How have courts treated the issue of a father's interest in the marriage of his own son's second wife?

In Roberts v. Roberts, 3 P. Wms. 66, (decided in 1730,) A. had treated for the marriage of his own son, and in the settlement on the son a power was reserved to the father to jointure any wife whom he should marry in 200 per annum, in which case he was to pay the son 1, 000. The father subsequently desired to marry a second time, and the son agreed with the second wife's relations to release the 1,000, and did release it, but took a private bond back from the father for its payment. It was held that equity would not set aside the private bond, because it would be injurious to the son's wife, whose marriage had taken place prior to the second one of the father, and, being prior in point of time, its equity must prevail. The master of the rolls said that the same arguments advanced to show the bond should be discharged as an injustice to the second wife, showed it should be paid, or equal injustice would occur to the son's wife, and the maxim, qui prior est in tempore, etc., should prevail. He also said that equity abhors all underhanded agreements in cases of marriage, and perhaps this may be the only instance in equity where a person, though particeps criminis, shall yet be allowed to avoid his own acts. Many other cases of a similar nature might be cited.