case annand versus honeywood cite in Symonds v rutter post vol pre Ch S c  eoden die in court Lord chancellor Eq can ab pl S c Ch can money give by a  freeman of London to be lie out in land and settle on his old son for life  remainder to his first and other son in tail shall not be reckon any part of  his advancement and be bring into hotchpot the point here also arise on the  custom of the city of London the question be whether money give by the father  to be lie out in land to be settle on his old son for life remainder to his  first second three c son in tail shall be reckon to be a advancement by part  of the personal estate of the father so as that the son ought to bring the  same into hotchpot to entitle he to a share of the personal estate in many  instance money agree to be lie out in land be in this court consider as land  Lechmere v earl of Carlisle p wms Guidot v Guidot atk and case there refer to  in not but it must have the character of land decisive fix upon it Pulteney v  Lord Darlington bro Ch Rep walker v den Ves jun but money and land be  nevertheless consider as of a quite different nature and the one shall never  be take as a satisfaction for the other Eastwood v Vinke p wms and case cite  in not there chaplin v chaplin p wms et vide Kettleby v atwood ante Wheldale v  partridge Ves Ves SC where the case and doctrine on this head be a good deal  consider Lord chancellor there be no colour to reckon this any part of the  personal estate this question be refer to the court of alderman and they  certify as follow that a portion in money give by a freeman of London to his  son have ever be take for and towards the advancement of such son out of his  father personal estate within the custom of the say city and that land of  inheritance settle by the father upon his son be no advancement of the son  within the custom to bar he of his customary part of his father personal  estate but whether the pound advance and pay as abovesaid be by the custom of  the say city a advancement of defendant to bar he of his customary part they  can determine for that they have not know nor can find in any of the record of  the say city any precedent of the like case and therefore they submit c Reg  lib X fol Vernon chancery case er p