a freeman of London on his marriage covenant to add pound out of his own  personal estate to pound which be the portion of his then intend wife and both  these sum be to be lie out in land and to be settle upon the husband for life  and then to the wife for her life for her jointure and in bar of her dower  with remainder to the child of the marriage Parker c hold clear that a  jointure of land make by a freeman upon his wife if express to be in bar of  her customary part will be so as in the case of Atkins and Waterson vide Vol  Eq can Abr c Str Rep S c June cite arg where the court of alderman by the  recorder certify they have no custom extend to that case but if it be not so  express but only say to be in bar of her dower this will be no bar of her  customary part because land or a real estate be of a quite different nature  from personal estate and a matter whole out of the custom of London vide  blunden and Barker will Rep the custom of London have not any power over land  of inheritance per Lord Chan ibidem hill babington and greenwood will Rep Prec  in Chan SC his lordship observe that it have be admit that a jointure of land  settle in bar of dower will no more bar the widow of her customary part than  it will exclude her from her share by the statute of distribution in case her  husband shall die intestate and his lordship say it be the same thing in the  principal case where a freeman have covenant to lie out of his own estate  pound in a purchase and to settle it on himself for life c ut above saint  because from that time the pound be not his own estate nor what the custom can  meddle with for a man own estate be what he have beyond his debt and what he  owe be a another and the custom affect only what be beyond his debt dly for  that money covenant to be lie out in land be as to all respect land in equity  and will descend as land for the benefit of the heir and not go to the  executor it may be entail as land and have the other quality of land and  consequent be not within the custom that this can not be break into the custom  for the freeman may at any time during his life even in his last sickness have  invest his personal estate in the purchase of land which will defeat the  custom and stand good vide Frederick and Frederick though the freeman shall at  the same time have say that he do this on purpose to defeat the custom and as  this if the purchase be real will have hold good to bar the custom sure the  case can not be worse where such agreement for make the purchase be for a  valuable consideration and part of the marriage article per Lord Chan will Rep  a freeman make his will and thereby inter all give a legacy to his wife and  die leave a wife and child per Lord Chan Parker it appear that this legacy  together with all the other legacy give by the will for so it must be intend  do not exceed the husband be testamentary part it be his lordship say the same  thing as if these legacy have be give by the freeman express out of his  testamentary part which he have full power to dispose of by his will and  therefore this legacy be no way inconsistent with the custom the wife may in  such case take both for it be only the inconsistency betwixt the legacy and  the custom that prevent the widow or child in any case from take both the  consequence of which be that if the freeman give any legacy out of his  testamentary part the wife or child may provide there be sufficient take both  by the will and by the equity case abridge er p custom and therefore so may  the wife do here f hill babington and greenwood will Rep note in this point  and also the above point can the court be extreme clear ibidem f ibidem at the  bottom of the page be a quaere add by the editor whether such legacy must not  be give out of the testamentary part as he say appear from the reporter note  to have be determine in the case of Biddle and Biddle about this time see the  case of Frederick and Frederick will Rep