case Adam against Danvers in chancery may decree June portion when raisable by  sale of a reversionary term by a deed of settlement date in may recite a  marriage between John palmer jun and whether Danvers and that she be entitle  to have a portion of three thousand pound modern report John palmer the father  convey land to trustee and their heir to the use of John palmer the son for  life remainder to whether for her life for her jointure remainder to trustee  to preserve the contingent remainder remainder to the first and every other  son of John palmer jun on the body of his say wife and for default of such  issue male to the trustee for a term of five hundred year upon trust that in  case at the time of failure of issue male of the say John palmer jun by the  say whether or at any time after there shall happen to be any one or more  daughter or daughter of their body that the trustee shall by sale or mortgage  of the say estate and term of five hundred year in the say land and by and  with the rend and profit thereof in the mean time and until such sale raise  for the maintenance and portion of all such daughter and daughter such sum as  thereafter be mention videlicet if but one three thousand pound to be pay at  twenty one or marriage which shall first happen and also the sum of one  hundred pound yearly for her maintenance and education in the mean time until  such portion shall be raise by sale by mortgage or sale or shall become  Payable as aforesaid provide that no such mortgage or sale shall be make until  one or more of the say portion shall become Payable and if the say John palmer  jun shall in his lifetime or at his death make a provision for such daughter  or daughter or suffer land of inheritance or good of as great value to come to  his daughter at any time during his lifetime or at his death then the portion  be not to be raise by the deed and the term be to cease and be void provide  also that if such daughter or daughter shall die before her or their portion c  become Payable then it shall not be raise John palmer jun die in leave issue  only one child a daughter who marry Hargrave Adam in and in he lifetime of the  mother and while the daughter be a infant of the age of sixteen year Hargrave  Adam and his wife by deed date the four of February recite that she be entitle  to the three thousand pound that her husband be go abroad and that he be able  to make no settlement upon her and that the husband be desirous to settle this  three thousand pound therefore the husband assign the three thousand pound  which be to be raise by the deed of to trustee to permit h Adam to receive the  interest and profit of it during the joint life of himself and his wife and if  at their death they shall leave issue then that the three thousand pound shall  be pay and divide to and among such issue and if there shall be none or such  issue shall die c that fifteen hundred pound part of the say three thousand  pound shall be pay to such person as whether Adam shall by her will appoint  and for want thereof then that it shall be pay to her mother whether palmer as  the mother be a party to this deed and as to the remain fifteen hundred pound  this be to be pay to h Adam his executor or administrator modern report  Hargrave Adam die without issue soon after and before he go abroad his  representative now bring his bill to have the three thousand pound and  interest modern report er p raise in the lifetime of whether palmer the mother  by sale or mortgage of the term of five hundred year and that it may be  dispose of accord to the deed of the four of February the other bill be bring  to have the three thousand pound and interest raise and pay to the  representative of whether Adam who claim the whole and dispute the deed of the  four of February the remainderman who claim under the deed of settlement in be  a defendant and insist the three thousand pound portion be not raisable in the  lifetime of the mother on the seven of June this cause come before the court  upon a appeal from a decree make by strange master of the roll and this day  the Lord chancellor give his judgement Hardwicke Lord chancellor here be two  question first whether this three thousand pound be now raisable by sale or  mortgage in the lifetime of the mother second if raisable to who it belong  whether the whole to the daughter late mrs Adam and now mrs n or be it subject  to the assignment make by the deed of the four of February and one moiety of  it will belong to the representative I be of opinion with the master of the  roll upon both point first this question depend upon a point which have go  through various determination until Lord Cowper make a stand in the case of  Corbett v Maidwell a Eq case Abr salk vern Chan Rep a nothing tend more to the  detriment of family to the promote of undutifulness of child nor to the ruin  of family estate than the rule which prevail before this case the court see it  have a remorse of judgement as Hobart call it I shall not go back to consider  the old case grave v Mattison b Jones b be the first of they and it be a  strong case after this be Stainforth v Stainforth c Eq Abr vern c and Gerard v  Gerard d vern Freem d the ground these case go upon be that if the child shall  wait until the death of its father or mother for the payment of their portion  they can not have the portion when it may be most useful to they as to prefer  they in marriage c these case be now quite explode in Corbet v Maidwell the  court do not indulge the same latitude of construction and in reresby v  Newland e Peer wms e and broom v Berkley they have do it still less upon this  last case I shall chief ground my opinion and if this case come within the  reason of that I be bind to determine accord to it and in this I shall not act  contrary to the notion and sense of modern conveyancers who provide that  portion shall modern report not be raise till the term take effect in  possession and I dare say no husband upon execute such a settlement as this  ever think his child can come in his lifetime and demand his portion I be of  opinion there be no warrantable distinction between this case and that of  broom v Berkley the rule be that if a reversionary term or estate be limit to  trustee to raise portion at a certain time when that time come the portion  must be raise unless on a declaration of the trust of the term the intention  of the party appear to the contrary here the intention of the party appear to  be that the portion shall not be raise either in the lifetime of the father or  mother the father be make tenant for life of the whole estate and the whole  estate be limit to the mother for life in jointure I think there be no  difference between make the restriction part of the declaration of the trust  of the term and insert it as part of a negative proviso for the whole must in  construction be take together first whether raisable in the lifetime of the  father objection the portion will have be raisable in the lifetime of the  father in case the mother have die first for then there will have be a failure  of issue male I say it will not for the father have during his whole lifetime  by the proviso in the settlement to make a provision for his daughter and  therefore the daughter can not demand this three thousand pound against he but  Lord macclesfield opinion upon the proviso in reresby v Newland wms that if  the father provide for the daughter a portion equal to what be secure by  modern report er p the settlement then the term to be void have be object  because say Lord Macclesfield by this it seem it must be intend if the father  provide such portion Payable at such time as the portion by the settlement be  make Payable but this proviso be not capable of the same answer for this  clause in the proviso go further than that do for the word be if land or good  during his life or at his death come to the daughter of equal value her  portion shall not be raise second whether raisable in the lifetime of the  mother to this the proviso above be not applicable it only afford a argument  against raise it it have be object by Mr attorneygeneral that the word of the  trust term must be construe distributive reddendum one one I think they must  the portion to be raise by sale or mortgage and the maintenance as the word be  in the mean time and until such sale by rend and profit the manner of  expression both before and after show it to be so in the mean time and until  such sale the same in both so modern report also be the application of the  rend in the mean time and until the portion shall be raise by sale or mortgage  or shall become Payable as aforesaid and here be a proviso that no sale or  mortgage shall be make until some one or more of the portion shall become  Payable how then be the maintenance to come but of the rend and profit and how  can this be during the life of the father or mother the term be not to take  effect in possession until they both be dead and here the maintenance be most  clear to precede the portion and therefore the maintenance be to be pay before  it and as the maintenance can take place during the life of either father or  mother the consequence be that the portion can be not this then the very same  case as that of broom v Berkley a Peer wms a in peer William where the case be  true state but it be say the word be not the same but there be the same form  of expression in both indeed in that case there be express word that the  maintenance shall not take place until the term take effect in possession the  difference between the two case be mere in word the intent meaning and import  of the two settlement be the same and the rule lie down by the master of the  roll in broom v Berkley be the true rule in these case the second question  depend upon the deed of the four of February it have be say as the husband  have a right to this three thousand pound as be may assign it or release it  and as the provision make be a reasonable one and what if bring before the  court will at that time have be allow it shall be so now but consider the  circumstance of the party and the deed itself the wife be a infant under age  and marry a man that be worth nothing No provision whatsoever be make for her  or her child before the marriage but after the marriage this deed be make  which recite that the husband be then go abroad that he be not able to make  any provision for his wife then it go on and say that he alone be desirous to  settle c and therefore he assign c the whole interest he reserve to himself  during their joint life and though he be go abroad and his wife confess have  no other provision yet nothing be reserve for her but in case there shall be  no issue a power and which she be restrain to execute by will only of dispose  of fifteen hundred pound part of the three thousand pound the other be to go  to the husband and his representative absolute I be of opinion this deed shall  be set aside I do not think the provision reasonable and I think the benefit  which be limit to survive to the mother such as she be the friend by nature  most to be rely on in take care of the interest of her child that for example  sake it ought to be set aside this court always take care of the interest of  the wife as to the husband power over her estate it be hold in modern report  Bates v Danby that he may assign it for a valuable consideration but so far as  his assignment be voluntary the court there decree so much belong to the wife  who survive here be no valuable consideration it be voluntary which bring it  to the question whether reasonable and I be of opinion it be not there be no  reason to give the husband fifteen hundred pound although the wife modern  report er p survive here be nothing reserve for her or for her separate  maintenance during her husband absence if this have go before the master he  will not have divide thus the husband can not have the portion without the  assistance of this court neither can his representative if she make no  disposition by will it be to go to the mother and she be tie up to do it by  will and the mother the principal friend to be rely on to take care of her  daughter interest have unwarrantable stipulate for a benefit for herself and  therefore I be of opinion the whole decree must be affirm upon both point a  see churchman v Harvey Amb Stephens v dethick atk Sandys v Sandys Peer wms  Heblethwaite v Cartwright case t t Stanley v Stanley atk hall v carter atk  lion v the duke of chandos atk smith v Evans Amb Conway v Conway brown case Ch  a