case mill v bank see Haldenby v Spofforth Beav Lord chancellor Macclesfield Eq  can ab pl the trust of a term be to raise daughter portion by rend issue and  profit or by make lease for three life at the ancient rend or by grant  copyhold on fine the money to be pay to the daughter at their age of eighteen  or marriage or as soon after as the same can be raise out of the premise as  aforesaid the portion as it seem may not be raise by sale or mortgage on the  marriage of Mr lutterell with mrs mary Tregonwell in Mr lutterell make a  settlement of his estate and Mr Tregonwell the father of the say mary make  also a settlement of his estate and in the Tregonwell settlement there be a  term raise out of the Tregonwell estate be the manor of miltonabbas in  Dorsetshire subsequent to several estate since determine to the use of trustee  for two hundred year remainder to the use of the first c son of the marriage  in tailmale remainder over the trust of the two hundred year term be to raise  pound for the young child son and daughter of the marriage by rend issue and  profit or by make lease for one two or three life or for any number of year  determinable on one two or three life reserve the ancient peer William rend or  by grant copyhold on fine the money to be pay to the daughter at their age of  eighteen or marriage and to the son at twentyone or as soon after as the same  can be raise out of the premise as aforesaid there be issue by the marriage  one son and two daughter the son die when about twenty year of age the two  daughter intermarry the old with sir George book the young with Mr Harvey and  he soon after die she marry Mr ash peer William er p in the Lord Cowper decree  this pound to be raise by sale of the trust term and to carry interest only  from the time of the decree mrs lutterell survive Mr lutterell marry sir Jacob  bank by who she have issue two son and die and sir Jacob bank and the two  infant son be party to the decree after the make of which decree sir George  rook and his lady be dead and have leave a infant son and executor in trust  the executor lend pound to Mr ash on a mortgage of this trust term for two  hundred year which mortgage be approve of by a master and the money place out  in pursuance of a decree that have be make in another cause touch a account of  t estate of sir George rook and now the cause be reheard before the Lord  Macclesfield note the decree of the Lord Macclesfield in the case of ivy v  Gilbert and which be affirm in the house of lord vide vol occasion this rehear  when it be insist in support of the decree that the same be make by the Lord  Cowper in eighteen year since and so many thing do in the mean time as the  lend of a infant money put out by a decree of this court with the approbation  of the master and lend by executor in confidence of such decree and as it be  by the peer William hand of the court it will be very hard to reverse such a  decree so that if there be any difference to be find betwixt this and the case  of ivy v Gilbert that difference though but a slender one ought to be allow  and the decree to stand and it be much insist that in the principal case there  be a most apparent difference the money be by the deed appoint to be raise and  pay at a certain time videlicet the portion for the daughter at their age of  eighteen or marriage and though the subsequent word be or as soon afterward as  the same can be raise out of the premise as aforesaid yet this must be still  understand to mean in such time as may best answer the intent of a portion so  as that the daughter may have their money in a reasonable time to advance they  which can not be do by the yearly profit these be so small as not to be  sufficient to pay the money in twenty year and will rather be a annuity than a  portion beside the settlement in the case of ivy v Gilbert be make in when the  word profit be not take in a sense so large as to extend to profit arise by  sale but accord to the natural and obvious import of the word signify the  annual profit or rend of the land and this be mention as one of the reason for  the decree in that case vol neither in the case of ivy v Gilbert be any money  put out there with the approbation of the court which be to be endanger by the  determination then make moreover that be allow on all hand to have be a hard  case and for that reason not to be extend that the lend money on a estate  decree to be mortgage or sell be not to be discountenance and though it may be  object that the peer William word of the trust of this two hundred year term  be to raise the money by rend and profit or by lease for three life at the old  rend or by the grant of copyhold on fine though it may be object that the word  profit can here be extend to a mortgage because the lease be confine to three  life and at the old rend yet that will be of no consequence because in  conveyance it be common to make use of many unnecessary word for instance to  say that the portion shall be raise by rend and profit or by lease mortgage or  sell and yet the word sell imply all the rest that in the case of butler v  Duncomb vol Corbet v Maidwell vern and reresby v Newland vol the father or  mother of the daughter be live who it be to be presume will take care of their  own child and in those case the mortgage or sale desire for the raise of the  portion be a mortgage or sale of a reversion that if in answer to the length  of time since the decree it shall be allege that the say decree be against a  infant to who no laches can be impute and who as soon as of age apply to be  relieve against it to this it may be reply that as the heir of the lady bank  be a infant so be also the son of sir George rook who money be lend under the  decree of the court and with the approbation of the master upon this very term  which my Lord Cowper have decree to be sell as aforesaid and it be observable  that whenever a estate be decree to be mortgage or sell for the raise of money  infant concern therein have not a day give they after their attain their age  to show cause neither be their infancy regard last with regard to the rehear  of this cause the same be say to be a matter not of right but mere  discretionary peer William the court may either grant a rehear peer William er  p or refuse it and on this rehear may open the decree or deny so to do and the  diversity usual take at this time of day be between profit general and yearly  profit the former extend to signify the land itself or the profit which it  will any way yield on the other side it be urge that the principal case be not  to be distinguish from that of ivy v Gilbert that the pound be to be raise by  rend issue and profit or by lease for three life or ninetynine year  determinable on three life at the old rend or by grant copyhold on file so  that though it shall be admit that the word profit if leave genial and at  large will extend to any profit as well those arise by sale or mortgage as  such as shall be produce annual yet in the present case there be term of  explanation which restrain it to signify only annual profit of else why be the  power of lease or grant copyhold add nay even in the way of lease the party be  oblige to reserve the ancient rend and can he that be disable to lease for  less than the ancient rend be imagine to be entrust with a power to sell that  suppose the trust be to raise the money rend issue and profit or by sell a  moiety of the land during the term can it be think that by virtue of the word  profit the trustee may sell one half and also by their express power to sell  dispose of the other half which yet by the construction contend for they may  do but that this will be monstrous to the high degree as to what have be  object that the decree in the case now reheard be make eighteen year since and  that money have be lend on the term decree to be sell no precedent peer  William can be show where matter happen since the decree be ever allow to add  to the strength or reason thereof neither can argument of compassion alter the  case which must be govern by the express word and plain intention of the trust  though consider the great portion by which the daughter of mrs lutterell now  lady bank be provide for by her former husband and also what a charge this  pound in question together with the interest thereof will bring on the  inheritance and on the son and heir of the lady bank it be most reasonable  that her estate will be ease of this burden as much as possible that if the  money have be to be raise by lease or grant copyhold and not otherwise there  will be little question but that the trustee in such case can not sell or  mortgage now here these word be plain imply these affirmative manifest infer a  negative and this be the reason of the decree in the case of butler v Duncomb  vol so in our law book it be the general doctrine that affirmative statute  imply a negative see a remarkable instance of this cite by the reporter in his  argument in the case of the king v Burridge post further where the word and  intent of a settlement be plain it be improper to argue from the inconvenience  arise from such settlement for the same settlement which order the payment of  the portion at eighteen or as soon after as the same can be raise by the mean  aforesaid may have order the payment thereof at the daughter age of forty year  the same settlement which secure to the daughter in the principal case a  portion of pound may have give they but one thousand pound in which case have  they complain never so much they can not have peer William be relieve or it  may have provide these portion for such of the child of the marriage only as  be otherwise unprovide for or as shall be unprovide for at the death of the  father and mother as in the case of Corbet and Maidwell that the case of sir  Willoughby Hickman v sir Stephen Anderson Trin vide vern be allow to have be a  hard case upon the daughter but there the court say they can no more relieve  her than they can make a new settlement Lord chancellor the principal case in  some thing differ from that of ivy and Gilbert but not material and in many  respect be not so hard a case as that be it be very observable that here in  the settlement of the Tregonwell estate the trust of the two hundred year term  be not say to be for raise portion for daughter but only the sum of pound it  be only the term in Mr Lutterells settlement that be for raise portion for  daughter and thereby the portion and maintenance be provide so that in the  case in question none of the argument draw from the necessity of raise  daughter portion within a reasonable time be applicable the money to be raise  here be a bounty and not a portion I can but think it to have be a due and  just resolution in the case of butler v Duncomb that all trust of term direct  the method of raise money imply a peer William er p negative videlicet that  the money shall be raise by the method prescribe and not otherwise see his  lordship opinion to this purpose in the case of ivy v Gilbert vol admit the  word profit if find alone will include a mortgage or sale but here the  subsequent clause show that thereby must be peer William intend annual profit  only else such subsequent clause for raise the money by lease or grant  copyhold will be absurd the natural meaning of the word profit be confine to  such as be annual though in this court on particular occasion and to serve  particular purpose the sense thereof have be extend unless where subsequent  word be think to abridge it but still anyone not a lawyer will understand it  in the restrain sense in the principal case it be a stretch to construe it  otherwise by reason of the subsequent clause of lease for three life at rack  rend and of grant copyhold it may be as well insist that the trustee may make  a lease for four life or for year determinable upon the death of four life or  that they may make a lease for year reserve less than the old rend as to say  that under this trust they may make a mortgage or sale of the term and the  case have be right put that suppose the trust be to raise the money by rend  issue or profit or by sale of a moiety of the premise there can be no question  but that the word profit will not warrant the trustee to sell the other moiety  so that I shall not have make this decree but the same have be make and this  be a rehear as it be in the discretion of the court whether they will grant a  rehear it be equal so whether they will do any thing thereon moreover when a  infant money have be lend under a decree and by the approbation of a master  for the court to make another decree set aside this security will be to make  the court fight against itself and act inconsistent all which render it more  proper to apply to a peer William superior court again as the court never give  any aid against a purchaser or mortgagee without notice this be a strong case  for though here be notice of the settlement here be also notice that the court  ha declare and decree that the term thereby raise and the trust declare  concern the same empower the trustee to sell the premise for raise the money  for the daughter of mrs lutterell and a power to sell imply a power to  mortgage which be a conditional sale wherefore if the defendant bank the  heiratlaw of mrs lutterell afterward lady bank will have the opinion of this  court in the case and be for set aside these security on which the money of  sir George rook now belong to his infant son be place it seem necessary for he  to bring a original bill however I will reserve liberty for Mr bank to apply  to the court that so he may have time to advice with his counsel what method  it may be proper for he to pursue in this case which be indeed a very  extraordinary one it appear from the register book that on the that of June  there be a petition to have back the deposit the party have amicable end the  matter in the case of Mr Onslow the present speaker of the house of Commons  the court on the circumstance of the case and the decree not be enrol refuse  to discharge a order for a rehear though at the distance of about twentyfour  year by Lord king the last seal after Hilary term vide buck v Fawcett post  duchess of Hamilton v Manby bro p c bro p c and ed Houghton v west bro p c bro  p c and ed pentland v Stokes ba be