellor order that if as be suggest any of the mortgage of the  testator Turgis be yet stand out and the property thereof unaltered and in  case it shall appear that sir George Newland have receive more then his moiety  of the testator Turgiss personal estate then the plaintiff Beckley shall be  let in to receive out of the say Turgiss personal estate or the subsist  mortgage so much as to make up his receipt equal with those of sir George  Newland before sir George representative shall be admit to receive any thing  further Reg lib a fol