tion, without more Charge, affecting the existing Assignee, if there was one; or, as the Case stands upon the Record, without an Assignee. If such a Bill can be filed, I must consider what the Court is to do with regard to the Demand under the Bankruptcy, as well as under the Insolvent Act. I am not authorized to say, that, though there is now no Assignee, there will be none; and I must take into Consideration, that, if an Assignee should be chosen, he, or any Creditor, may petition in the Bankruptcy. The Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy being final, it might perhaps be proper to direct a Bill to be filed for the Information of the Lord Chancellor, sitting in Bankruptcy; just as the Court directs an Action, or a Case to a Court of Law; but, if I should make an Order upon Petition in Bankruptcy, pronouncing upon the Situation of Davis, and his Conduct either before or since the Commission, that Order must either be conclusive and make an End of the Suit, or it is a Nullity, that cannot be acted upon; and, if one Creditor may file such a Bill, every Creditor may; and the Bankrupt himself. In the Case of Bromley v. Goodere (a) Lord Hardwicke had great Difficulty. Unless the Right to Interest could be raised upon an Equity, which he saw in that Case, it is extremely difficult to perceive, what Jurisdiction the Lord Chancellor had in Bankruptcy to order the Interest to be paid, attending to the Words of the Statute. At all Events the Bill must be by a Creditor on Behalf of himself and all the others. If, however, as has been contended for the Plaintiffs, a Bill being filed, the Court will make a Decree, as it would have directed a Bill, yet it is clear, that much must be done under the Bankruptcy, before any Decree could possibly be made, that would do justice between the Two Estates, under a Commission of Bankruptcy, and under the Insolvent (a) 1 Atk. 75. See 1 Ves. & Bea. 345, Ex parte Koch. Act; Act; and upon the Circumstances, stated by this Record, which for this Purpose I must take to be true, I cannot conceive any Difficulty in bringing the Case on by Petition so that Relief may be given; and I am apprehensive of making a Precedent, an Instance of which the Bar cannot furnish. 1811. SAXTON DAVIS. The Demurrer was allowed. TH GOODIER v. ASHTON. KOLLS. 1811, May 31. HE Bill prayed a Foreclosure against an infant Decree of Foreclosure against an Infant, with a Day to shew Cause. (This has been altered since Mr. Hall, for the Plaintiff, proposed, instead of the usual Decree, to take a Decree for a Sale, as more advantageous to the Infant; which was therefore held to be the proper Course in Booth v. Rich (a), the only Instance in Mondey v. certainly of such a Decree; and tl.ough a Decree for Mondcy, 1 Ves. Sale would, as is observed in that Case, bind the Infant, & Bea. 223 ; who would have a Day to shew Cause against a Decree directing, in for Foreclosure, that would only enable him to shew case the MortError in the Decree. The Rule in Ireland to direct gagees consent Sale in all Cases instead of a Foreclosure does not pre- Inquiry, whe to a Sale, an vail here. a ther it will be for the Infant's Mr. Wetherell, for the Defendant, said, a Sale would Benefit.) 1811. GOODIER D. ASHTON. certainly be most beneficial to him; as the Estate might be mortgaged for less than the Value; and suggested the Propriety of a Reference (a) to the Master, whether it would be for the Infant's Advantage to accept the Plaintiff's Proposal. The MASTER of the ROLLS said, the modern Practice was to foreclose Infants; and he would not make the Precedent, if no Instance could be found, in which the Case cited was followed. The usual Decree was made for a Foreclosure with a Day to shew Cause. (a) This Course has been since adopted by the Lord Chancellor; who declared, that he would make a Per cedent, if there was not one. Mondey v. Mondey, 1 Ves. & Bea. 223. 1811, June 27, 28, 29. PULVERTOFT v. PULVERTOFT. Voluntary T HE Bill, filed by Sarah Pulvertoft, by her next Settlement subsequent Friend, stated her Marriage with James Richards void under the Pulvertoft in 1806; and that by Indentures of Lease and Stat. 27 Eliz., Release, dated the 14th and 15th of January, 1807, he c. 4. against a conveyed Freehold Estates, to the Use of himself for Life, Purchaser for without Impeachment of Waste: with Remainder to Trustees valuable Con- to preserve Contingent Remainders; and Remainders to sideration with Notice, though a fair Provision for a Wife and Children, an Injunction, restraining the Husband from selling, was refused: but a Demurrer by the Husband over-ruled, as covering too much : the Plaintiff being entitled until a Sale to an Execution of the Trust. 1811. PULVERTOFT 0. his Wife for Life, and for the Benefit of their Children, and, for Default of Issue, to himself and his Heirs; and by other Indentures, dated the 13th and 14th of August, 1807, the settled Estates with others were conveyed to PULVERTOFT. Thomas Pulvertoft and his Heirs; to secure the Sum of £800, advanced by him by Way of Mortgage; and, subject thereto, for the separate Use of Sarah Pulvertoft ; with Remainder to the Use of James Richards Pulvertoft for Life; Remainder to Trustees to preserve Contingent Remainders; and, as to the Estates in the former Settlement, after the Decease of the Survivor and in the Event of no Children to the right Heirs of the Survivor; and as to the other Estates to the Children of James Richards Pulvertoft in Tail, with Remainder, subject to his Appointment by Will, to the right Heirs of the Survivor of him and his Wife. In June, 1808, another Settlement was executed; by which the Limitations to the Wife and Children were not varied. The Bill farther stated, that the Mortgage was afterwards paid to Thomas Pulvertoft; and he and the other Trustees being desirous to be discharged from the Trusts, another Settlement was executed in June, 1810; conveying the Estates to other Trustees, upon the same Trusts for the sole and separate Use of Sarah Pulvertoft, and after her Decease upon such Uses and Trusts for the Benefit of James Richards Pulvertoft and Sarah Pulvertoft, and their Issue, if any, and the Survivor of him and her, his or her Heirs, &c., as were declared by the former Settlements. There was no Issue. The Bill, charging, that as against James Richards Pulvertoft the Settlement was good, that he was not indebted at the Time of the Execution of the Deeds respectively, and that he was about to sell the Estate, prayed, that the Trusts of the several Indentures of 1807, 1811. PULVERTOFT v. 1808, and 1810, may be established, and carried into Exe cution, &c.; that the Defendant James Richards Pulvertoft may be restrained from selling, charging or incumber, PULVERTOFT. ing, the Estates, and that a Receiver may be appointed, An Injunction having been obtained, a Motion was made to dissolve it. Mr. Leach, and Mr. Wakefield, in support of the Mo, tion to dissolve the Injunction. The Case of Evelyn v. Templar (a) is a Decision ac cording to the Rule of Equity, and the Principle, from which it springs; that a Conveyance, taken against Conscience, with Notice of the Defect, must be held subject to the same conscientious Claim. When therefore it is decided, that a Purchaser is not affected by Notice of Claims under a voluntary Settlement, as it is not against Conscience for the Purchaser to take, it cannot be against Conscience for the Vendor to sell, The Effect of that Case is, that a voluntary Conveyance has no Value in Contemplation of Equity; and Parry v. Carwarden (b) is another Case, leading to the same Conclusion. The Consequence is, that a Court of Equity will not interpose for the Protection of any Interest under a voluntary Settlement, to execute Articles, or give any Aid to Persons claiming under a voluntary Settlement, so as to prevent a Sale by the Author of it. tiff. Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr, Haslewood, for the Plain A Court of Equity will prevent a Man, having made such a voluntary Settlement upon his Wife and Children, from disappointing it. In the Cases cited an actual Sale (a) 2 Bro. C. C. 148. (b) 2 Dick. 544. had |