and ordered the Respondents to pay Principal, Interest and Costs, or else the Bill to stand dismist with Costs.
Argument for the Appellants. Bonds with unlawful Condition void at Common Law. 1 Chanc. Rep. 87.—And it was argued on Behalf of the Appellants, That this Bond ought in Equity to be set aside: For that even at the Common Law, Bonds founded upon unlawful Considerations appearing in the Condition were void: That in many Instances, Bonds and Contracts that are good at Law, and cannot be avoided there, are cancelled in Equity. That such Bonds to Matchmakers and Procurers of Marriage are of dangerous Consequence, and tend to the Betraying, and oftentimes to the Ruin of Persons of Quality and Fortune. And if the use of such Securities and Contracts be allowed and countenanced, the same may prove the Occasion of many unhappy Marriages, to the Prejudice and Discomfort of the best of Families. That the Consideration of such Bonds and Securities have always been discountenanced, and Relief in Equity given against them, even so long since as the Lord Coventry's Time, and long before. And particularly in the Case of Arundel and Trevillian; between whom the Fourth of February, 11 Car. 1. was an Order made in these or the like Words: Upon the Hearing and Debating of the Matter this present Day in the Presence of the Counsel Learned, on both Sides, for and touching the Bond or Bill of 100l. against which the Plaintiff by his Bill prayeth Relief: It appeared that the said Bill was originally entred into by the Plaintiff unto the Defendant for the Payment of 100l. formerly promis-[77]-ed unto the said Defendant by the Plaintiff, for the effecting of a Marriage between the Plaintiff and Elizabeth his now Wife, which the said Defendant procured accordingly, as his Counsel alledged. But this Court utterly disliking the Consideration whereupon the said Bill was given, the same being of dangerous Consequence in Precedent, upon reading three several Precedents, wherein this Court hath relieved others in like Cases, against Bonds of that Nature, thought not fit to give any Countenance unto Specialties entered into upon such Contracts: It is therefore ordered and decreed, That the said Defendant shall bring the said Bill into this Court, to be delivered up to the Plaintiff to be cancelled. Then 'twas further urged, That the Appellants had once a Decree at the Rolls to be relieved against the Bond in Question, upon Consideration of the said Precedent in the Time of the said Lord Coventry and others, and of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences likely to arise by such Practises, which increase in the Present Age more than in the Times when Relief was given against such Bonds: And therefore 'twas prayed that the Decree might be Reversed.
Argument for the Respondenets.—On the other Side it was urged, That the Consideration of this Bond was lawful. That the Assisting and Promoting of a Marriage at the Parties' Request, was a good Consideration at Law in all Times to maintain a Promise for Payment of Money. That this Bond was Voluntary, and the Party who was Obliger was of Age and sound Memory. That here was no Fraud or Deceit in procuring it. That Chancery was not to relieve against voluntary Acts. That here was a great Fortune to be acquired to the Appellant's Testator by the Match. That here was Assistance given. That the Persons were both of great Quality and Estate, and no Imposition or Deceit on either side in the Marriage. That it might be proper to relieve against such Securities, where ill Consequences did ensue; yet here being none, and the thing Lawful, and the Bond good at Law, the same ought to stand: That here are no Children Purchasers or Creditors to be defeated; there are Assets sufficient to pay all; and consequently there can be no Injustice in allowing this Bond to remain in force. That it was the Expectation of the Respondent, without which she would not have given her Service in this matter. And that it was the full Meaning of the Appellant's Testator to pay this Money, in case the Marriage took effect. That there was a vast Difference betwen Supporting and Vacating a Contract in Chancery. That tho' Equity perhaps would not assist and help a Security upon such a Consideration, if it were defective at Law; yet where it was good at Law, and no Cheat or Imposition upon the Party, but he meant (as he had undertaken) to pay this Money, and was not deceived in his Expectation as to the Success of the Respondent's Endeavours, 'twould be hard in Equity to damn such a Security, and therefore it was prayed that the Decree should be affirmed.
53
