case stevens versus dethick February the trust of a term here be for raise  portion for a daughter in default of issue male Payable at or marriage the  mother die leave no son and only one daughter the plaintiff wife who with her  husband bring their bill against the father and the trustee to raise the  portion immediate the court be of opinion she be not entitle to have it raise  in the father lifetime see Stanley v Stanley atk t a question arise upon the  settlement make on the marriage of the defendant the first limitation of which  be to the defendant for life without impeachment of waste then to trustee to  preserve contingent use to his wife for life remainder to atkins the first and  other son of the body of the defendant and in default of issue male then  remainder to trustee for a term of year upon trust that if there shall be one  or more daughter the trustee their executor or administrator shall out of the  yearly or other rend issue and profit or by sale lease or mortgage of the say  manor message land c or any part thereof comprise within the say term raise  and pay unto such daughter or daughter the sum of pound for her or their  portion or portion to be pay to such only daughter if there be but one at her  age of or day of marriage which shall first happen and if they all die before  their portion become due then the say payment to cease as to their executor  and administrator and to sink into the estate for the benefit of the person to  who the reversion shall belong and also that such daughter or daughter shall  have out of the premise comprise in the term of year such yearly maintenance  as be suitable to their degree and quality and that the residue f the rend  issue and profit above such yearly maintenance shall in the meantime till the  portion become Payable be receive by such person as shall be entitle to the  reversion immediate expectant upon the mother be dead and have leave no other  issue but a daughter who be marry the bill be bring by the husband and the  daughter against the father and the trustee to raise the portion immediate Mr  attorney general counsel for the plaintiff say if the party who be owner of  the estate have declare that the portion of the daughter on the failure of  issue male shall be raise for her benefit at or day of marriage a court of  justice will not think that it be inconvenient if the party to the settlement  do not think so themselves he cite Corbet v Maidwell vern and Eq Cas Abr to  show that a reversionary term when the time of payment come notwithstanding it  be not fall into possession shall be sell he mention a authority likewise at  commonlaw greaves v Maddison Jones where three judge be of opinion that the  raise the portion shall not wait till the death of the father and hall v  carter hear the that of July before Lord Hardwicke atk S c he argue that if  the power of raise the portion shall be take away from her the daughter may  have nothing till she be so old as not to answer the end for which the portion  be give the advance her in marriage atkins it will be very hard he say if the  daughter here shall neither have maintenance or portion though the time of  payment be come till by the death of the father the term come into possession  Mr clark of the same side cite Sandys v Sandys p wms and butler v Duncomb p  wms Mr solicitor general counsel for the defendant the father say the general  intention of marriage settlement be to put child under the power of the father  and not as have be argue on the other side that the daughter in the lifetime  of the father shall be out of the dependence of the father and may dispose of  herself without his consent as she have do in this case a great inconvenience  will result from this construction for the tear estate to piece and ruin the  old son of family must be the natural consequence he cite reresby versus  Newland p wms maintenance in the nature of it be precedent to the raise of the  portion and as it the determination of the say term atkins er p be most clear  that the maintenance here be not intend to commence in the lifetime of the  father it be a key to explain his intention as to the portion that this  likewise shall not be raise till after the death of the father in the case of  hall versus carter the maintenance be to precede the portion and give they  express for their support till the portion be raise Lord chancellor it be a  great while since any of these case have come before the court my own general  principle have be always against raise portion in the father lifetime vide  lion v duke of chandos atk all the old case be plain determine against the  intention of all father in some very hard case indeed where the father have be  rigorous and cruel court of equity have go beyond the strict rule of law and  raise it in their lifetime the first case of this kind be greaves and Maddison  and Gerrard and Gerrard vern and which be follow by some other but in the case  of Corbet versus Maidwell salk atkins note a term limit in remainder after the  father death in trust for raise daughter portion at such a age or marriage  when either happen the portion may be raise in the father lifetime so if on  contingency and the contingency happen in the life of the father but not  before the contingency happen salk and vern Lord Cowper make a stand and upon  what foundation do he stop why the general principle he go upon be that he  will lie hold of any word to prevent his be bind by the former case rather  than introduce the inconvenience of ruin estate and it be the same ground  court of equity have go upon in subsequent case for if they can find any word  or word that be different from former case they have lie hold of they to avoid  determine like those case which have introduce such plain inconvenience vide p  wms sect the case of butler v Duncomb in a conversation between Lord  Macclesfield and Lord Trevor upon this very subject the former say he will not  carry it further than the case have already do say Lord Trevor I hope you will  not carry it quite so far the old son be absolute leave in the power of the  father during his life and it be the constant course of most settlement and  yet it be say that young child daughter shall soon after twelve year old  perhaps without the leave of the father demand her portion in his lifetime  though she marry his footman or ever so mean for there be no difference in the  marriage she contract if this doctrine shall prevail and while I be upon this  head I must observe that argument from public inconvenience ought to have  great weight in this age as instance of clandestine marriage be never more  frequent in butler v Duncomb Lord Macclesfield take a middle way he refuse to  raise the portion before the term come into possession but then he make the  reversionary term a security for the principal sum if broom versus Berkley Eq  Cas Abr be a authority from the very term of it it holdsmore strong here  because the bill there be to raise a portion in the lifetime of the mother  only there the father be dead and no issue male only one daughter that  daughter be marry and considerable advance in year and the bill bring for sale  of the reversionary term but refuse both here and in the house of lord what be  the ground of the refusal why that maintenance be give and by the very term of  the trust to precede the portion and not be raise till the term take effect in  possession a strong the portion be not due and Payable till then apply it to  the present case the trustee of the term be in default of issue male c vide  the settlement atkins and also that such daughter or daughter c vide the  clause of maintenance the plaintiff case here be the same only there it be  pray to be raise in the lifetime of the mother here in the life even of the  father which if any thing be more unfavourable the maintenance there be to be  raise out of the rend and profit after the first quarterday when the term  shall take effect in possession here the word in the mean time be word of  relation and refer not only to a time that be to begin but to a time which be  also to end out of what rend issue and profit can the trustee then receive any  thing can they bring ejectment No for they can enter to raise money out of the  profit till after the death of the father atkins er p I be of opinion that the  father may have sell the reversion subject to this term which show that the  whole trust of the term be to take effect after the death of the father by the  same argument as have be make use of for raise the portion now the maintenance  may be raise in the lifetime of the father as well as the portion but it be  the subsequent word that confine it to the time of the term take effect in  possession it be say that in the case of broom versus Berkley there be these  word take effect in possession and no such word here but make use of there  only to show that maintenance can not be raise in the lifetime of the mother  the same argument will hold full as strong here for though the word be not  exact the same yet there be word of equal force videlicet expectant upon the  determination of the term there be no ground to decree this otherwise than the  case of broom versus Berkley which go through such a solemn determination  therefore I think it right to lie hold of word to support the parental  authority rather than to give licence to daughter to marry improvident for  which be most likely that a fat r shall be so unnatural to suffer a daughter  to starve who have do nothing to merit such usage or that a child who have  little or no experience shall b draw in to marry imprudent who be entire out  of the control of the father and may raise her portion upon his estate in his  lifetime atkins the case of h versus carter be very different in many respect  nor be it on a marriage settlement the determination that I have now give be  rather near to the intention of the party and at the same time will prevent  very great inconvenience which be they natural consequence of decree portion  to be raise in life of the father and therefore let the bill be dismiss but  without cost