atkins case atkins v hiccock Trinity vacation SC cite l Ves Ves a testator  devise to his daughter e h pound to be pay her at the time of marriage or  within month after provide she marry with the approbation of his two son e h  die after twentyone but without be marry bill bring by her representative for  the legacy a testator devise in these word I devise to my daughter Elizabeth  hiccock the sum of pound to be pay her at the time of her marriage or within  three month after provide she marry with the approbation of my two son William  and Samuel hiccock or the survivor of they and my will be that my say daughter  Elizabeth shall yearly receive and be pay until such time as she shall marry  the sum of twelve pound free and clear of all tax and imposition whatsoever  and will that his leasehold estate call shall stand charge with the payment of  the say pound atkins per and and likewise with the payment of the pound when  the same shall become due and devise the say leasehold premise and his whole  personal estate to his two son and make they his executor Elizabeth die after  but without be marry and the present plaintiff as her administrator bring a  bill against the executor of hiccock for the pound the general question  whether the legacy vest in Elizabeth and whether it so vest as to be  transmissable to her administrator Lord chancellor I be of opinion this be not  a vest legacy in the common case of legacy to be pay at the age of there be a  certain time fix not to the thing itself but to the execution of it and the  time be so fix must necessary come but when the time annex to the payment be  mere eventual and may or may not come and the person die before the  contingency happen can find no instance in this court where it have be hold  that the legacy at all event shall be pay the rule as to the vest be find upon  another rule that which is fixed be quod that which is fixed To give back to  be able and it be plain that the testator do not regard the point of time but  the fact that be to happen the marriage which make it a legacy on a condition  and can be demand till the condition be satisfy it have be argue by Mr  attorney general that this bequest differ not from a legacy give to be pay at  which vest immediate and the time of payment only be postpone but it have be  always hold with regard to such a limitation of payment at that it be debt is  owed in prsenti to loosen in going to be and the payment postpone mere on  account of the legatee legal incapacity of manage his own affair till that age  and this have be the establish rule of this court ever since Cloberies case  Ventris in the digest lib title law de creating c it be hold that die  uncertain creating in will compose and these be the word of the text and not  of the commentator so that a time absolute uncertain be put on the same foot  as a condition but as the civil law be no further of authority than as it have  be receive in England let we see what our own author say Swinbourn part sec  page old edition make a difference between a certain and a uncertain time and  lie it down that if a legacy be give to be pay at the day of marriage and the  legatee die before the legacy be lose God Orp leg be to the same effect it  have be insist that the testator give pound per and to Elizabeth till the  contingency of her marriage be in the nature of interest for the pound and  that from thence atkins er p it appear to be his intention that the legacy  shall vest in the meantime see fonnereau v fonnereau post vol Dodson v hay bro  Charles Rep but whenever this doctrine have be allow the payment of the  principal have be certain and so not similar to the present case because here  this be not mean as interest for it be a annuity of pound per and charge upon  and issue out of a estate atkins the case in salk Thomas v Howell be plain a  condition subsequent and be make impossible by the act of God it be adjudge  that the condition be not break and consequent shall not divest the estate out  of the devisee the second point be very strong against the transmissableness  which be her marry with the consent of her two brother and show plain the  testator intend a condition precedent that if she marry she be to have pound  for her portion but if she die before there be no occasion to have it raise  for the benefit of a stranger it be true indeed as there be no devise over the  clause of consent may be only in terror but in all case where the condition of  marry be annex it be necessary that the condition as to the marry at least  shall be perform though she be not oblige to marry with consent Garbut v  Hilton ante Elton v Elton post vol will S c Ves SC Hemmings v Munkley bro  Charles Rep I be the more satisfy because it appear to be the intention of the  testator that this pound shall be in the nature of a marriage portion for he  have take it out of a leasehold estate and if she do not marry it be manifest  his design that it shall sink in that estate for the benefit of his son  therefore I think this bequest be to be consider as a condition precedent  which not be perform the legacy do never vest and consequent the administrator  can make no title to it the bill dismiss