402 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.

It is now regarded as the well settled doctrine of the Court
of Chancery in England, lhat if a person had, before his death,
communicated his intention to make, or alter his will, and give a
legacy, or portion of his property, to a certain individual, and the
heir, or any one else, had interposed, and prevented the making or
alteration of a will by a promise to pay the amount of the proposed
legacy, to transfer the property, or to give any thing else in lieu of
it to the individual thus intended to be benefited; that the promise
so made is binding, as being made on a consideration of loss to
the individual; who may therefore enforce the specific performance
of it in a court of equity. The statute of frauds has been repeat-
edly urged as an objection against such promises, and the objection
has always been overruled. The parent or friend of the individual
intended to be benefited, being put at rest, and relying upon such
promise, dies in perfect confidence that it will be fulfilled. But if
the individual who has been so disappointed of an express provi-
sion by the deceased, could not have the promise enforced, his loss
would be altogether irretrievable. The heir, or person making it,
would be suffered to frustrate the intention of the deceased; to
practise a fraud with perfect impunity; and the statute of frauds,
if it were allowed to apply, would be made to operate for the pro-
tection instead of the prevention of fraud.(u)

This, doctrine, which has been so long and so well established
in England, has been finally and solemnly recognised by the court
of the last resort in this State. The case is to his effect: Charles
Browne being seized of a considerable real estate in Maryland,
declared his intention so to dispose of it, that if this eldest son and
heir, James Browne, should inherit or succeed to the estate of
Andrew Cochrane, in Scotland, then it should pass to and vest in
his second son Basil Browne. Upon which James promised his
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 consequence
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 founded on

(t*> Chamberlaine v. Chamberlaine, 2 Freem. 34; Oldham v. Litchford, 2 Freem.
284; Thynn v. Thynn, 1 Vern. 296; Drakeford v. Wilks, 3 Atk. 539; Reech v. Kea-
fcegal, 1 Yes^ 124; Dixon v. Olinius, 1 Cox. 414; Stickland v. Aldridge, 9 Ves. 519;
Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves. 638; Chamberlaine v. Agar, 2 Ves. & Bea. 259.