zoo Casts ruled and adjudged in the ,·I·93_ The cafe was argued on tlneégth of january, 1 792, by Banb- `,,`, _/Em and Rerwle for the plamti , and Wi/rmi: and Setymnr for the defendants. For the plaintifli It is admitted by the defendant’s connfel, that the devife was void at law, grgwe contend, that it would not he ellablifhed in equity. A def ive Vllill, or the defeitive exc- cution of apower, will not be aided in a Court of Chancery, for a meritorious or valuable conlideration, and the heir at law, where the equity is equal, will not be dillsurbed in the enjoyment nf his legal advantage. Pow. on Power:. 9o. r 5 5 to 16 5. · ‘ 3 Atl. 71 5. Amb. 474. In this cafe the partiesall flood in equal relation and there was no meritorious claim on`the lide of the de- vifees ; they were not children unprovidedfor, they had no claim `on the Tellatrix. Max. in Eq. 67. 8. Whatever was the in- tention of Mrs. Henderjén (though it was argued to have been to bar her hufband from the terms of the agreement) if that intention was not executed, Chancery would not carry it into effeét againlt the heir. Pow. 136. 164. Cam. Rep. 250. Vera. 68. Chancery, indeed, excrcifes this power only in cafe of trulls, and never on legal efiates. 2 Vez. 193. Ambler. 467. Fearn. 89. It is true, that equity is admitted as a part of the law of Penrrfylvania 1 Dall. Rq>. ; yet it mult be ap- plied with caution, as the full remedies of a Court of Chance- ry are not in our power; and the a£l: of Alfembly, direéting the mode of conveying the eltates of feme coverts, would on the c’efendants’ principles be altogether unneceffary. For the defendants it was contended, that Courts of Chance- ry would favor the execution of fuch a power, and }Vrigl>¢ ·v. Cadogem Ambler, 469. and Rqbpen v. Dawdin. Ibid. 565. were relied upon as in point, while 2 Erm. Rep. 695. was alfo read to fhew, that Lord Kenyon held the fame principles. For the plaintillis, it was replied, that Flfrigbt ·v. Cadogan, was conformable to the principles {lated for the plaintiffs, but did not apply in the defendants’ favor. That Rippin ·v. Dawdier, (or Hawdin, as it is called in Powell on contrafts) was a foli- tary, quellionable cafe. That it coutradifted Peaeoel v. Monk. 2 ey. 193, and Bramball ·v. Hall, Ambler. 467. That Ld. Kenyon, referred exprefsly to Peaeaeb ·v. Alon}; but tool: no notice of Rybpin 11. Drrwdin; fo did Ld. Tburlow,-in Brown. Par!. Ca. 16. from whence it was inferred, that it was not held as law ev en in England. Cnr. Adv. vult. In April 1792, a further argument was requeltcd by plain- til}`s’ counfel, and granted : But at the next Term, Srptember 1792, they informed the Court, that they meant to leave the caufe on the former argument. T ua Counr then deflred the following points might be fur- ther confidercd. rl!.
�
