Barnardiston king b HEBLETHWATE against cartwright and other how far a portion  shall be raise or not by the sale of a reversionary term see S C Cas t Talb e  r with note canc James Heblethwaite be seize of certain land in feesimple make  a settlement of they to the use of himself for life the remainder to his wife  for life the remainder to the heir of the body of Charles hereafter to be  beget and in default of such issue the remainder for a thousand year to  certain trustee for raise portion for his daughter videlicet for raise the sum  of in case he shall have three daughter and so in proportion shall he have  more or less equal to be divide between they at their respective age of or day  of marriage which shall first happen the remainder to his brother Charles  Heblethwate for life and after his decease to the heir male of his body  hereafter to be beget in this deed of settlement there be two proviso one be  that the trustee shall raise this money for the daughter portion by the rend  and profit or sale and mortgage during the term the other be that if James  Heblethwate their father or any of the remainderman shall give a equivalent to  any of the daughter that then their respective portion shall not be raise in  the manner that have be mention Margaret the wife of James Heblethwate die  without issue male leave three daughter each of which be marry at the time of  her death Charles Heblethwate have issue one son name William bear at the time  of the settlement but have no other child afterward William have issue a son  who after the death of James Heblethwate bring his bill in this court against  the three daughter to have a decree make of this estate in pursuance of the  settlement the defendant insist upon two right in the first place that they be  entitle to the estate second admit that they be not that still the estate be  Chargeable with their portion and the interest thereof due from the death of  their mother with regard to the first of these matter Lord chancellor  Barnardiston king b er p say that the difficulty arise from the limitation in  the settlement be to the heir of the body of Charles hereafter to be beget but  yet he do think that this be a estatetail general in Charles that William  himself will have be entitle to it and consequent that the plaintiff be so  likewise he say Lord coke opinion be that a limitation in a deed heir bring  into existence or to bring forth be all one and Mr booth have cite a case  Edward pasch where the word hos procreaveri be hold to be the same and if the  word have be already beget Lord chancellor say he shall have think that the  heir of the body bear afterward will have take likewise with regard to the  second question he say that it be object by the plaintiff that the interest of  the daughter portion ought not to commence bare from the death of the mother  but from the death of the father likewise and to support the objection the two  proviso in the settlement be rely upon by the first of they it be contend that  the word be during the Barnardiston king b term and till that fall into  possession nothing be to be raise by the second that the father have all his  lifetime to offer the daughter a equivalent for their portion but his lordship  observe that where a certain day be appoint for portion become due nothing be  more certain than that reversionary term may be sell before they fall into  possession and that though there be no express clause or sale to warrant it  and as to the other proviso that be only in the nature of a power of  redemption accord a decree be in favour of the plaintiff but subject to his  allow the daughter portion and interest of per cent to be compute from the  death of the mother