arnold v KEMPSTEAD July devise of a annuity to testator wife during her  widowhood charge on his real estate hold that she must elect to take either  under the will or her dower SC Amb William tap by his will bear date the that  of February give to Ann his wife afterward the wife of the defendant Kempstead  two leasehold house in Westminster and Chelsea for life with remainder to the  plaintiff William Arnold the son of his nephew John Arnold he also give her a  annuity of pound during her life so long as she continue a widow to commence  from his death pound to be pay within twelve month out of the rend and profit  of his freehold estate in Westminster and likewise give her several article of  furniture c the testator also give all his say freehold Eden estate to the say  John Arnold for life with remainder to the plaintiff and his heir subject to  the payment of the say sum of pound to his wife during her widowhood the  defendant have enter into possession of the leasehold house and bring a writ  of dower in the common plea this be a bill for a account and injunction and  that she may elect either to take under the will or abide by her dower she  insist by her answer upon both Mr York and Mr Stainsby for the plaintiff the  solicitorgeneral and Mr Madocks for the defendant cite Laurence v Laurence  vern lemon v lemon Eq ab and Hitchin v Hitchin Prec can vern the Lord  chancellor the principle upon which the case adduce for the defendant be  decide be perfect sound but I do not think it applicable to the present case  in those case the testator have not devise express in lieu and satisfaction of  dower nor be there any thing inconsistent with the widow take both but here it  be the manifest intention of the testator to give this annuity in satisfaction  of dower he have dispose of all his freehold estate subject to the annuity so  that his widow can have no more out of the estate than the annuity her claim  of dower be in contradiction to the will and if she insist upon it she must  accord to the principle in noise v mordant vern give up the devise the right  to dower be in itself a clear legal right a intent to exclude it must be  demonstrate by express word or by clear and manifest implication the  instrument must contain some provision inconsistent with the assertion of the  right to demand dower strahan v Sutton Ves Thompson v Nelson Cox Birmingham v  Kirwan Sch Lef Lord Dorchester v earl of Effingham coop Rep Chalmers v Storill  V b Dickson v Robinson Jacob vide also Clancy p et seq d Edward there have  however be a considerable difference of opinion as to the application of this  rule to the case of a devise of a annuity to the widow charge upon the real  estate the first case in which the question arise for the early case cite in  the argument mere decide that the gift of a estate to another person do not  exclude the wife from claim dower be that of pit v Snowden before Lord  Hardwicke cit bro c c who hold that a devise to the widow of a annuity with a  clause of entry do not bar her of her dower this be follow by the present  decision against the claim of the widow but it do not appear that pit v  Snowden be cite it be indeed most probable that it be not as Lord Northington  will hardly have overrule the decision of so great a authority without have  notice it and state his reason the next case be Villareal v Lord Galway Amb  and more full report bro c c n before Lord Camden who have the two conflict  authority before he adopt the opinion of Lord Northington in the present case  and be afterward follow by sir Thomas jewel in Jones v collier Amb Lord  Thurlow in Boynton v Boynton bro c c and Mr justice buller in wake v wake bro  c c Ves jun the opinion of Lord Hardwicke on the other hand in favour of the  claim to dower have be adopt by Lord Rosslyn in Pearson v Pearson bro c c Lord  Thurlow in Forster v cook bro c c and receive considerable countenance in the  elaborate judgement of Lord Alvanley in French v Davies Ves jun who however do  not go the length of give any determination upon the subject that case only  decide like Middleton v cater bro c c and Greatorex v caryi Ves that a annuity  claim out of a mix fund compose of the real and personal estate do not bar the  widow though the number and weight of these authority be thus nice balance yet  it seem probable both from the more recent date of the decision in favour of  the claim to dower and from the language which the court have adopt in those  and similar case that a strong indication of intention will now be require in  order to put the widow to her election than the mere devise of a annuity with  a power of entry to enforce the payment of it this conclusion also derive  great support from the late decision that the claim to dower be not bar by a  devise to the widow of land for life which be part of the same estate out of  which she claim dower Birmingham v Kirwan Lord Dorchester v earl of Effingham  cit sup Reg lib a fol Eden Eden er p