into a bond for the purpose of indemnifying his father against the payment of the rent charge. The son died, leaving his wife surviving, and his executors brought a bill against the executors of his father, charging that the bond was a fraud upon the settlement, and the parties; that it was privately settled and agreed upon between the husband and his father; that neither the wife, nor her father, was informed that any such bond was to be entered into; and that the father made use of his influence, as father, to induce his son to give the bond. The bill prayed accordingly, that the bond might be declared a fraud upon the marriage settlement, and so void. Sir W. Grant, M. R., said there was no distinction in principle between this and the other cases; it being as much a fraud upon the faith of the marriage contract; for it affected to put the party contracting for marriage in one situation by the settlement, but putting that party in another, and in a worse situation, by a private agreement. The parent in this case professed himself to settle the jointure; the son therefore according to that, was to have no part of the burden thrown upon his property; but by the private agreement, the burden was thrown altogether back upon the son. It was of no consequence that the lady was equally or more secure; for the contract proceeded upon this, that he was found the means of providing for her, without resorting to his own fortune; whereas the effect of the private agreement was to throw the burden entirely upon his fortune, by which he was, to that extent, prevented from providing for his family, as he otherwise might. This was just as much a fraud upon the marriage contract, as if, receiving a fortune, he returned part of it; his capacity of providing for his family was equally diminished in both cases. There was therefore no distinction upon which this case could be taken out of the effect of the principle; the bond was decreed void. moral consider 49. Where the consideration of a deed is immoral, Or for an imthe deed is void, both at law and in equity; and there- ation. fore a bond given to a woman, as the price of prostitution, is void in law. Perkins, 1 Black. R. 50. Upon oyer being prayed of a bond, it appeared Walker v. to be from W. Perkins to the plaintiff Sarah Winter, 3 Burr. 1568. in a penalty, reciting that Perkins and the plaintiff 517. had agreed to live together; therefore he had contracted to find her meat, drink, &c. and to leave her an annuity of 607. a year, if he quitted her, or she outlived him; and if they had any child, he was to provide for it; but if she should leave him, or go to another man, then he should not be obliged to provide for her any longer, or to leave her any annuity. The defendant pleaded, that this was an agreement between the plaintiff and his intestate to live together in a state of fornication; and that such a bond, made upon such an agreement, was void in law. In reply to this plea, the plaintiff alleged that she was a virgin, and was seduced by the intestate; and in consideration thereof this bond was given to her; and that it was præmium pudicitiæ. The defendant demurred. Lord Mansfield said, it was the price of prostitution; for if she became virtuous, she was to lose the annuity. The bond was therefore illegal and void. 51. In a case of seduction, where a bond is given for securing an annuity, or a sum of money, for the support and maintenance of the person seduced; and not with any view to a future cohabitation, a court of equity will not relieve. Wms. 432. Rooke, For 52. The Marquis of Annandale seduced a young Annandale v. woman named Harris, by whom he had a child: after- Harris, 2 P. wards, by deed poll, he agreed that 2000l. should be Cray v. laid out in an annuity for her benefit and that of the rest, 153. child. The widow of the Marquis brought her bill to be relieved against this deed, as made upon an unlawful and wicked consideration; and Ann Harris brought her cross bill to be paid the 2000. out of the assets of the marquis. It was urged on behalf of Ann Harris, that the known diversity was, where the woman had before been a common prostitute, and drew in a young man to give such bond or covenant; in such case equity would relieve. But where the man seduced a woman, who was before modest, and gave such bond or covenant, there the obligor, who had done the injury, stated and ascertained himself the damages which were to be the præmium pudicitiæ; and no relief was given in equity. On the other side it was objected, that supposing equity would not relieve against such bond or covenant; yet, it being a matter of turpitude, equity ought not to intermeddle. The consequence of which would be, that both bills should be dismissed; and that the Court should not lend any assistance, on account of assets, or otherwise, in such a case. Lord King said, if a man does mislead an innocent woman, it is both reason and justice he should make 1 Bro. Par. Ca. her a reparation; and decreed that the debts should be paid out of the assets, which was affirmed by the House of Lords. 250. Turner v. Vaughan, 2 Wils. R. 339. Gray v. Mathias, 5 Ves. 286. 53. Although there be no seduction, yet if a man gives a bond to a woman, on account of a former cohabitation, an action at law may be maintained upon it. 54. In an action of debt upon a bond, the defendant prayed oyer of the condition, which was in these words:"Now the condition of this obligation is such, that in consideration of cohabitation had by the above-bounden T. V. with the said Catherine, he the said T. V. hath hereby agreed to secure to the said Catherine the yearly sum of 301." &c. The Court held that the bond was good. 55. Though the woman to whom such a bond be given was a common prostitute, yet it will not be set aside in equity. 56. Lord Hardwicke has laid down a very proper distinction, in cases of this kind, between a married man and a bachelor; and has determined that where a married man gives a bond to a woman whom he has seduced, she knowing him to be married, as a præmium pudicitiæ, it shall not be supported in equity. Parrot, 2 57. A bill was brought for payment of 1007. and an Priest v. annuity of 401. which was granted by the defendant Ves. 160. to the plaintiff, who being a young woman, came to live in the family of the defendant, then a married man, as, a companion to his sister. And afterwards occasioned a separation between him and his wife. Lord Hardwicke said, the case was in some parts new, nor did he remember it had directly come before the Court. The consideration of the grant was plain; for though expressed to be for divers causes and considerations, it was plain, on the evidence, to what it was applied; nor was it disputed. It was plain also to him what this unhappy woman (who had been very criminal also) had submitted to, was from the seduction of the defendant: for her youth, when she came into the family, and good character before, were evidence thereof. And that certainly had been the principal ground of the determinations in that Court, where it had been considered as præmium pudicitiæ, when the young woman submitted to the suggestions of the man, and was guilty of no fault before. But he knew of no case where the Court had given countenance to these sort of bonds in case of a married man, she knowing it that differed the case, because persons who submitted to a temptation of that sort, were without excuse they knew absolutely they were doing a wrong which could not be healed, and which occasioned mischiefs to families. That differed it from the cases wherein the Court had make a provision for such unfortunate people. The bill was dismissed. : gone some lengths, to 58. It has been stated that where lands are once All deeds void liable to a crown debt, the lien continues, into whose debts. as to crown Tit. 1. § 69. hands soever they pass, even though conveyed by the debtor to a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. It follows that all such conveyances are void as against the King, though good and valid against Tit. Prerog. B. all other persons. Thus it is said, in Roll's Ab., that if a man becomes debtor to the King, being seised of land in fee, and after aliens the land, yet it may be put in execution, though the alienation was before any action commenced; for it relates to the time when he became indebted to the King, and after. pl. 1. Favell's case, Dyer, 160. a. 12 Rep. 3. Seintloo's case, 59. Thomes Favell, a collector of the fifteenth and tenth, being seised of certain lands in fee, die intromissionis de collectione, in extremity of illness, aliened his estate, and died without heir or executor. It was held that process should issue against the terre-tenants to answer and satisfy the King thereof. 60. Sir William Cavendish, who was treasurer of the chamber to King Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary, being indebted to the Crown, purchased lands, which he afterwards aliened; and of part took an estate to himself and his wife, and part remained in the hands of others; and died without rendering an account. It was debated whether or no these lands could be seised into the hands of the Queen, and be retained by the course of the common law, till an account was made by Cavendish for he was not bound to the Crown in any recognisance or obligation, but the matter of the seisure rested entirely upon the common law. All the Barons of the Exchequer agreed that the seisure was lawful; for the Crown might have seised the lands in the hands of Cavendish; and by the same reason, in the hands of every one that came in under him; for nullum tempus occurrit regi. And Plowden says, Sir W. Seintloo, who had married Cavendish's widow, having intelligence that the law was against him and his wife, compounded with the Queen by paying 10007. into the Exchequer; and got a release and pardon for the residue: and in the pardon it was |