case cowper v scott et all refer to henty v wrey Ch d sir Joseph Jekyll master  of the roll devise of land to trustee in fee in trust within six year after  the testator death to raise and pay pound to his daughter a a die within the  six year the pound shall go to her administrator here be no certain time limit  when but only the ultimate time within which it shall be raise Henry Bedel a  freeman of London have one son and six daughter four of who be marry in his  lifetime and advance by portion Henry Bedel make his will peer William er p  date August and thereby have dispose of his personal estate and likewise of  part of his real estate to and among his child devise several freehold land  and tenement to certain trustee and their heir upon trust that they shall  within six year after his decease raise and pay out of the rend and profit of  the premise pound apiece to his two young daughter and also out of the rend  and profit of the say premise pay interest at the rate of pound per cent per  annum for the say pound apiece until the same shall be pay for and towards  their maintenance and education mary the young daughter but one marry very  improvident to Essen one of the defendant and die within the six year without  issue and her husband insist to have the pound and interest pay to he as her  administrator peer William against which it be object that this pound be  Payable within six year can not be demand until the six year be expire that it  be the same as if it have be say at the end of six year and be a charge upon a  real estate it ought now to sink therein neither be the case alter by the  daughter have marry within the six year especial since the husband have make  no settlement and be so unsuitable a match for her for which be cite vern  carter v bletso where a man seize in fee devise land to his old son in fee  with direction that his old son shall pay out of the land to the testator  daughter mary pound at her age of twentyone with pound per cent per annum for  maintenance in the mean time mary marry and die before twentyone whereupon the  husband as administrator to his wife bring a bill for the pound but decree  that the husband have no right thereto because by the will there be only a  direction to the son to pay the pound to the daughter at her attain twentyone  until which age nothing vest say per cur the payment of this pound be not  appoint to be at the end of six year bait to be make out of the rend and  profit within six year I e the trustee be to pay it within that compass of  time if it can be raise out of the rend and profit so that here be no precise  appointment when it be to be pay but the six year be mention as the ultimate  time for that purpose so Wilson v Spencer post in the mean while it be to be  pay as much soon as it can in the great case of Evelyn v Evelyn Vol late  determine it be the unanimous opinion of the court I mean of the Lord  chancellor the Lord Raymond and myself that if a portion be to be raise out of  rend and profit and no time mention for the payment it be Payable present and  become a interest vest consequent two will go to executor c so long before in  peer William the case of earl river v the earl of Derby vern it be decree that  where a portion be give to a daughter and no time limit for the payment  thereof on the daughter die before marriage or twentyone videlicet at her age  of seventeen it be a vest interest in such daughter wherefore this be a rule  so settle his honour will not suffer it to be further debate vide duke of  chandos v Talbot ante vol note but with regard to the interest of the pound  that be design for the maintenance of the wife and she be dead it be order  there shall be no interest pay from the death of the wife the next question  upon the will be the testator have appoint that the trustee shall out of the  rend and profit of his estate raise and pay unto his only son Henry Bedel and  Dorothy his wife over and above what he have before give they pound per annum  during their respective life pound per annum of which pound per annum shall be  pay to the son wife for the better support of herself and daughter the remain  pound per annum to go to the testator say son the son die in the testator  lifetime whereupon it be now insist that the son widow shall have but pound  per annum and not the pound per annum for that the latter clause of the will  import a distribution how the pound per annum be to be pay namely pound to  peer William the wife and pound to the husband just as if the devise of the  pound have be to the son and his wife for their life habendum pound per annum  part thereof to the wife the remain pound per annum to the son or as if the  testator have devise pound per annum to his son and his wife for their life  that be to say in manner follow pound per annum to the wife and the remain  pound to the son which latter word be therefore explanatory of the former like  the case where a devise be to a and his heir habendum to a and the heir of his  body there the latter word explain what heir be mean Inst b and it be observe  that the pound per annum give to the wife be not make Payable to her during  the coverture or during the joint life of her and her peer William er p  husband but general and so must be intend for her life as any general devise  or grant must be take to be for the life of the devisee or grantee Inst say  per cur though this clause be unskilful pen yet it be plain and express that  the testator son and his wife shall have a annuity of pound per annum for  their respective life and such express devise be not to be control by word  that be doubtful and bare capable of another construction the testator may  well be intend to have mean that during the coverture pound out of the pound  per annum shall be allow for the maintenance of the wife and her daughter and  not that the daughter maintenance shall remain a clog on the wife during her  life if she shall happen to survive her husband and when peer William probable  her daughter will have have another provision fall to her on the death of her  father as in fact she have another question be whether Ann the young daughter  who be marry to one Mr Searle may not claim her pound give her by the will out  of the real estate and also her orphanage part for which purpose it be urge  that as the real estate of the freeman be quite out of the custom so the  orphan may claim that or any derivative charge or interest thereout over and  above her orphanage part and therefore if a freeman advance a child by a real  estate and die this be not to be take as any advancement but such child shall  have his full orphanage part beside nay the turn the personal into real estate  though with a declaration at the same time that it be do pure with a view to  evade the custom Babbington v greenwood vol will yet be effectual for that end  that this be still strong as to the land of inheritance devise afterward in  this will to the daughter in tail all which she may well claim and also her  orphanage part for it can not be call a break into the custom to claim that  with which the custom have nothing to do and if the young daughter may have  these and likewise her orphanage part her share of the latter will come to  much more than the share of her elder sister who have receive advancement from  their father on their respective marriage which the young have not say per cur  it appear upon this will that the testator peer William intend to make equal  provision for all his child especial in case his son shall die without issue  male which have happen in his lifetime he give a estate in land to each  daughter he moreover give to his son and also to his six daughter a seven part  to each of his personal estate intend thereby a equal division of all his  estate among his child wherefore if any of the child shall go about to  disappoint such intention and prevent that equality which the will design such  child shall be exclude from take any benefit by the will as well with respect  to the real as the personal estate and not be allow to elect what he like best  by the will and entitle himself to the rest by the custom but must abide by  the will only or by the custom only and the difference be where the will make  a disposition of the whole estate both real and personal of the testator among  his child and when it give land and some share of the testamentary part to a  child who in such case may lie claim thereto without cross the rest of the  will but wherever the child claim by the custom tend to frustrate and defeat  the intention of the father in all such case he shall not be suffer to take  any part by the will either of the real or personal estate if at the same time  he will avail himself of the custom the last point of the case be the testator  Bedel have devise all his personal estate in seven videlicet peer William one  seven to each child after which his son be the old child die in the testator  lifetime and then the testator die by which mean the son seven become  distributable accord to the statute the executor be declare by the will to be  but trustee and four of the testator daughter be marry and have be advance by  their father in his lifetime it be therefore contend that this seven which be  the son share become distributable accord to the statute the four sister who  have be advance by their father in his lifetime ought to bring their portion  into hotchpot for if the child be within the statute as to one clause they  must be within it as to every clause thereof say curian contra though this  seven part devise to the son do by his die in his father lifetime for  necessity sake become distributable accord to the statute yet I take this not  to be in strictness within the same because here be a executor and therefore  the testator can be say to have die intestate though it be true the executor  be but a trustee be by a equitable construction and by mean of a accident that  have happen since the make of the will a trustee for the next of kin accord  peer William er p to the statute however this be as I say mere through  necessity and because no one else can take but as to child who be advance in  their father lifetime bring such their advancement into hotchpot that be to be  only in the case of a total intestacy or where the whole personal estate not  where part only and that perhaps but a very small part as here become  distributable neither will it be reasonable for the child so to do and it be  observable that Mr Lutwyche who be of counsel with the decease daughter  husband and who peer William client interest it be to have the advancement of  the four marry daughter bring into hotchpot give up the point say it have be  so adjudge in sir George Wheelers case sir George Wheelers case be report in  mos by the name of Wheeler v sheer the principal case be to be find in Reg lib  a fol by the name of Cowper v Morson Walton v Walton Ves if the freeman give a  legacy to his child and dispose of his whole personal estate the child shall  not have both the legacy and the orphanage part even though the legacy do not  exceed the dead man part by if the legacy be give express out of the  testamentary part Hender v rise at the roll July and Frederick v Frederick vol  but in no case shall the child be oblige to make his election till after the  account take Hender v rise where above see note to Pusey v Desbouvrie post and  see Deg v Deg ante vol and the case collect in note