case Elliot versus collier July see in re Lambert estate Stanton v Lambert Ch  d SC will SC Ves where a husband die before he administer to his wife personal  estate it shall not go to her next of kin but to his representative see lady  Ascoughs case p W Humphrey v Bullen atk Bacon v Bryant vin ab pl the bill be  bring b the plaintiff as the representative to a second husband of the  daughter of a freeman of London for her share of her father customary estate  the defendant insist she be full advance in her father lifetime there be  another question in the cause whether the husband die without administer to  the personal estate the wife atkins have in her own right it shall go to the  next of kin of the wife or to the representative of the husband Lord  chancellor this be a very clear case the representative of the wife have no  right to a account of her personal estate and that point do not follow bare  the legal right of administration for though the ecclesiastical court be bind  by act of parliament to grant the administration to the next of kin of the  wife yet that do not bind the right in this court for the husband survive the  wife her whole estate vest in he at the time of her death and no person can  possible be entitle to the right of the wife but himself so that her whole  property belong to he there be several case in which it have be hold that  though the ecclesiastical court be bind to grant administration by Edward c  yet those person have be look upon in this court as mere trustee suppose the  wife have survive the husband only such part of the personal estate of her  father as have continue choose in action will have survive to her for whatever  he have reduce into possession will have be the husband upon the equity of the  statute of distribution this court make a administrator de good non only a  trustee for such part of the testator personal estate as be undisposed of for  his next of kin therefore I be of opinion the husband representative be  entitle to the wife personal estate and that it vest in the husband before  administration be take out the next question be as to the custom of London it  be a certain rule that where a freeman have child and no wife one moiety  belong to they and the other be the testamentary part as certain too that if  one child be advance in the lifetime of the father though not full equal to  the customary share yet if the certainty do not appear then it be a  advancement fawkner v Watts atk send the principal reason I take to be be  because it can be know what be to be bring into hotchpot a gold watch and  wedding clothes be no advancement of a child morris v Burroughs atk p W Hume v  Edward atk atkins a father consent to the marriage be not sufficient to bar er  it must appear how much he have advance her under his own hand a advancement  must be by way of portion in marriage or to set up in the world and the thing  give here be only emolument hear v barber atk Hume v Edward atk S p suppose  the father have give her pound in money as he have leave but one child more  and the orphanage share amount to pound it will have be go a great way to say  even this will have be a advancement consider the reason of the custom atkins  er p at the time of its first establishment it be for the sake of trade and  though there have be some strict case determine on the custom of London yet  those have be in the case of freemens wife and not upon advancement of child  lewen versus lewen Eq Cas Abr it have be say next that the maintenance allow  by the father to the daughter after marriage be a advancement and that the  certainty of the maintenance do not appear the question be whether that can be  consider as any advancement at all now it have be determine alimony advance by  a father to a child ought not to be consider as a advancement in the case of  Edward versus freeman Eq Cas Abr for the court hold as to the pound per and  maintenance provide for the daughter by the settlement that it shall not be  bring into hotchpot be only for the education and maintenance of the daughter  of which the parent be the best judge that indeed be upon the statute of  distribution of intestates estate but go upon the same reason as if it have be  a question on the advancement under the custom the daughter be just of age  when she marry the question be whether the maintenance shall be consider as a  debt from the daughter to the personal estate of her father it be reasonable  the representative of the daughter shall make some allowance for the  maintenance as she have so much more out of the personal estate than her  sister by this mean and I do not know whether this alimony may not be atkins  consider as a advancement pro tanto be after her marriage but however it must  be bring in as a debt to the father estate and as she think proper to dispute  his will I think what she receive after her marriage for maintenance shall be  consider as a debt due from her to the personal estate of the father Lord  chancellor declare that Elizabeth Filmore one of the two daughter of Boover  who be a freeman of the city of London on the evidence in the cause ought not  to be take to be advance by her father in his lifetime and that the plaintiff  as executor of her husband who survive her be entitle to her customary share  of her father personal estate and order that Boovers personal estate after  payment of his debt and funeral expense be divide into moieties one moiety  whereof be the orphanage part of the testator he have die without leave any  wife the other be his testamentary part and subject to the disposition of his  will and as to the orphanage part order that the same be divide into two equal  share and declare that one share thereof belong to the plaintiff as executor  of the second husband of Elizabeth and his lordship also declare that the  defendant as executor of the testator Boover ought to be consider as a  creditor of Elizabeth for the value of her maintenance which be furnish by  Boover to Elizabeth after the death of her first husband and order the master  to inquire how much by the year Boover deserve in respect of such maintenance  and that the same be deduct out of so much as shall be come to the plaintiff  for the share of Elizabeth and be answer as a debt to Boovers personal estate  and it be admit that pound have be pay to the plaintiff testator before his  death his lordship order that so much shall be allow as a payment of the  customary share of Elizabeth Reg lib a fol