case attorney general versus scott Nov a devise a trust estate to b and his  heir and die b die the wife of b can be endow of it whether Ratford be seize  in fee of land in London and in Essex she and her husband levy a fine and by  lease and release February convey the premise in London to Thomas Barker and  his heir to the use of he and his heir in trust to permit the say whether and  her husband to receive the profit during their life and the life of the  survivor of they with power to whether to charge the premise with pound and  subject to such power Barker to stand seize to the use of the heir of the  survivor of John and whether and by another deed April the Essex estate be  convey in the same manner whether die in John the husband die in have by his  will devise this trust estate to Locklay and his heir who be marry to his now  wife in and afterward in and in mortgage several part of the premise to the  defendant Scott the estate be now to be sell the question be whether Locklays  wife have any title of dower to this trust estate which case tempt Talbot may  hereafter affect the purchaser she have insist upon it in her answer for the  wife be cite Fletcher versus Robinson precedent in Chan and bank versus Sutton  at the roll march where dower be decree of the trustestate because there be a  direction that the trustee shall convey and therefore look upon as a actual  conveyancer Lord chancellor the question be very considerable and very proper  to be settle dower be proper a legal demand and here the estate be limit to  the trustee and their heir to the use of they and their heir so that it be  actual execute in the trustee and whatever come after can be look upon only as  a equitable interest for there can be a use upon a use the question therefore  be whether the feme of the devisee shall be entitle to dower at law No dower  be of a use before the statute it be entire a legal demand as appear from  Vernon case   and then how can she be dowable of a trust after the statute  since no difference can be assign between a trust now and a use before the  statute and court of equity must follow the same rule now as to trust as  prevail before the statute as to use how the difference now receive between  tenant by the courtesy and tenant in dower ever come to be establish I can  tell but that it be establish be certain nor have I hear any case cite to the  contrary but that of Fletcher versus Robinson which be determine upon another  reason that do not affect the present case that of Bottomly versus Lord  Fairfax pasch precedent in Chan be a exact authority that a woman shall not be  endow of a trust and the receive practice of insert trustee to bar dower will  otherwise be of no signification for I therefore to do a thing mere upon the  authority of a obscure case videlicet Fletcher versus Robinson which do not  seem to have be determine upon that point neither and that may perhaps shake  the settlement of five hundred family be what I can case tempt Talbot er p  answer to my case tempt Talbot conscience I do not think it necessary to say  any thing as to the case where term be stand out as lady Dudley versus Lord  Dudley precedent in Chan and that of countess of Radnor versus Vandebendy vern  and show parliament case for they be different and be to be consider in  another light nor be there any great necessity at this time of determine the  question where the legal estate be first in the husband and consequent the  wife entitle to the dower and then be convey to trustee by the husband for in  the present case it be original a trustestate and can not be any inducement to  her in her marriage for she marry in and the trustestate be not devise to her  husband until ten year after her marriage Reg lib a fol cite in Lord Dudley  and ware v lady dowager Dudley Prec in Chanc p will S c cite of this case Lord  Talbot in chaplin v chaplin p will express himself thus it seem a strange case  and a most extraordinary trust and be probable a short note of the case for  the private use of some gentleman and can be of service to no other for if the  father the beneficiary and trust shall have come for a performance of that  trust he can never have recover but the son shall have hold the land discharge  it be a fraudulent trust make to protect the estate against a forfeiture in  bank v Sutton p will sir Jos Jekyll seem to intimate a opinion though with  considerable diffidence of a distinction whether a wife shall be entitle to  dower out of a trust of inheritance where it be create not by the husband but  some other person and no time limit for convey the legal estate but it be to  be observe that he rest his decision of that case chief upon another point of  equity videlicet that as in that case there be a time limit for convey the  legal estate and that time have arrive in the lifetime of the plaintiff  husband the widow be therefore lead to dower upon a principle well know and  establish in a court of equity entity that where a act be to be do by a  trustee that be to be look upon as do which ought to be do however Lord Talbot  decide the attorneygeneral v Scott without any regard to the distinction  intimate by sir Jos Jekyll and it seem now to be clear settle that a wife can  be endow of a equity of redemption in fee or of any other trustestate of  inheritance wherein the husband have not nor have the legal right to the  estate chaplin v chaplin p will Godwin v Winsmore atk burgess v wheat black  Rep Dixon v Saville bro Charles Rep