case holt versus Frederick see Boyd v Boyd l r Eq Bennet v Bennet Ch d see  also note to Edward v freeman p wms Lord chancellor king Eq can ab pl if the  mother be a widow advance a child and die intestate leave many child the child  advance shall not bring what he receive from his mother into hotchpot in this  case inter all the follow point arise Martha Frederick who marry one holt and  survive he have three child two son and a daughter and have peer William er p  out of her own estate give pound to her daughter in marriage die intestate  leave those three child and the question be whether the daughter who have  receive this pound from her mother ought to bring it into hotchpot before she  shall receive any further share of her mother personal estate on behalf of the  daughter it be urge by dr sayer and other that the mother be not within the  clause relate to hotchpot that the statute of distribution be ground upon the  custom of London which do not extend to woman though free of the city but only  to man that the statute accord peer William say if a man die intestate leave a  wife and child the wife shall have a three and the child the two other three  which show that none be within the act but those who be capable of have a wife  and further that the word of the statute the child of the intestate not be  heir at law other than such child as shall have be advance by the intestate in  his lifetime c be a argument that this clause relate only to the father and  that it be he and not the mother who be to be presume capable by his  acquisition of advance a child and last there can not be produce a single  instance since the make of the statute of distribution of a child bring into  hotchpot any advancement that be give he by the mother on the other side it be  reply that a mother survive the father and dyingintestate be within the  statute as well as the father and if within one part of the act why not within  ever part that a woman be also within the act where thereby I be no child that  the word his take in both sex as mankind comprehend both and a human being be  hic well hc a human being that the act of parliament intend a equality among  child and this favourite doctrine in equity ought to be extend as well in case  of a mother as a father a mother be as much a parent as a father and as much  bind by the law of nature to provide for her child and that the reason why the  custom of London do not extend to woman be for that the custom be original  provide for those who be concern in trade and general speak be man not woman  and all citizen be presume to be trader peer William Lord chancellor it weigh  with I that this act of distribution be ground on the custom of London post  Edward and freeman which never affect a widow personal estate and the act seem  to include those within the clause of hotchpot who be capable of have a wife  as well as child which must be husband only and so in this case though without  much debate his lordship rule that the daughter shall not bring the pound  which she have receive in her mother lifetime into hotchpot Reg lib a foe