c Laurence v Laurence S c vern Eq can ab Eq can ab and at law in Lutw Lord  raym Lord chancellor summer dower post case the defendant husband have devise  to her several part of his estate altogether of better value than her dower  and have devise that the profit of all the rest of his estate freeman er p for  year shall be apply for payment of debt and legacy but do not mention that he  intend it in satisfaction of her dower the defendant sue at law and recover at  law though they do plead the will and aver that it be in satisfaction of dower  but the court there be of opinion that no such averment can have be admit and  where the testator have not express declare his intention to exclude the claim  to dower even in equity the result of the numerous case on the subject seem to  be that neither can averment be allow nor will satisfaction be imply upon any  term in the will itself which fall short of show plain and unambiguous that  the provision thereby make for the wife be inconsistent with a claim to a  three of the land or will defeat some other part of the testator disposition  of his property Thompson v Nelson Cox can Birmingham v Kirwan Sch and Lef  Pearson v Pearson Br strahan v Sutton Ves greatrex v caryi Ves Chalmers v  Storill Ves and Bea and post c p unless it have be so declare freeman in the  will the plaintiff be heir at law prefer his bill to be relieve and he be  relieve for although it be not declare in the will to be in satisfaction of  dower yet here be that which be tantamount for where he a point the profit of  all the rest of his see the observation of Lord Thurlow c in foster v cook Br  and compare they with those of sir wm grant m r in Chalmers v Storill where  above from the first we learn that when the testator mere give all his estate  he must not be understand to dispose of it free from all claim of dower which  be not his property by the latter we be fold that where the testator give all  his estate which he describe as consist of certain particular he must be take  to give the property itself not what may in contemplation of law be his  interest in that property estate for other purpose it be plain he never intend  she shall have her dower and in case she be admit to her dower those purpose  will be defeat and what appear to be the plain intent of a will by  construction be all one as though it have be express he have also give his  wife hundred pound and the question be what she shall have and per cur she  shall have but pound note that this cause be reheard before the Lord keeper  wright the that Nov he reverse the decree In hill t the next remainder man  bring his bill to be relieve against the defendant judgement in dower and the  cause come on to be hear Dec Lord Cowper c refuse to vary the decree of wright  c S and it be final affirm in dom proc on appeal journ house of lord vol p Br  p c fol ed Reg lib b fol contain a entry of the reversal of the original  decree by the Lord keeper wright and confirm the accuracy of the report r l b  fol on a bill of review bring upon the say reversal Lord Cowper c declare that  as the title of the widow to dower be a point of right so doubtful that the  court have hold different opinion thereof and as the decree last make have be  so long unquestioned his lordship do not think fit to make any variation touch  the say right to dower the defendant cost be order to be pay out of the  testator estate