case Wrottesley versus Wrottesley June S c p W the word under the  marriagesettlement such child as marry without the father consent shall  forfeit the say intend portion extend to the whole interest each child may  expect under this settlement whether certain or contingent so Chauncey v  Graydon atk see also Harvey v Aston atk and the note at the end of that case a  question arise on the marriagesettlement of sir John Wrottesley who create a  term for year in trust to raise and pay if one child only pound if two pound  to be equal divide if three or more pound to be equal divide and to be pay at  their respective age of twentyone or marriage and it be provide that if any of  the say young child shall marry in the father lifetime without his consent and  after his death without the consent of the mother such child shall forfeit his  or her say intend portion to be distribute among the rest at the age of or  marriage with such consent with a far proviso that if any such child shall  marry without such consent or die before atkins twentyone or marriage with  consent the portion to be divide among the survivor of the age of twentyone or  marriage with consent atkins er p Frances one of the daughter marry with Mr  Bendish without the consent of the mother and on hear of the cause before Lord  Talbot on the that of August it be hold that she have forfeit her portion by  such marriage and be decree to the other child one of the daughter be since  dead before twentyone or marriage and the petitioner Mr Bendish who marry  Frances apply now in the right of his wife who be twentyone for her  distributive share of her sister contingent portion the question be whether  Frances as she have forfeit her original portion be entitle to a share of this  contingent portion on the death of her sister before twentyone or marriage Mr  Wilbraham for the petitioner who be not twentyone when she marry but arrive at  that age before her sister die cite the case of king versus wither can tempt  Talb p W S c as a case in point Mr attorney general counsel for the other  sister insist that the whole term and the whole pound be under consideration  when the cause come before Lord Talbot and that he express declare Frances be  not entitle to any share of the pound which must mean that she have no  interest at all and can not possible intend that she have a contingent  interest if the intention of the party to the settlement be plain to give the  portion over on marry without consent the court will not strain to construe it  no forfeiture the whole tenor of the settlement be that none of they shall be  entitle unless they have perform the condition Mr solicitor general in reply  for the petitioner say that the clause of forfeiture do not at all affect the  contingency which have happen the say intend portion be the only thing which  be to be forfeit and can mean only what she be entitle to at the commencement  of the term nor be there any word whatsoever that give over any share that may  accrue afterward by the death of one of the daughter before twentyone or  marriage atkins that Frances be entitle to this distributive share because one  of the contingency have happen since her attain the age of twentyone and she  may yet marry a second husband with consent Lord chancellor as this be the  case of a forfeiture of a marriage portion the court will make as favourable a  construction as possible for as Mr solicitor general say if this have be casus  to let go the court will let it lie where it be fall and not take it from  Frances at the same time I must make such a construction as will suit the  intention of the party it have be object by the defendant counsel that the  petitioner be preclude from what be demand by the petition by Lord Talbot  decree but this will not hold because the term of the decree be that Frances  Bendish have marry Higham Bendish after the death of sir John Wrottesley  without the consent of lady Wrottesley her mother be not entitle to any share  of the pound the declaration of the court be in the present tense vide atk can  be extend so far as to exclude any thing she may be entitle to by a subsequent  contingency if within the term of the trust the rather because the rest of the  daughter be not entitle at the time of the decree be all under age and  therefore all be at liberty to apply to the court for further direction and  the application leave open to mrs Bendish as we as the rest but however the  counsel be right as far they have argue from the reason of the decree which  bring I to the construction upon the trust itself now as to this it depend  upon the frame and tenor of the whole trust there be one thing pretty  extraordinary in the petitioner demand which be his claim a gross sum of pound  the whole of her original portion for pound be all the provision under the  settlement if more than three child what be the effect of this why that  notwithstanding she have forfeit her original portion yet they will take back  as much as the original portion they have forfeit which will be a great  absurdity and therefore must be lie out of the case for atkins they can claim  a four part of the original portion as it be give over therefore the question  be reduce single to a four part of the decease daughter five and this must  depend upon the clause of forfeiture first what be the meaning of his or her  say intend portion now I do not think that the word say can be narrow so far  as to relate only atkins er p to the original portion for the word portion or  portion in this clause or declaration of trust do not mean the original  portion only but the whole interest which each child may expect under this  settlement whether certain or contingent if it rest single upon the clause of  forfeiture I shall be of opinion the petitioner be not entitle but if you go  on to the next clause it be still plain here it be not in terror only but a  legal determination of the term and the court can set it up again suppose the  other three sister have marry under age and without consent will not the term  have determine can it be insist then that the two sister marry with consent  shall keep the term on foot for the petitioner benefit when the whole term  will have cease if they have all marry without consent as to the part of Lord  Talbot decree that give mrs Bendish the sum which the father have leave by his  will to make up any deficiency in his child fortune I think it a very proper  direction and shall have be of the same opinion because it will be very hard  to extend the word make up to a forfeiture if a daughter marry without consent  it can not be so construe unless the father have repeat the word in the  settlement marry without consent upon the whole circumstance he dismiss the  petition