case spinks versus robin and cope and by a cross bill robin versus spinks  trent and other January S c by a codicil without any date give pound apiece to  mary and Sarah robin and if either die before their legacy be pay the whole to  the survivor each of the legacy direct to remain in the executor hand till  legatee attain S afterward enter into two bind one to mary and another to  Sarah recite he be desirous to provide for their maintenance each of the bind  be in the penalty of pound for secure pound provide they marry in his lifetime  with his consent or in case they survive he as the principal sum give by the  bind be upon two contingency they ought not to be consider as a satisfaction  of the legacy under the codicil as to the doctrine of satisfaction see  Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol note the original bill be bring by the plaintiff  as a residuary legatee of the late Mr spinks to have it place out for his  benefit by the defendant the executor of the will atkins er p and be mere of  course but the material question arise on the cross bill and upon this case Mr  spinks the testator by a codicil without any date give pound apiece to the  plaintiff mary and Sarah robin the daughter of mrs robin a widow with who he  live for several year till the time of his death and if either of they shall  die before their legacy be pay then he give the whole to the survivor and  direct that each of the say two legacy shall remain in the hand of his  executor till they attain the age of he afterward enter into two bind one to  mary and the other to Sarah robin recite that for diverse good cause and  consideration he be desirous to make a provision for and towards their  maintenance atkins each of the bind be in the penalty of pound for secure  pound apiece to they provide they shall marry in his lifetime with his consent  or in case they shall survive he Mr attorney general counsel for the defendant  in the cross cause insist chat the bind be to be consider as give in  satisfaction of the legacy under the codicil and for this purpose cite tapper  versus Chalcroft Feb before Lord Hardwicke where it be hold that a legacy to a  daughter under the will of her father be satisfy by his give her a marriage  portion afterward he cite likewise Hartrop versus Whitmore p wms and Jenkins  versus Powell vern web and web Ventr see Bellasis v Uthwatt atk Mr Chute for  the plaintiff the Robinss cite Atkinson versus web vern and insist that the  word for and towards the maintenance in the bind ex way termini imply that it  be not the whole he intend to give they and therefore the pound under codicil  may be consider as a additional portion Lord chancellor the general rule which  have be lie down in the case be where the portion have be actual pay chapman v  salt vern hale v Acton Charles Rep clark v jewel post vol but I do not  remember any case that come up to the present where the principal sum be give  upon two contingency one of marry with consent in his lifetime and the other  in case they shall survive he so that it may never take effect for they may  marry without his consent or die before twentyone the case that have be cite  to I have be of portion from parent to child there the presumption be that the  parent be pay the debt of nature I will not say but there may have be case  also between collateral relation as between uncle and niece stand in loco  parent Shudall v Jekyll post Powell v cleaver bro Charles Rep but I do not  remember in any case between stranger where a man first give a legacy by will  and afterward in his lifetime a different sum to the same person by bind that  the one have be hold to be in satisfaction of the other for to extinguish a  legacy by such a construction will be a very extraordinary stretch of this  court the word by which the legacy be give in this will be not at all in the  term of a portion neither be the word portion so much as mention atkins what  weigh with I very strong be that the money give by the bind be upon a  contingency and therefore absolute uncertain whether one shilling of the  principal sum will become due or not now in the construction upon double  portion it have always be of weight that they be both certain former the  circumstance of time when the portion be to be pay have some weight in  determination but latterly it have be lie out of the case Jesson v Jesson vern  Thomas v Keymish vern clark v fuel post vol warren v warren bro Charles Rep  here it will be extreme unjust for if either of these gentlewoman have marry  in the lifetime of Mr spinks without consent it will have be a forfeiture of  the bind Mr attorney general say that it be contingent but when the event take  place it be certain now a case may be put which will clear the present case  from Mr attorney objection for suppose a man give a legacy to another to who  he be indebt this be a satisfaction if it be equal or exceed the debt but  where a legacy be give upon a atkins er p contingency it have never be hold to  be a satisfaction for in these case it must be so at the time and not  uncertain whether the legacy will take effect or no this case be within the  same reason and ought to be determine accord Lord Hardwicke declare therefore  that the pound and interest at the rate of per cent due upon the bind enter  into by the testator to mary robin now marry to Robert Trent and also the  legacy of si give by the codicil of Mr spinks to mary robin with the interest  thereof be subject to the trust in the article enter into by mary robin with  Robert Trent and decree that the article be perform and that what shall be  find due for the interest of the two sum of pound and pound before the  marriage be pay to Robert Trent the husband and what shall be find due for the  arrear and grow payment of the interest of the pound from the time of the  marriage to be pay to mary the wife for her separate use accord to the article  and that what shall be find due for the arrear and grow payment of the  interest of the pound from the time of the marriage until a settlement shall  be make be also pay to mary for her separate use Reg lib b fol