case hearne versus barber February S c Ves cite some year after the marriage  of the son of a freeman of the city of London the parent on both side meet and  agree to advance pound apiece to lie by till they can purchase for he a  commission in the army it appear to the court to be intend as a marriage  portion they consider it as a advancement and a bar to the orphanage share see  fawkner v Watts atk a son of a freeman of the city of London receive a sum of  money from his father after his marriage but it do not appear to have be pay  as a portion nor under the father hand but it be admit at last by counsel that  the parent on both side meet some year after the marriage and agree to advance  two hundred pound apiece to lie by till they can purchase a commission in the  army for the son the question be whether this bar the son of the orphanage  part I always take it that the custom of London relate to advancement upon  marriage and though Juds law be in general term still it may be relative to  the portion but I do not know whether the fact will warrant I to send it to  the court of lord mayor and alderman to certify whether this be such a  advancement as be a bar for it appear upon the very face of it to be a  marriage portion and as this be the fact it certain be a advancement but as to  another child of the freeman the sum advance to he as he be not marry be clear  no exclusion for Juds law which be a act of common council in the time of king  Henry the six do not make it a bar unless it be a advancement upon marriage  Hume v Edward atk for the only doubt upon that law be whether a advancement to  a child either before or after the marriage be a bar the difficulty I shall  have be under be this have not the fact be as it be now admit by the counsel  on both side whether suppose a freeman of London advance sum of money at  different time and none of they appear under the father hand to be advance  upon the marriage this will be a bar to the child claim his orphanage part  atkins Lord Hardwicke seem to make a doubt at first whether the child advance  by the father must not bring the part of the orphanage share he receive in his  father lifetime into the testamentary part the father be dead intestate before  he can be entitle to a share under the statute of distribution but upon the  hardship of it as it will in effect be exclude he from receive any thing from  his father his lordship hold that he will be entitle to his whole share of the  testamentary part without bring into hotchpot the money he receive in  advancement in the lifetime of his father