COLBGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 377

father, that in the event of his obtaining Cochrane's estate, he
would convey the Maryland estate to Basil: provided his father
would make no will, and permit the Maryland estate to descend to
him, James, as his heir-at-law. Charles, the father, in conse-
quence thereof, died intestate, and suffered the Maryland estate to
descend to James; who afterwards succeeded to the estate of
Cochrane. Upon a bill filed by Basil, the promise was held to be
tounded on * a sufficient consideration, and it was decreed.
that James should convey the Maryland estate to Basil 403
accordingly. Browne v. Browne, 1 H. & J. 430.

The defendant having, as appears in proof, lost, or failed to
obtain an estate of inheritance, by reason of the plaintiff's having
undertaken to give her such an estate in her property alter her
death, it is clear, according to the established principles of equity,
that the defendant .should, in some form or other, have the full
benefit of that promise assured to her. The whole controversy is
now, perhaps, as fully presented to this tribunal as it ever can be
hereafter, by any other or different form of procedure. It would,
therefore, seem to be incumbent upon the Court now. finally to
dispose of the whole matter, as well on behalf of the defendant as
ou the pait of the plaintiff. To stop short with decreeing, that
the deed of the 15th of June should be annulled, would be to dis-
pose of no more than the one-half of the matter in dispute. It
would be leaving the claim of the defendant, which has been so
fully developed by the pleading and proofs, to be determined at a
future day. and most probably between other parties; the defend-
ant, if she lives, on the one hand, and the representatives of the
plaintiff on the other, who may be very numerous; and the proofs,
which are now strong and satisfactory, may he then very much
wasted, or totally lost.

There are many cases in which this Court, in order to dispose of
the whole matter in controversy grants the relief to which the
plaintiff has shewn himself to be entitled upon terms. No one is
allowed to take a fraudulent advantage of the weakness or neces-
sities of another. As in case.s of sales by expectant heirs: in
cases between guardian and ward: in cases of usury, and the
like. But in all such instances, when the Court grants the relief
prayed, it is upon the terms, that the plaintiff who asks equity
shall do equity. And therefore, the fraudulent securities are
allowed to stand for what is really due, or they are vacated only
upon condition, that the plaintiff performs that which in equity
and conscience he ought to perform. Twisleton v. Griuffith, 1 P.
Will. 310; Hylton v. Hylton, 2 Vex. 548; Nesbit v. Nesbit, 2 Cox,
183; Wharton v. May, 5 Yen. 27. Upon these principles this
fraudulent conveyance of the loth of June might be vacated only
upon the condition, that the plaintiff should now, in conformity
with her promise, make a settlement upon the defendant.