CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND. 263

will be forfeited, if the legatee institutes a suit; but it evidently
has no direct bearing upon that "question. It merely shews, that
where a legacy is given to one upon condition, that he aids in, or
does not counteract the execution of the testator's will, the legacy
cannot be recovered unless the condition be complied with. It
establishes the position, that where a bequest is made for a valua-
ble consideration, if the consideration be withheld, the legacy
falls. The case has this extent and no more.

There may. however, be some cases which do, apparently, sup-
port the position as a general rule. But the decision, in a leading
case, usually cited for this purpose, rests upon other and better
principles than those by which the rule as to a devise over, is said
to be sustained. The case was this: A freeman of London had
several children, all of whom he advanced in marriage in his life-
time: after which, by his will, he gave to one of hi.s daughters
£35, taking notice, that he had advanced her: provided, that if
she, or her husband, should refuse to give a release to his execu-
tors, or should any ways trouble or disturb them, upon any claim
or pretence by virtue of the custom of London, that the legacy of
£85 given to her, should go over to the child of his youngest de-
ceased daughter. After the testator's death, this legatee brought
suit to recover her portion according to the custom of London;
and it was proved, that she had been advanced, as noticed in her
father's will. Upon which it was held, that she was barred of her
customary part, as having been fully advanced; and likewise, that
she and her husband had forfeited the £.35 legacy by her claiming
her orphanage part, and by reason of the devise over. Cleaver v.
Spurliny, 2 P. Will. 526.

It is evident, from this condensed view of the case, that the
attempt to recover a child's portion, which had been actually ad-
vanced and paid, was a corrupt effort to obtain what was not due,
to the prejudice of the other children: and was such an iniquitous
movement as required to be repelled, and deserved to be punished.
Therefore, the forfeiture was justly imposed as an award due to
detected fraud; and because of the legatee's claiming the orphan-
age * part, and by reason of the devise over. By which the
testator manifested his intention to impose a penalty upon 280
such a fraudulent attempt: and not because of the other and the
quaint conceit assigned as a reason, that when the legacy was
once vested in the devisee over, equity could not fetch it back
again. For the mixture of good and ill together makes the whole
bad; the truth is obscured by the falsehood; the virtue drowned
by the. vice. And there are many instances both at law and in
equity, where the whole of a just claim may be lost, because of a
fraud against others, or the playing of a trick to come at it. Co.
Litt. 35, a; Hitchcock v. Sedgwick. 2 Vern. 162; Dalbiaec v. Dalbiac,
16 Ves. 125; Wimpish v. Tailbois, 1 Plow. 54.