case Lutwyche versus Lutwyche march a descent of land in borough English to  the young son will not prevent his have a full distributive share of his  father personal estate Thomas Lutwyche Esq die intestate possess of a personal  estate and seize of a copyhold in fee at Turnham green which be in the nature  of borough English this cause come on by way of amicable suit to determine  this question whether the young son shall have a equal share with the other  child of the personal estate exclusive of the copyhold or only so much as with  that copyhold will make his portion equal to that of the other child Mr  solicitor general for the plaintiff the young son this question entire depend  upon the statute car cap sect of distribute intestates estate the borough  English estate by law descend to the plaintiff and there be no express word in  the statute to take it from he or to exclude he from his share of the personal  estate case tempt Talbot Mr green the word of the statute be to exclude such  child who shall have any estate by the settlement of the intestate and the  plaintiff take this borough English estate as his heir at law by the custom  and not by any settlement Mr attorneygeneral for the defendant the other child  the statute of distribution be pen by civilian without assistance of the  commonlawyers the primary and ultimate intention of that statute be to make  all the child of the intestate equal and if the plaintiff prevail there will  be a inequality a person may take by settlement and by descent also as where a  estate by settlement be limit to the heir of the body of a tenant for life  such heir come in both by descent and settlement the exception in the statute  be of the heir at law only the question then be who be mean by heir at law in  common parlance heir at law mean nothing but old son accord to the commonlaw  the old son be the heir at law and distinguish from the heir by custom the  statute mean only the old son   light Title warranty heir in borough English  be not heir at commonlaw hob a man may be heir to the land and not heir at law  to the person there be no preeminence but to the old son by any law divine or  human the act intend to put the heir in that sense in the statute it be heir  at law in the singular number if any other but the old son have be intend to  be except it will have be heir or heir at law Pratt versus Pratt may decree at  the bolls that the heir in borough English shall bring his estate into hotch  pot Mr brown before the statute of distribution all land as well as good be by  the civil law distributable among the child equal and the intent of that  statute be the same except with respect to the heir at law the word settlement  be of various signification money advance to a stranger to make a settlement  on a child be not a advancement within the word of the act yet in equity it  have always case tempt Talbot er p be hold to be a advancement case tempt  Talbot the act be to be construe in a equitable sense and not accord to the  letter of it and equality among young child be intend by it personal  advancement to the heir at law be not within the statute yet he must bring it  into hotch potch Phiney versus Phiney vern the son and heir entitle to pound  under a marriage agreement decree to bring it into hotch pot upon the statute  of distribution though in nature of a purchaser vern Willcox versus Willcox  the father covenant to settle pound per annum on his son but do not yet have  suffer pound per annum to descend upon he that be decree to be a good  performance of the covenant and the personal estate be order to be distribute  among the other child accord to the custom of the city of London a person buy  borough English land know the same will descend to his young son which be the  same thing as a settlement or provision for the young son the act be only in  favour of primogeniture there be different species of heir at law the heir at  law speak of in the act by way of eminence be the most worthy the act  comprehend only one heir and that must be old which be the most worthy carter  versus Crowley raym all the representative have the intestate for their  correlative throughout the whole act tailor versus web style where the act  speak of the wife it mean the wife of the intestate of a child the child of  the intestate of the heir at law the heir at law of the intestate c heir at  law in borough English be not heir at law to the intestate but only to the  land therefore such a heir at law can be mean by the act suppose the intestate  have leave only daughter all the estate both real and personal will be equal  divide among they if the heir in borough English be mean by the statute he  must be privilege throughout the privilege be not annex to the land but to the  person and suppose the heir in borough English have have a freehold estate of  pound per annum settle on he by the intestate in his lifetime it can not have  be say he shall bring the freehold estate in hotch case tempt Talbot pot and  not the borough English both or neither must be bring into hotch pot reply the  intent of the statute to make all the child equal do not appear the question  be if there be any word in the statute to exclude the heir in borough English  from have his share in the intestate personal estate there be none before the  statute the heir in borough English must by the commonlaw have have the estate  it follow then that he must have it still for the law be not alter Lord  chancellor the question be whether the first word in the statute the residue  to be divide by equal portion among the child of the intestate be extensive  enough to bring the borough English estate into hotch pot the second question  be whether by the second word other than such child not be heir at law who  shall have any estate by the settlement of the intestate or shall be advance  by the intestate in his lifetime by portion or portion equal to the share  which shall by such distribution be allot to the other to who such  distribution shall be make the plaintiff can be exclude it be proper to take  into consideration what the law be before the statute all the child have a  right to administration if there be no wife and if administration be grant to  one a prohibition go to compel the ordinary to distribute the first clause  specify to what person distribution shall be make that be among all the child  equal except those who have any estate by settlement or shall be advance and  those which be advance be total exclude the three clause be if any child be  advance in part such child be to have so much more as will make his share  equal with the rest unadvanced they be material word other than such child who  shall have any estate by settlement from the intestate the question be what be  mean by the word settlement there be no settlement make by the intestate in  this case it be only a common purchase make by he the case tempt Talbot  plaintiff take the estate by descent and not by any settlement the act of law  throw the estate upon the young son not the a of the father he have permit the  land to descend to the young son but he be not by the word of the act thereby  exclude from his share of the personal estate it be a casus to let go I can  supply any clause in a act of parliament though I may explain doubtful word  the exception in the statute be intend for one person I can say it be so  intend throughout the last clause be explanatory and show what be intend to be  except only land which the heir at law will have by descent or otherwise not  pecuniary advancement in common parlance the heir at law be the old son in  relation to the intestate and be only one person and not the heir in borough  English case tempt Talbot er p the exception extend only to the old son but  there be no law for the plaintiff to bring the borough English estate into  hotch pot only this statute and there be no word here that oblige he to it  decree on account of the personal estate of the intestate and that the  plaintiff have a equal share without regard to the value of the borough  English estate n b the case of Pratt and Pratt Fitzgibbon Rep come after this  case before the Lord chancellor Talbot and he reverse the decree of the master  of the roll and decree agreeable to this case vide appendix to Robinson of  gavelkind case tempt Talbot de term S HILLARII geo two in curian porter