c brown v gibbs et all S c Prec in Charles Eq can ab Lord chancellor dower  brown and his wife who be the widow and relict of Michael Harris decease  plaintiff bring a bill to be relieve for dower against the two daughter and  heir of the say Michael Harris set forth that John Harris father of the say  Michael make a settlement to the use of himself for life remainder to the use  of the defendant sir William Keite and John Harris for year upon trust to  raise pound apiece for the freeman er p two daughter of Michael remainder to  the say Michael and the heir of his body c remainder to his own right heir  provide that if the heir of the body of Michael shall pay the two daughter  pound apiece at twentyone or day of marriage then the term to be void Michael  die leave no issue but those two daughter the plaintiff bring a writ of dower  and have judgement but can have no benefit at law till the determination of  the term and thereupon bring this bill to sot aside the term by reason as be  insist that the defendant the daughter be now heir of the body and the estate  vest in they which be equal to payment of the money and so the trust of the  term be satisfied If the trust of the term in this case be to be consider as  complete satisfy which may perhaps depend upon a fact suggest in the next note  then it be now settle neither the heir nor devisee will be permit in equity to  defeat the widow claim to dower nor will a good fide purchaser even be allow  to do so unless he have take a actual assignment of such term in trust for  himself maundrell v maundrell Ves the term ought not to stand in the freeman  way and it be now all a ne as though the money have be pay at the time it may  not be exact the same if either of the daughter have not attain the age of  twentyone so as to be enable to devise real estate she may previous by  marriage be entitle to the trust money and as to personalty have a capacity of  dispose by will while the contingency remain the trust probable will not be  consider as satisfy or the term merge in the inheritance Powell v Morgan vern  Thomas v Kemp ibidem and ante c p Forbes v Moffatt Ves and then by the express  proviso it ought to have be void but the court will give no relief but dismiss  the bill without cost and the Lord chancellor say he do not know any case  where a dowager have have relief in such a case as this but that dower be a  interest that do not arise by any contract but by implication of law it ought  to stand or fall accord to the right at law without any assistance of a court  of equity it will be more accurate to say that dower be a legal title which if  controvert must be make out a law but still a court of equity will act in aid  of the title assist the dowress in try her right by give her a discovery of  deed and afford her the full benefit of that right when establish at law by  ascertain meet and bind and give her possession Mundy v Mundy Ves jun Curtis v  Curtis Br dorm v fortescue atk Goodenough v Goodenough dick but say he do not  know how it may be in case of a mortgage Hitchin v Hitchin post c p palm v  Danby Prec in Charles say semble a moi there be no difference between that  case and this See note