case Jenks versus Holford Eq can ab pl S c sum of money give by a freeman of  London to a daughter if not give as a marriage portion or in pursuance of a  marriage agreement no advancement but however must be cast into hotchpot the  plaintiff exhibit his bill set forth that his wife father be a citizen of  London and that he have not advance her in his lifetime and demand her  customary part and pray a account Vernon chancery case er p in this case the  point insist on be first that the plaintiff wife be advance by her father in  his lifetime he have give her four hundred pound but the Lord chancellor be of  opinion that it can not be any advancement unless it have be give her as a  marriage portion or in pursuance of a marriage agreement and the four hundred  pound be not give till a long time after her marriage and without any  agreement that the same shall be for her marriage portion and be a free gift  great part of the sum that make up the four hundred pound be give her at  Christian and lyingsin second it be insist on by the defendant counsel that  these several sum howsoever give ought if the plaintiff will come in for his  wife customary part to be cast into hotchpot but the plaintiff counsel deny it  and take a difference betwixt a free gift subsequent to the marriage and where  the same be give in marriage and compare it to the case of a heiress where she  have land give her in frank marriage those must be cast into hotchpot Vernon  chancery case but otherwise if it be of land convey or give to her by her  father or other ancestor after the marriage say non allocatur the three point  be that the plaintiff wife father have be a great chemist and spend great part  of his estate in that study he have as be pretend arrive to great knowledge  therein and have a little before his death give several receipt to the  defendant Holford who have marry his other daughter to a very great value as  the plaintiff pretend and allege that the defendant make pound per and certain  profit of the same and to incline the court to think they be of such value the  plaintiff offer to give the defendant pound for his interest in the say  receipt and therefore insist that these receipt ought to be look upon as part  of his personal estate and that the defendant shall account for the same but  Mr solicitorgeneral and Mr Keck of the defendant counsel reply it be a scandal  upon the custom of the city of London to make such receipt and trifle part of  a citizen estate especial such receipt as these which for ought appear be only  to make strong water and they desire to know how they shall come to be reckon  part of a citizen personal estate for suppose he have communicate the receipt  to the defendant by word of mouth and he have writ they down in his own paper  there have be no colour for it but now this scrap of paper must be reckon part  of his personal estate and if they will have a account for so much waste paper  they may take it and suppose the defendant have publish and make common these  his choice receipt what will then have become of the property and Vernon  chancery case how then will they have belong to a citizen personal estate and  this he may have do and may do without injury to any man and it be not like a  new invention for which a man hang a patent that none but himself for the  space of so many year shall use the same that may vest a property but in this  case there be no colour for it Lord chancellor I will not so far countenance  these kind of receipt which be only a piece of quackery and serve only to  cheat the people as to put a value on they in chancery for aught I know a  receipt to make mincepi or catch rat may be as valuable see newberry v James  mere William v William mere green v Folgham S S and the plaintiff not consent  to cast into hotchpot the four hundred pound give unto his wife as aforesaid  the bill be dismiss there be mere a order of dismissal Reg lib a fol vide  fowke v lewen post and case cite in not there