c hide v Seymour infant in ventre sa mere land be devise to trustee for the  raise of portion for the devisor child the devisor have only two child at the  time of his death and his wife be big with another and within ten week of her  time and the question be whether this infant in ventre sa mere shall have a  share it be urge by the attorneygeneral that he shall not this be a devise of  land which be devisable only by the statute which say that a devise may be  make to any person or person and the better opinion since the statute have be  that land devisable by the statute only can not be devise to a infant in  ventre sa mere because he be not proper a person but otherwise it be of land  devisable by custom and so good or chattel may be devise to a infant in ventre  sa mere but there be great difference between a devise of good and land for if  a man devise all his good those that he buy after shall pass but otherwise it  be of land without a new publication and far in this case here be no express  devise to the infant for the word child be well satisfy in the two child that  be bear before freeman er p but the Lord chancellor be of opinion that the  infant in ventre shall have a share by the statute and wm c posthumous child  be place on the same foot to all intent and purpose as child actual bear  Thelluson v Woodford Ves for it be incumbent upon the parent to provide for  that as well as any of the rest of the child and he shall never be make worse  than a infidel by construction and he take a great difference this difference  seem now unimportant where the freeman feme be grossement enseint and the  child in prospect of the father as in this case and where she be priviment  enseint and he say there be a strong case than this in Fitzherbert title  Subpna where a man by his will order d his feoff to convey to his daughter  after his death a son be bear and this court order they to convey to the son  late decision have destroy the authority of the case cite from Fitzherbert the  Roman law in general guide the decree of the ecclesiastical court of this  country but it guide they no far than where it stand uncontradicted by English  law and in this point there be a material distinction between the Roman oh and  English law in the former the child be consider as have a property in the  effect of the father in our law we know of no such thing and therefore the  effect of the birth of child must be very different shepherd v shepherd in  note to t r p that alteration of a testator circumstance which be allow in the  court of this country to operate as a revocation of his will must consist of  the combination of the two factsof marriage and the birth of a child and in  the case in Fitzherbert one of these fact marriage subsequent to the will  appear to have be want that case therefore can be consider as a sound  authority do v Barford Mau and Sel do v Lancashire t r sheath v York Ves and  Bea more v more phillim Holway v clarke ibidem Johnston v Johnston ibidem and  so it be say be the practice of the ecclesiastical court at this day where a  daughter be make executrix and after a son be bear they will grant  administration to the son when circumstance be hold to amount to a imply  revocation of the will the probate may of course be vacate Wentw off of ex but  for what these circumstance must be see last note in Reg lib a fol we find  entry relative to other point in this cause that here report now want no  confirmation for the presumption that if he have be bear the testator will  have make he executor and in this case the land be not devise to the child but  to the trustee to raise portion for they vide wild case   Millards case  freeman chancery case case er report date c MILLARDS case S c Eq Ga ab and  discovery of write ante case ante case a bill be prefer for discovery of title  and write the defendant plead that he be a purchaser for a valuable  consideration without notice of the plaintiff claim and so demurrer the plea  be rule to be ill per cancellar because he do not set forth the particular  consideration though in more v Mayhew post c p the averment of the  consideration be treat slight yet it be now deem a essential requisite of a  good plea Mitf but if that find be express it have be good and so if be hold  in one snag case Qure Faggs case Ch can cite in Ves jun and in vern see post c  p