case Bellasis v UTHWATT February the that see Lord Chichester v Coventry lr h  l r b on his marriage in settle exchequer annuity for ear amount to pound per  and in trust to himself for life remainder to his wife for life remainder to  his child in such manner as he shall appoint by the marriage there be only one  child a daughter in r b devise all his real and personal estate to his wife  and her heir charge with pound as a portion for his daughter Payable at atkins  er p eighteen after the death of r b his wife make her will and give all her  real and personal estate to her daughter and her heir but if she die be ogre  she be of age to dispose thereof then to trustee to raise pound for a charity  the residue thereof if her daughter die unmarried to the sister of the  testatrix the daughter after the mother death marry the plaintiff have issue a  daughter and die about the age of twenty the plaintiff as representative of  his wife and in his own right bring a bill for a account of the real and  personal estate of r b and his wife in on the marriage of Rupert Billingsley  with mary his wife he make a settlement of some exchequer annuity for year to  the amount of pound per and in trust for himself for life remainder to his  wife for life remainder to his child in such manner as he shall appoint and if  no child to his executor administrator and assign by this marriage there be  only one child Bridget Rupert be likewise seize of a considerable real and  personal estate and in devise all his real and personal estate to atkins his  wife and her heir charge with the payment of pound as a portion for his  daughter Payable at the age of year and in case his wife shall marry again  that then the estate shall stand charge with a further sum of pound for his  daughter soon after the death of Rupert mary make her will and thereby devise  all her real and personal estate to her daughter and her heir but in case she  shall die before she be f age to dispose thereof then she give the same to  trustee for raise the sum of pound for sound a hospital for seaman widow at  Dryton the residue thereof in case her daughter shall die unmarried to go to  the sister of the testatrix of the whole blood the word in the register book  be and in case my say daughter shall die unmarried my desire be that she shall  be bury there and the residue above the say pound to be divide among my own  sister Reg lib a fol mary die soon after she make her will leave Bridget her  daughter a infant between eleven and twelve year of age in a few year after  her mother death Bridget marry William Bellasis by who she have one daughter  and die be then about the age of twenty the plaintiff as administrator to his  wife and also in his own right together with his infant daughter bring a bill  against the sister of the testatrix mark that and against the trustee of the  charity pray a account of the real and personal estate of Rupert and mary Lord  chancellor the first point that have be make in this case be whether Bridget  be entitle to these annuity under the settlement though there be no  appointment of they to her by the father or whether the whole interest therein  be not vest in the father and the daughter not entitle to the same without a  appointment in her favour b that the father I be of opinion the daughter be  entitle under the settlement which be recite to be make in pursuance of  marriage article to the exchequer annuity as a interest vest in her and that  the father have only a power reserve to Mm of make such disposition thereof  among his child as think proper and there be only one child that she be  entitle to the whole and the plaintiff her husband entitle thereto in her  right so wit v bodington bro Charles Rep another point have be make whether  the pound devise by the father to Bridget shall be take to be in satisfaction  of these annuity and so the annuity be consider as part of the father personal  estate which he have a right to dispose of by his will I be of opinion it can  be take to be in satisfaction but that Bridget be entitle to both as a double  portion and though there be a great many case where the court incline against  they yet regard be always to he have to the circumstance of the case as for  instance where there be a old son or more child and the demand be make of such  double portion to their prejudice but it be otherwise here the case of a only  child and the question whether this shall be imply a satisfaction when it be  not so express by the father in respect to the doctrine of satisfaction when a  bequest be take to be by way of satisfaction for money before due the atkins  thing give in satisfaction must be of the same nature and attend with the same  certainty as the thing in lieu of which it be give and land be not to be take  in satisfaction for money nor money for land it be true here they be both of  the same nature both personal estate but the legacy of pound be subject to a  contingency and not Payable unless Bridget survive the age of eighteen year  and beside she may have live till the annuity be run out as several of the  year wear already go and as the pound legacy may never have become Payable  atkins er p it will be hard to say that a mere contingent shall take away a  portion absolute vest especial in the case of a only child if indeed the  father have dispose of these annuity to any other person it may have be a  question whether the pound shall not be take to be in satisfaction and whether  upon those circumstance Bridget ought to be allow to insist on both demand  another question be make whether the husband be entitle in the right of his  wife to all the personal estate devise to her by mary her mother in case she  shall die before she be of age to dispose thereof h as at the age of she may  have dispose of the personal estate as the law now stand it must be the  intention of the testatrix that she shall at that age have it absolute and as  she make no disposition it be proper it shall go to the husband as the  representative of his wife especial as she livid to be the word thereof must  be construe reddendo one one as it be apply to the personal or real estate and  with regard to the latter devise by the mother will the husband claim of  tenancy by the courtesy therein be not to be support in regard Bridget die  before she be in a capacity of dispose of the real estate and the contingency  therefore happen on which the pound be give to the charity that must take  place but then it have be say a question may be make as to the surplus of the  real estate after the charity provide for the word be the residue thereof in  case her daughter shall die unmarried to go to the testatrixs sister c and I  think that may go to Bridget and so to the plaintiff her husband as tenant by  the courtesy because the word may be take that if Bridget die unmarried then  the residue to go to the sister but as the contingency never happen and as in  doubIful case the heir be always to be prefer Bridget be entitle as heir at  law to her mother atkins his lordship declare that the plaintiff as  administrator of his late wife be entitle to the residue of the personal  estate of her mother and to a account of the personal estate of Rupert  Billingsley her father and if the personal estate be not sufficient to pay the  pound it shall be consider as a charge upon his real estate he direct the long  annuity to be assign to the plaintiff as administrator of his wife and as to  the real estate devise by Rupert Billingsley to mary his wife and afterward  devise by the will of mary declare the same liable to answer the pound give to  charitable use and subject thereto the plaintiff be entitle to it for his life  as tenant by the courtesy and his daughter after his death entitle to the real  estate in fee Reg lib a fol atkins er p the question of satisfaction general  come before the court upon two occasion saint where a portion or provision be  secure to a child by marriage settlement or otherwise and the parent or person  in loco parent afterward by will give the same child a legacy without express  direct it to be in satisfaction of the portion and dly where a parent or  person in loco parent by will bequeathe a legacy to a child or grandchild and  afterward give a portion to or make a provision for that child or grandchild  in his lifetime without express it to be in lieu of the legacy for it seem  that a express declaration or perhaps evidence of the intent will in either  case repel the general presumption vide Cuthbert v peacock vern grave v boil  post Rosewell v Bennet post vol Debeze v Mann bro Charles Rep ellison v  Cookson bro Charles Rep bro Charles Rep S c as there be case express upon both  these point they shall be consider separate with respect to the first the  general rule be if the latter provision be as great as or great than the  former portion or provision then it be a complete satisfaction if not so great  then a satisfaction pro tanto but this rule only apply where the subsequent  legacy or provision be attend with the same degree of certainty as the former  portion Blois v Blois Charles Rep Jesson v Jesson vern Thomas v Keymish vern  Breuen v Breuen vern Hern v Hern vern Walpole v Conway barn Charles Rep Copley  v Copley p W warren v warren bro Charles Rep Ackworth v Ackworth bro Charles  Rep note bide v bide bro Charles Rep note Somerset v Somerset bro Charles Rep  note finch v finch bro Charles Rep so this rule as also the rule which govern  the second instance above allude to be only applicable to case where the  latter provision be of the same nature the same noble birth with the former  goodfellow v Burchett vern ray v Stanhope Charles Rep Bellasis v Uthwatt atk  Saville v Saville post vol grave v earl of Salisbury bro Charles Rep Holmes v  Holmes bro Charles Rep foresight v grant Ves jun a small variance in the time  of payment provide both payment agree as to certainty will not alter the rule  as if the first portion be make Payable at year and the second provision at c  Jesson v Jesson vern Thomas v Keymish vern spinks v robin post vol clark v  fuel post vol warren v warren bro Charles Rep but this last observation strict  apply to satisfaction of portion and not to satisfaction of debt Nicholls v  Judson post vol clark v jewel post vol Richardson v grief post vol Haynes v  mico bro Charles Rep Devese v pontet Prec Charles note so a contingent legacy  or provision can satisfy a absolute portion or vice line Duffield v smith vern  Bellasis v Uthwatt atk Jeacock v Fatkner bro Charles Rep Hanbury v Hanbury bro  Charles Rep Qure whether the bequest of a residue be within the rule Rickman v  Morgan bro Charles Rep bro Charles Rep SC baret v Beckford Ves Alleyn v Alleyn  Ves Devese v pontet Prec Charles note in regard to the second point the rule  seem to be that where a legacy be give to a child who afterward upon marriage  or otherwise receive from the testator in his lifetime the like or a great sum  that sum shall be deem a satisfaction of the legacy irod v Hufirst Freem hale  v Acton Charles Rep Hoskins v Hoskins Prec Charles Harlop v Whitmore Prec  Charles p W SC Jenkins v Powell vern Scotton v Scotton stram Biggleston v grub  post vol Farnham v Philips post vol tapper v Charlcroft post vol if the money  so advance be not equal to the legacy then it appear flat it will be a  satisfaction pro tanto Hoskins v Hoskins Prec Charles Shudal v Jekyl post vol  the rule only extend to portion or money actual pay or secure to be pay at all  event and not to those secure to be pay upon a contingency chapman v salt vern  hale v Acton Charles Rep spinks v robin post vol clark v jewel post vol  neither do it extend to a portion give express in satisfaction of a different  claim or to a portion give absolute when the legacy be under certain  limitation room v room post vol Baugh v reed bro Charles Rep so it be  applicable to the case of parent or a person in loco parent but not to  stranger spinks v robin post vol Shudal v Jekyl post vol Powel v cleaver bro  Charles Rep where the devise be of a residue the rule be inapplicable accord  to Farnham v Philips post vol as to satisfaction of debt see Nicholson v  Judson post vol