This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1829 Excerpt: ...in settlements without articles, the words are left to their legal operation, unless from some recital in the deed or otherwise a mistake appears; it must, however, be observed that parol evidence is admissible to prove such mistake. ( v. linns. 3 Bro. C. C. 27; 1 Ves.jun. 51, 470; 2 Ves.jun. 358.J But an actual settlement before marriage is different, unless expressly said in pursuance of articles. It deserves consideration, if there be articles and a subsequent settlement not at all referring to them, whether articles should controul the settlement. It seems they would, except in case of a purchaser without notice, and for a valuable consideration. NOTE. This point may now be considered to be settled. The distinction is between a settlement made before, and one made after marriage. When the settlement is made after marriage, it will be controlled by the articles;--when made before the marriage, and without any reference to them, a court of equity has no jurisdiction to new model the limitations of the settlement according to the articles. The settlement before marriage of the personal estate of a female infant,--whether it consist of choses in action, property in possession, or of future interests, whether vested, or contingent,--is good. (Trollope v. Linton, 1 Sim. and Stu. 477; Price v. Seys, 3 Barnard's Hist. 123; Harvey v. Ashley, 3 Ath. 606.) It seems, however, that an agreement to settle all the future property of a female infant, is binding only as to property coining unexpectedly, and not as to such as is within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the marriage, in case the husband survives, and not as against the wife surviving. (Williams v. Williams, 1 Bro. C. C. 152.) With respect to the wife's reversionary interests it has been rece...