case cleaver versus spurling at the roll mos Eq can ab pl c a freeman of  London have but one child advance that child in part only the child shall take  a full share without bring what she have before receive into hotchpot for the  only meaning of bring the child share into hotchpot be to make a equality  among the child Anthony cleaver a freeman of London have a son and three  daughter and advance all his child in marriage in his lifetime his son die  leave son all his daughter die also in his lifetime except his old daughter  Hannah who the father advance in marriage above forty year before his death  but the certainty of the portion do not appear under the father hand who by  his will take notice that he have advance his only daughter in marriage give  to her pound provide that if she or her husband shall refuse to give a release  to his executor after his the testator death or shall any way trouble or  disturb they upon any claim or pretence by virtue of the custom of London that  the legacy of pound give to his daughter shall go over to the child of his  young decease daughter and give the bulk of his personal estate be leasehold  to his two grandson the son of his decease son and die leave a wife and one  only survive daughter peer William in this case after solemn debater it be  adjudge saint that if the daughter have be advance only in part she shall  still have come in for her full orphanage for that the child bring her partial  advancement into hotchpot be only in order to make a equality among the child  and not for the benefit of the mother or to increase the dead man part salk  vern dly that if a freeman have several child or one child do full advance all  his child or his single child this satisfy the custom and be the same as if  the testator have no child or if the husband freeman before his marriage  compound with his intend wife as to her customary part it be the same as if  there be no wife blunden v Barker ante vol Pusey v Desbouverie post vol  medcalfe v Ives atk morris v Burroughs atk dly that if the freeman shall have  advance his child in marriage and the certainty of that advancement do not  appear under the freeman hand this must be intend and take to be a full and  complete advancement salk vern vern fawkener v Watts atk Elliott v collier atk  and will S c and his honour say that the advancement in the present case be  make peer William er p about forty year before the death of the freeman this  declaration in the will that the daughter be full advance be a evidence  thereof especial it be so difficult a thing for the legatee in the freeman  will to prove a advancement make at that great distance of time but it be  object that the father own declaration in his will be of very little avail  since at that rate it will be in the power of every freeman by make such  declaration to bar peer William his child of the orphanage part see blunden v  Barker I vol c thereupon a proof be read that the daughter husband have  himself confess he have receive above pound portion with his wife from the  freeman at his marriage which be satisfactory thly it be urge that still the  pound legacy ought to be pay to the daughter and it will be hard to construe  the insist in a court of justice upon a matter as one right to be a forfeiture  especial when it be the right of a feme covert to which it be answer that the  father have give this legacy of pound to his daughter upon the express  condition that she or her husband shall make no claim nor give any disturbance  to the executor upon pretence of the custom of London and the husband and his  wife have insist upon the custom the same be a forfeiture of the legacy and  however it may have be construe to be intend only in terror yet be devise over  and by that mean a right to this legacy be vest in a three person a court of  equity can not divest it vide web v web ante vol and the master of the roll  compare it to the case of a devise of a legacy to a child upon condition that  she marry with consent of the executor but if she shall not marry with such  consent then the legacy to go over vide Peyton v bury post though this he say  be against the rule of the civil law accord to which maritagium debet be book  yet it be a good condition by our law and when the legacy be once vest in the  devisee over equity can fetch it back again also there be peer William no  colour to help the defendant the daughter to her pound legacy since she have  make no claim to it by her answer and as to its be the right of a feme covert  all personal thing be under the power of the husband who can either release or  forfeit they wherefore the court decree that the daughter be bar of her  customary part as be full advance and likewise that she and her husband have  forfeit the pound legacy by her claim her orphanage part and by reason of the  devise over bill dismiss Reg lib a fol