case pusey v sir edward DESBOUVRIE see Pym v Lockyer my Cr pierce v dobinson  lr Ch Boyd v Boyd l r Eq Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can Abr pl where a daughter  of a freeman of London accept of a legacy of pound leave her by her father who  recommend it to her to release her right to her orphanage part which she do  release accord if the orphanage part be much more than her legacy though she  be tell she may elect which she please yet if she do not know she have a right  first to inquire into the value of the personal estate and the quantum of her  orphanage part before she make hen election this be so material that it may  avoid her release sir Edward Desbouvrie be a freeman of London and possess of  a very great personal estate he have a wife with who he have compound as to  her customary part and have a son the defendant to who he have give very  considerable sum of money in order toenable he to trade he have also one  daughter peer William the father make his will give inter all to his daughter  pound upon condition that she shall release her orphanage part together with  all her claim or right to his personal estate by virtue of the custom of the  city of London or otherwise and make his son executor his daughter be about  the age of twentythree year after the father death it be agree between the  daughter and her brother that she shall accept of her legacy of pound and upon  the term whereon it be give her by her father will that be she to release all  her right by virtue of the custom c which be accord prepare and before she  execute it her brother inform her that she have it in her election to have a  account of her father personal estate and to claim her orphanage part and her  uncle be then present but the daughter at that time declare she will accept of  the legacy leave her by her father that be a sufficient provision for any  young woman and thereupon she execute the release be then about twentyfour  year old and the brother pay to her the pound and interest the daughter  afterward marry one Mr Pusey a attorney at law who bring a bill to set aside  this release charge that the personal estate of which the father die possess  be much above pound the daughter share of which by the custom will amount to  upward of pound that the mother have be compound with for her customary part  the freeman personal peer William estate be to be distribute as if there be no  wife consequent the dead man part be one moiety and the child part the other  and that the brother the defendant sir Edward Desbouvrie have be advance in  his father lifetime by his father at different time with several great sum of  money the whole whereof will amount to a full advancement of the son so that  the plaintiff Pusey in right of the daughter his wife be entitle to a moiety  of her father the freeman personal estate the defendant the brother plead this  release peer William er p against which on behalf of the plaintiff at first it  be argue that as the bill be bring to set aside this release the defendant  ought not to be admit to plead it in bar the rule be non to be able to lead to  exception the same rei pron  interrog  peti dissolution but the Lord  chancellor here interrupt the counsel say this be every day practice and that  otherwise no release or award can be plead to a bill that be bring to act  aside the same see Loyd v Mansell ante vol then it be urge that no computation  or account have as yet be take of the father personal estate and that it peer  William brother with pound or that she know what her right be that she be not  apprise that by reason of her mother be compound with the child share instead  of a three be a moiety or that her brother the defendant be full advance by  his father in his lifetime this be a bar to he of his orphanage part and  though at law it be say ignorance law non excuse yet if any one shall take  advantage of another mistake in the law even without any fraudulent suggestion  or practice make use of by he it will be against conscience so to do and they  put this case suppose a shall devise land to b and his heir and b shall die in  the life of the testator and then the testator die after which the testator  heir not know that by law the devise to b be void by b s die in the life of  the testator shall for a trifle release his right to a valuable estate to the  heir at law of such devisee sure such release will not stand good and as it be  out of the father power by devise or otherwise to debar any of his child of  that share which they be entitle to by virtue of the custom so here it be  somewhat hard in the father to induce his daughter by any word in his will to  give away and release what she have a undoubted right to and admit peer  William there be no direct fraud or misrepresentation here be however  pressingdown very though not supplying an answer to one falsehood see  Broderick v Broderick vol can not be imagine the daughter intend to present  her and in this case since it will not be pretend that the daughter can have  mean to give away pound to her brother though he have ask for it therefore  this release ought not to be make use of in a court of equity to bar the  daughter of that right which she do not know she herself have and much less  intend to give away on the other side it be say to deserve consideration that  the father do by his will give this legacy of pound to his daughter upon  condition that she shall release all her right by the custom and though it can  not be say here be a positive injunction on the daughter to do so yet in all  probability it be intend as a recommendation by the father who may think pound  a reasonable and honourable provision for the daughter as she herself declare  she think it be when she give this release and the father may be desirous that  his son who be to support his name shall have the rest of his estate that the  daughter may reasonable have a great regard for the intention of her decease  father or which she be high to be commend and may thereby be induce to comply  with such intention peer William at the same time that she know in strict  justice there be more due to her by virtue of the custom that however it be  plain the brother have act in this case without the least appearance of fraud  when he tell her before she execute the release that she may if she please  call he to account for the whole personal estate of her father and have her  orphanage part thereof that this be the solemn act and deed of the party  execute by her free and without any sort of compulsion or misrepresentation  and in compliance with her own father will and since the daughter be not  inform of the custom of London it be her own fault and not her brother for  these reason it be say the deed of release ought not to be set aside Lord  chancellor I do not see that any manner of fraud have be make use of in this  case but still it seem hard a young woman shall suffer for her ignorance of  the law or of the custom of the city of London or that the other side shall  take advantage of such ignorance I remember well that in this very case where  the wife have be compound with as to her customary part not only the counsel  have differ but the court themselves have vary in their determination it have  for instance be hold and determine by the court that if the husband a freeman  of London have compound with the wife before the marriage as to her customary  part this be the husband own purchase he ought to have as well his wife  customary part as his own but now a different resolution seem to have prevail  videlicet that where the wife be compound with before marriage peer William it  shall be take as if there be peer William er p no wife and consequent the  testator shall have one half and the child the other vide blunden v Barker vol  and if the court themselves have not till very late agree in what share or  proportion these customary part shall go the daughter sure may be well  ignorant of her right and ought not to suffer or give other any advantage by  such her ignorance neither can it be infer with sufficient certainty what the  father recommend in this case he rather seem to leave it to his daughter  option either to claim her customary part or release her right thereto and  accept the legacy it be true it appear the son the defendant do inform the  daughter that she be bind either to waive the legacy give by the father or to  release her right by the custom and so far she may know that it be in her  power to accept either the legacy or orphanage part but I hardly think she  know she be entitle to have a account take of the personal estate of her  father and first to know what her orphanage part do amount to and that when  she shall be full apprise of this then and not till then she be to make her  election which very much alter the case for probable she will not have elect  to accept her legacy have she know or be inform what her orphanage part amount  unto before she waive it and accept the legacy it will give light into this  cause to know what may be the value of the father personal estate at his death  and if the party think fit what be the value thereof when the will be make  because it have be say to have be increase by the father between the time of  make his will and peer William his death and also to know what the son have  receive in his father lifetime from his father for or towards his advancement  therefore let the plea stand for a answer save the benefit thereof until the  hear and let the defendant the son answer not as to particular for that I do  not expect but by way of computation in gross as to these point with regard to  the advancement of a child it have be determine that small inconsiderable sum  occasional give to a child can be deem a advancement or part thereof thus  maintenance money or a allowance make by a freeman to his son at the  university or in travel c be not to be take as any part of his advancement  this be only his education and it will create charge and uncertainty to  inquire minutely into such matter so put out a child apprentice be no part of  his advancement for it be only procure the master to keep he for seven year  instead of the parent Hender v rise at the roll Trin but the father buy a  office for the son though but at will as a gentleman pensioner place or a  commission in the army these be advancement pro tanto Norton v Norton mich by  the lord commissioner Rawlinson and Hutchins see the case of Broderick v  Broderick vol I where a devisee under a will defective execute represent the  will as duly execute and for a small sum gain a release from the heir the  court set aside the release it have be much question whether a freeman will  can any way operate on the orphanage part former it seem to have be hold that  a freeman have a power to appoint by will that if any of his child shall die  within age then such child part shall go to the survive child or child lev  Hammond v Jones rule by Kelynge chief justice at nisi prius and say by wile  recorder of London to have be so adjudge in chancery but latterly it have be  admit to be otherwise see the case of Jesson v Essington precedent in chancery  in the case of Biddle v Biddle hear before the Lord Parker hit a freeman have  a wife and one child inter at devise the orphanage part to the child and in  case of the child death before twentyone then to go over to the testator  father and it be hold that this devise over be void for to the father have  nothing to do with the child orphanage part which come to he by the custom not  from the father and be such devise over to be good it will be a prejudice to  the child who in case there be but one child may devise over such part at  fourteen which will take effect be the child to die before twentyone or if he  shall die intestate and unmarried it will go all to the mother as his next of  kin and not accord to the father will or if the child shall marry and die  within age leave issue the widow and issue will be destitute be such will to  be good a party be always entitle to a clear knowledge of the fund between  which he be to elect before he be put to his election Hender v rise ante n but  peer William er p ricke v Broadhurst Ves Jun wake v wake Ves Jun S c bro c c  whistler v Webster Ves Jun kidney v Coussmaker Ves Chalmers v Storil V b  Salkeld v Vernon Eden Dillon v Parker swan and n a Stratford v Powell ba be it  appear from the register book that on the that of may upon the defendant  motion it be allege that the suit be agree between the party it be therefore  pray that the plaintiff bill may be dismiss without cost which on consent of  the plaintiff counsel be order accord