case yates versus PHETTIPLACE refer to henty v wrey Ch d Lord keeper eoden die  pre Ch S c a have entail his land on his son subject to a mortgage by will  devise his leasehold and personal estate to pay his debt and legacy and direct  if his personal estate be apply to pay the mortgage it shall be keep on foot  to make good his daughter portion and give her pound to be pay at or marriage  if marry with consent if not but she die at six year of age the portion shall  not be raise for the benefit of her administrator the defendant father have  mortgage his manor of Pudlicoat and afterward entail the equity of redemption  on the defendant his son and by will devise some leasehold and personal estate  to be apply for the payment of his debt and legacy direct that if his personal  estate be apply to pay off his mortgage the same shall be keep on foot to  Vernon chancery case make good his daughter portion and thereby devise to his  daughter pound to be pay her at twentyone or marriage if marry with consent if  not then but el and die leave issue the defendant his only son and a daughter  the daughter die when but six year old to who the mother late the wife of the  plaintiff Yates take administration and Mr Yates be her executor as also  administrator de good non to the daughter and be now plaintiff to have the  pound portion and for the plaintiff it be insist this be not within the reason  of the case of paulet and paulet Vol vern case that the portion shall  extinguish in the land for the benefit of the heir first there the settlement  be by deed here the portion be provide by will second there it be to be raise  only out of the land here the personal estate be liable as well as the land  and have be apply in part to pay off the mortgage that be on the land but the  court the Lord keeper and the master of the roll Reg lib b fol and decree  affirm on appeal to dom proc dismiss the bill and declare it to be within the  reason of the Lord paulets case and beside the devise be of at twentyone or  marriage which marriage be to be with consent it do not vest in the daughter  but be contingent and the Lord keeper be of opinion that devise to I S of  pound to be pay at twentyone and a devise to he at twentyone be all the same  and the testator intention the same in both case and say the distinction take  by Swinbourne and Godolphin between the age be mention in the body of the  devise and where in the time of payment he look upon it as a distinction  without a difference and that the authority they cite do not come up to what  they lie down vide paulet v paulet ante vol SC and case cite in note there