See  Cheeke  v.  Ld.  Lisle,  Fr.  Ch.  302;  Woodcock  v.
Monckton,  1  Coll.  278,  per  Bruce,  V.  C.  In  Lloyd  v.
Lloyd,  2  M.  &  Cr.  204,  Lord  Cottenhatn,  in  adverting  to
this  question,  observed,  that  unquestionably,  even  in  the  case
of  a  marriage  settlement,  the  covenants  may  be  so  framed  as
to  be  mutually  dependent ;  and  that  if  it  be  clear,  on  the  face
of  the  settlement,  that  such  was  the  intention,  the  intention
must  prevail.  And  it  seems  clear  that  performance  may  be
made  conditional  on  the  happening  of  a  particular  event  or
on  the  performance  of  some  act  by  another  person.  In
a  post-nuptial  settlement,  where  covenants  were  entered
into  by  one  party  in  consideration  of  a  settlement  by  another
party,  which  the  latter  was  not  bound  to  make  and  did  not
inake,  the  former  was  held  not  bound  in  equity  by  his  cove-
nants. Woodcock  Y.  Monckton,  1  Coll.  273;  see  Jeston  v.
Key,  L.  E.,  6  Ch.  610.
Although  in  suits  between  parties  to  the  marriage  articles,
non-performance  of  them  by  some  other  contracting  party
may  sometimes  be  a  defence,  this  can  rarely  be  the  case,
when  the  suit  is  instituted  by  the  issue  of  the  marriage.
Lloyd  V.  Lloyd,  2  M.  &  Cr.  192.
Against  whom.]  Specific  performance  of  the  articles
will  be  enforced  against  those  who  have  contracted  by  them
and  against  their  real  or  personal  representatives  and  per-
sons claiming  under  them  as  merfe  volunteers  ( rrewor  y.
Trevor,  1  P.  W.  622  ;  Puhertoftv.  Pulvertoft,  ISVes.  92) ;
and  against  purchasers  (including  mortgagees)  with  notice
{Davics  V.  Davies,  4  Bea.  54),  but  not  against  such  pur-
chasers without  notice.  Warwick  v.  Warwick,  3  Atk.  293;
see  ante,  p.  557.
Settlements  in  pursuance  of  Wills.
563


CHAPTEE  II.
