c lady thomas v sir Charles kemish et ux S c vern Eq can ab portion upon the  marriage of Mr William Thomas several manor land and tenement be settle to the  use of Mr Thomas for life with remainder to the first and other son in tail  male and for default of such issue to the Lord wharton and other trustee for  year upon trust to raise pound for daughter Payable at eighteen year or  marriage remainder in fee to the right heir of Mr William Thomas mrs Thomas  have issue of that marriage one son videlicet sir Edmund Thomas and one  daughter sir Edmund die a infant so that the inheritance in fee descend to the  daughter who live to her age of eighteen year and two month and then die a day  or two before she die she make a nuncupative will and give all which she have  power to dispose to her mother the lady kemish and her child by sir Charles  kemish her second husband who marry her after the death of Mr Thomas her  former husband freeman the lady Thomas the plaintiff be great aunt to mrs  Thomas and heir at law and the sole question be whether mrs Thomas have any  power to give away this portion of pound and whether it pass by the say will  to the lady kemish or whether it be not extinguish in the inheritance by  reason that at the time she become entitle to the portion the freehold and  inheritance descend to her the trustee by ejectment have recover the term at  law and the bill be to be relieve against that term it be agree that in case  of creditor for payment of debt or for a provision for child this term shall  have subsist so as to have raise the pound as if mrs Thomas have be indebt at  the time of her decease the creditor may have come for satisfaction out of it  and so it be hold in my Lord Pembroke case Rep tempt finch and cite in Mod  where the creditor lie hold of a term to attend the inheritance and it be  agree in the Lord paulets case ante c p and note that if the daughter have  marry although she have die before the portion become Payable yet the husband  shall have have it Obj it be object for the plaintiff that this court have  always a great regard for the heir at law as if a creditor upon bind recover  against the heir he may come into this court to be reimburse out of the  personal estate because that be first to be apply for payment of debt although  the creditor have his election to sue which he please which be agree and it be  also so in case of a haeres factus by will or otherwise Ans but it be say that  this court have also a regard to a executor or administrator as in case of a  mortgage in fee forfeit the executor or administrator shall have the money  though the estate in law be vest in the heir ante c p and reference there a  legacy give to be pay at twentyone and the party die before that age there  have be different opinion in this court about the time of payment of it  sometime it have be hold that the executor or administrator shall have it  present after the death of the legatee and sometime that it shall not be pay  till the legatee will have arrive to that age in case he have live but agree  by all that the executor or administrator of the legatee shall have it and so  it be in case of a portion till the Lord Pawletts case and then it be freeman  hold that in case of a portion it shall sink for the benefit of the heir Obj  here be no express disposition but she give all that she can give by law and  there be a great personal estate beside to answer the word of the will Ans  this be a interest vest in her by reason of her live to above the age of  eighteen and therefore this will pass as well as the rest in a case of Audley  v Audley vern dick it be hold that where the guardian of a lunatic or the  trustee or guardian of a infant have a personal estate in their hand purchase  a estate of inheritance for the infant and the infant or lunatic die the  executor or administrator shall have the benefit of this purchase and not the  heir because it shall not be in the power of a guardian or trustee to change  the nature of the estate from a personal estate into a real estate of  inheritance Oxenden v Lord Compton Ves jun earl of Winchelsea v norcliffe vern  post c p in a case of holt and holt cite p wms in Hayter v rod which see as  also tiffin v tiffin vern best v stampford Prec in Chan a purchaser of a  estate take the conveyance of the freehold to himself and his heir and take a  assignment of a term in trust for himself his executor and administrator and  yet decree a term to attend the inheritance freeman er p in a case of Powel  and Mayo a term to attend the inheritance may by express word Whitchurch v  Whitchurch pale yellow Eq Rep be devise and separate from the freehold a case  of Norborne and Norborne see post c p be cite where a bill be prefer in the  lifetime of the daughter to have make such a portion as this be a personal  estate where the inheritance be descend upon the daughter as heir at law and  the bill be dismiss if a legacy be give to a Payable at her age of twentyone  or marriage and if she die before the age of twentyone or marriage then to go  to b there or be general take for and either of the word may be construe  conjunctive or disjunctively to give effect to all the word of a will bell v  phyn Ves or to afford a reasonable construction maberly v stride Ves but in  Fitzgerald v Lord fauconberg Fitzgib it be say that this convertible use of  the word can only be justify by strong necessity and where the clause in which  they be find will without such construction be absolute nonsense for if she  marry though she after die before twentyone her husband shall have the legacy  the Lord keeper desire to see the precedent cite and take time to give his  opinion afterward he give his opinion that the portion be not extinguish but  pass by the will and afterward upon a appeal his decree be affirm in the house  of lord journ house of lord vol p Colles p c in warren v warren Br Lord  Loughborough say it will be difficult to reconcile Thomas v Keymish as report  by freeman with the rule that where a parent have make a provision by will for  a child who he have afterward provide for in marriage it be prima fancy a  satisfaction as the report in freeman do not advert to such double provision  his lordship probable mean to refer to the report of the case in Vernon Lord  Eldon have point out the true ground of the decree in Compton v Oxenden Ves  jun and my lady kemish have the pound