case whitcomb versus whitcomb where the entry of the mother as guardian in  socage to her infant son shall gain a possession brother the plaintiff bill be  to set out of the way several term for year keep on foot by the defendant the  trust whereof be satisfy and to be admit to redeem other term for year on  payment of what shall appear to be due thereon that so the plaintiff may be  let in to try his title at law in a ejectment as heir to one Whitcombe a  infant decease upon open the bill and answer the case appear to be this Peter  Whitcombe father of the defendant be a Turkey merchant and be abroad in Turkey  several year acquire a very considerable personal estate and upon his return  home intermarry with one mrs Sherrard with who he have pound portion and by  her have issue two daughter both defendant and both under age some time after  the marriage Peter Whitcombe purchase the estate in question be of the yearly  value of pound or thereabouts and soon after his wife die and then he  intermarry with the defendant the lady Hoskins and about September die leave  the lady Hoskins ensient of a son whereof she be deliver about three month  after her husband death immediate upon precedent in chancery her husband death  the lady Hoskins enter upon his whole estate and receive the profit thereof  and hold court in the name of the two daughter as heir at law and cut down  about pound worth of timber for maintenance of herself and her child afterward  the son be bear and live about nine month and then die thereupon the plaintiff  as heir at law of the whole blood to the infant who be last seize of the  freehold and inheritance of the premise bring his ejectment to recover the  possession thereof and make out his title thus videlicet son and heir of John  Whitcombe who be son and heir of Peter Whitcombe who be grandfather of Peter  Whitcombe the merchant father of the infant son upon the trial the defendant  set up several term for year whereupon the plaintiff be nonsuit he now bring  this bill to be relieve against those term and have those whereon nothing be  due to be set aside and be admit to redeem other whereon any thing shall  appear to be due that so he may try his title at law to the land in question  the defendant the infant by their guardian answer and admit that their father  be seize of such estate and have such issue and hope the court will take care  of their interest the lady Hoskins admit likewise such seize of her husband  and say that after his death she enter and hold court in the name of the  infant the daughter and cut down such timber and she and the other defendant  insist they ought not to be compel to give the plaintiff any assistance to  make out his title for the plaintiff it be insist that when the father die and  his wife enter general such entry ought not to be construe a tort when it will  admit of another construction as it will in this case and that be as have a  right and good title as guardian in soccage to her infant son and then her  seize be a seize for he precedent in chancery and will entitle the plaintiff  as full as if the infant himself have be in actual possession and though she  may indeed after such general entry so far declare her intention as to make  her a disseizsess ab beginning as if she have afterward levy a fine yet  without some such act she shall not be take to be a wrong doer when by a  reasonable construction her entry may be intend lawful and no parole  declaration in pais will serve to make her entry wrongful and if this be so  then nothing stand in the plaintiff way to hinder his be relieve in this court  for as to the term for year they can be no impediment because the possession  of a lessee for year be the possession of he that have the freehold and then  the plaintiff as heir at law to the infant son who by his guardian be last  actual seize of the freehold have good title at law and this be so clear and  know a case that they need not cite many authority to prove it for   light  where he treat of the doctrine of possession brother make it clear beyond  dispute they attempt likewise to prove but can not make it out that rend be  reserve upon those lease for year and pay to the defendant the lady Hoskins as  guardian which will have make still strong for they beside some proof that the  defendant the daughter have pound provide for they by their father precedent  in chancery er p in his lifetime and that he declare his estate shall go and  continue in his name and family and thereupon it be infer that they be already  provide for the plaintiff application be the more reasonable and they ought to  help he to a discovery for make good his title at law on the other side for  the defendant it be insist that they be unprovide for by their father and  therefore be in the nature of creditor and ought not to be compel in a court  of equity to give the plaintiff any assistance for make out his title to strip  they of their inheritance that in the case of child it be not unusual in this  court to relieve even against precedent in chancery a heir at law and  therefore if a copyholder devise his land to his young child or that it shall  be sell to raise portion for his young child and make no surrender to the use  of his evil yet this court will supply it against the heir at law also it be  observe that the infant son be not bear till three month after the father  death and that the mother enter immediate upon her husband death and that can  not be as guardian in soccage to the son for he be not then bear and if her  entry at first be not as guardian to her son which it can not possible be she  do nothing afterward to alter the nature of her possession be it that right or  wrong and as to the daughter she can not enter as guardian in soccage to they  for it never be hear of that a stepmother can be guardian in soccage beside  her entry as to one three part be in right of her dower at commonlaw and then  as to that it be a continuance of the seize of her husband and take away the  descent of that three part to the son and such entry for dower be good till  avoid by the heir at law or his guardian it be likewise much insist upon that  the defendant be child unprovide for and therefore in the nature of creditor  and equity ought not to give he any help or make his case better than it be at  commonlaw my Lord chancellor say he think it a case of great compassion and  that he will give the plaintiff no assistance unless the daughter be otherwise  provide for but because the plaintiff allege that by a deed in the lady  Hoskinss custody it appear that pound be settle on the daughter he say that if  that be full prove it may alter the case and order the deed to be produce  though that be likewise great oppose and the lady Hoskins have such a deed  wherein such provision be make afterward the matter be compromise