case watts all versus ball all Lord chancellor Cowper Eq can Abr pl vide vern  where this case be cite there shall be a tenancy by the courtesy of a trust as  well as of a legal estate so chaplin v chaplin Vol III Casborne v scarf atk  burgess v wheat Bla Rep Eden S c et vide hark   Litt a note the case in effect  be one seize of land in fee have two daughter and devise his land to trustee  in fee in trust to pay his debt and to convey the surplus to his daughter  equal the young daughter marry and die leave a infant son and her husband  survive the old daughter bring a bill for a partition and the peer William  only question be whether the husband of the young daughter shall have a estate  for life convey to he as tenant by the courtesy the husband in his answer have  swear that he marry the young daughter upon a presumption that she be seize in  fee of a legal estate in the moiety that at the time of the marriage she be in  the actual receipt of the profit of such moiety and it be admit that this  trust be not discover until after the death of the young daughter nor until it  be agree that a partition shall be make decree by Lord chancellor that trust  estate be to be govern by the same rule and be within the same reason as legal  estate vide ante Philips v Philips and as the husband shall have be tenant b  the courtesy have it be a legal estate so shall he be of this trustestate and  if there be not the same rule of property in all court all thing will be as it  be at sea and under the great uncertainty his lordship add that this be a case  of some difficulty he can have wish it have not come before he as a cause by  consent but his opinion be that the husband ought to be tenant by the courtesy  and the rather because it appear that he upon his marriage do conceive and  presume his wife to be seize of a legal estate in the moiety and have reason  to think so she be in possession thereof wherefore it be decree that a estate  for life in a moiety in severalty shall be convey by the trustee to the  husband with remainder in fee to his son peer William in this cause Mr how who  be for the husband cite the case of Sweetapple v bindon vern where money be  devise to be lie out for the benefit of a femesole in the purchase off land in  fee the feme marry and have issue and die the husband survive and decree in  equity that though the money be not invest in a purchase during the life of  the wife yet in regard in this case if it have be so lie out the husband will  have be tenant by the courtesy and that this be as land in equity therefore  the husband be equal entitle so Cunningham v moody ves and Mr Vernon tell I  that though in the case of lady Radnor and Vandebendy case in parliament it be  decree in equity and affirm in the house of lord that a feme dowress shall not  have the benefit of a trustterm where the husband die seize of the legal  estate of the freehold yet that the contrary on consideration be decree by sir  John Trevor master of the roll in the case of Dudley v Dudley but lady Radnor  v Vandebendy be the case of a dowress claim against a good fide purchaser and  sir John Trevor express distinguish it from Dudley v Dudley on that ground pre  Charles but in what case and under what circumstance a dowress shall have  relief in this court see discuss at large by the late master of the roll sir  Joseph Jekyll in his resolution in the case of bank and Sutton post Vol h peer  William er p peer William de term S michaelis