case lee versus cox and daranda February see lady thin v earl of Glengall h l  c SC for l previous to his marriage with d covenant that he will by will or by  some good assurance in the law grant to d or e d the mother or her exe cutors  c in trust for d and for her separate use pound to be pay to d after his  decease and in case he shall not by will or otherwise assure to d the pound  then his executor c shall within six month after his decease pay d the pound l  be dead without make any will or deed in regard to the pound d be not entitle  to the pound and the distributive share likewise oh f l s personal estate be  mean only to secure a provision for the wife without any intention of the  husband to leave it as a debt vide Blandy v Widmore p W and Mr Cox note  thereto Barret v Beckford Ves Weyland v Weyland ante atk vol kirkman v kirkman  bro Charles Rep with respect to case upon satisfaction of portion and legacy  vide Bellasis v Uthwatt ante atk vol and the note the question in this cause  arise upon the covenant in a deed previous to the marriage of the defendant  Martha Cox with her first husband Charles Henry lee in consideration of the  intend marriage and of the marriage portion of Martha daranda and for make a  provision for the say Martha Charles Henry lee do covenant that he will in his  lifetime either by his last will or by some good and sufficient assurance in  the law grant to Martha or Elizabeth daranda the mother or her executor or  administrator in trust for the say Martha and for her sole and separate use  pound to be pay to the say Martha after the decease of Charles Henry lee in  case she shall survive he and in case Charles Henry lee shall not by will or  otherwise in his lifetime assure to Martha the say pound that then the  executor or administrator of Charles Henry lee shall within the space of six  month next after the decease of Charles Henry lee pay to Martha daranda the  sum of pound to and for her own use and benefit Mr lee be dead without make  any will or deed in pursuance of his power with regard to the pound Mr  solicitor general for the plaintiff the child the plaintiff be the brother and  sister of Mr lee he have die without issue of the defendant Martha Cox by her  first husband insist that as be know he shall leave sufficient to pay pound  she shall not have both the pound and her share of his personal estate under  the statute of distribution that the court always lean against double  provision he cite wilcocks versus wilcocks vern a covenant on his marriage to  purchase land of pound a year and settle they for the jointure of his wife and  to the first and other son of the marriage he purchase land of that value but  make no settlement atkins and on his death the land descend on the old son on  a bill bring by he for a specific performance Lord Cowper decree the land  descend to be a satisfaction of the covenant this be a case of real estate but  Blandy versus Widmore vern and p wms be of personal estate one covenant to  leave his wife pound he die intestate and the wife share onthe statute of  distribution come to more than the pound this be a satisfaction the personal  estate in the present case amount to pound be more than sufficient to satisfy  the covenant in the deed and therefore shall be deem a satisfaction and the  case of Blandy versus Widmore be in point for either the husband in his  lifetime or his executor or administrator may pay so that the covenant be not  break by the husband die intestate as his administrator may within six month  perform Mr attorney general for the defendant mrs Cox the rule upon the  statute of distribution be that the debt must be first take out before the  clear personal estate can be see be there any ground to say that the husband  do intend she shall not have the distribution which he know the law will give  her there be nothing upon the face of the deed to exclude her the contract do  not atkins er p mention the case of a intestacy but if the husband shall not  direct it to be raise consider it as a debt and she may claim her distributive  share of his personal estate in another right under the statute of  distribution he cite the case of Oliver versus Brickland December Ves SC cite  before sir Joseph Jekyll where the provision for a wife and a distributory  share of the husband personal estate be decree to her in Blandy versus Widmore  the wife be administratrix herself and can immediate apply the personal estate  of her husband but the defendant daranda the mother of the defendant Cox be  administratrix here durante those inferior in rank tate of her daughter and  therefore the personal estate can not be apply till a twelve month after the  intestate death Mr brown counsel of the some side the husband leave it to the  administrator to pay be not a performance of the covenant but a neglect in he  because it atkins will have be much more beneficial if he have raise it in his  lifetime as it will have be to her separate use distinct from her second  husband the event which have actual happen if the administratrix here be at  liberty to pay within six month it will be like the case of Blandy versus  Widmore but as it can be pay till after the six month be expire it be a breach  of the covenant and she ought therefore to have both Lord chancellor I be of  opinion upon the strength of the authority which have be cite that the  defendant Martha Cox be not entitle to the pound and the distributive share  likewise of Charles Henry lee personal estate I be of this opinion too from  the reason of the thing it be natural to think this be only to secure a  provision to the wife without any intention of the husband to leave it as a  debt I go likewise upon the foundation of the court be lean against double  provision and double satisfaction in such a case they consider the intention  of the party for where it be leave to arise out of his estate after his death  and mean only to secure a provision for the wife the court will regard it in  no other light there have be case that be strong where the court have consider  as a satisfaction for a debt to a old son a provision for he out of real  estate and will not draw out of the personal estate to the prejudice of the  widow and young child a sum of money which will be a double provision for such  old son and this be the ground of the determination in the case of Wilcox  versus Wilcox the counsel for the defendant mrs Cox observe upon the covenant  that the inal intention be the husband shall in his lifetime set apart this  provision for the wife if there be any word in the deed which confine it to  this sense it will be very strong in favour of the wife because at his death  it will then have be a breach of the covenant and within the case cite by Mr  attorney general but the covenant be not so for it be a power of leave it by  will or let her take it out of his estate after his death in case Charles  Henry lee shall not by will or otherwise in his lifetime assure to Martha one  thousand pound that then the executor or administrator of Charles Henry lee  shall c vide the word before atkins there be no breach of the covenant  therefore and no obligation on the husband to perform it in his lifetime and  he have leave a personal estate more than sufficient to satisfy the pound be  this then a satisfaction I be of opinion it be and it have often be say that  the statute of distribution be the legislature make a will for a man if he  make none for himself the case of Blandy versus Widmore be exact in point and  though more full state in p wms yet it be to the same effect in vern Lord  Cowper take the covenant not to be break because the wife be administratrix  and have it in her power to pay herself the material thing too in the present  case be that the covenant be not break at the husband death it have be say  that the personal estate need not be distribute till a twelve month after the  husband death no more it need not but the administratrix may notwithstanding  have pay the pound if she please within six month it have also be say the  defendant Cox not be of age the mother have take atkins er p administration  durante those inferior in rank tate and therefore differ from Blandy versus  Windmore because the defendant Cox can pay herself as she be not  administratrix but the defendant daranda the mother of the defendant Cox take  out administration as guardian only during her daughter minority and from the  moment the daughter come to the age of seventeen she be Self facto  administratrix and be so consider by relation from the beginning and  consequent be not distinguishable from Blandy versus Widmore as to the case  before sir Joseph Jekyll it be clear distinguishable for there the covenant be  to lie out a sum of money as a provision for the wife in two year in the  lifetime of the husband the two year lapse without any thing do of that kind  and therefore be a plain breach of the covenant whether Blandy versus Widmore  be proper state or not in Vernon yet this be true within the reason of that  case and it will be the strange thing in the world for a court of equity to  determine upon such nice distinction and very slight argument which will never  stand with the reason of mankind without door Lord Hardwicke declare that the  defendant Martha Cox be not entitle to a distributor share of her husband  personal estate in case it shall amount to more than the S m of pound to the  say pound by virtue of the say marriage article as a debt out of the say  intestate estate and also to a distributory share of her husband personal  estate in case it shall amount to or be more than the sum of pound Reg lib b  fol