case tunbridge versus feather of the tenth in court Lord chancellor marriage  article to lie pound in a purchase of land to be settle on husband and wife  for their life remainder to the issue of the marriage remainder to the husband  in fee husband lie out the pound in the purchase of a great house and garden  and farm which will let but at pound per and it be a good performance of the  article a man upon his marriage in consideration of pound portion by article  precedent to the marriage covenant with trustee to add pound more to his wife  portion Vernon chancery case and that it shall be lie out in land and settle  to the use of the husband for life remainder to the wife and the issue of her  body by he remainder to the right heir of the husband the husband without the  consent of the trustee purchase a farm on which there be a great house and  garden and pay pound for if though in truth it be worth no more than pound per  and and take the conveyance to he and his heir and afterward settle it to the  use in the article the bill be to have the defective value supply and for the  plaintiff it be insist first that this be not a settlement accord to the  article because the purchase be make to the husband and his heir and he  afterward settle it to the use in the article whereas if it have be buy with  the wife money and the conveyance have be make to the use in the article then  the estate have not move from the husband and consequent it will not have be a  jointure within the statute of the h cap and then the wife be tenant in tail  may have alien it ndly one thousand pound be to be lie out as a provision for  the wife it must be intend a reasonable provision and it can not be expect  that pound shall produce less than pound per and and it be not intend to be in  the power of the husband to defeat such provision by lie out the pound in a  fine house and garden which will not serve to buy bread for the widow and this  appear more plain from another clause in the article by which in case a  purchase be not make accord to the article the wife be to have pound in money  or pound per and at her election but the Lord chancellor be of opinion that  the husband have real lie out pound in the purchase and the father of the  plaintiff have view the estate before the purchase be make though it be not of  so good a value as may have be purchase with pound it must be take as a  performance of the article and therefore dismiss the bill there be a mere  entry of dismissal without cost Reg lib b for as to performance of article the  general rule seem to be that where a party to a deed be oblige to do a  particular thing for the benefit of another and he do a thing equal  satisfactory the intent be answer this court will presume a satisfaction by  implication but the satisfaction need not be coextensive with the thing  satisfy brown v Dawson post vol wilcocks v wilcocks ibidem Weyland v Weyland  atk say vide Atkinson v web post vol very v very ibidem Middleton v prior Amb  as to specific performance of article and in what case this court will decree  it vie gore v Nash atk and case in note there as to distinction between  performance and satisfaction vide Blandy v Widmore p wms and case cite in note  there the late case on the subject of satisfaction in general be Barclay v  wainwright Ves where a distinction be take between satisfaction of a legacy  and a debt the court incline to presume satistfaction in the former case in  the latter not so Hinchchcliffe v Hinchchcliffe ibidem car v Eastabrook ibidem  so the court not incline to presume satisfaction in the case of stranger as  distinguish from that of child Vernon chancery case er p spark v cator ibidem  but in the case of presume satisfaction of a debt by a legacy there be not one  case where a legacy give by a parent be upon any different foot from that of a  legacy by any other person as to the satisfaction of a debt per master of the  roll Tolson v Collins Ves et vide lee v brown ibidem couch v Stratton ibidem  Tolson v Collins ibidem as to the distinction between legacy and residuary  bequest where presume to be a satisfaction by the advance of a portion  Freemantle v bank Ves Wynn v William ibidem Osborn v duke of Leeds ibidem  Druce v Dennison Ves which see also as to admission of parole evidence in the  case of claim of double legacy reeve v Bremer Ves as to the extent of a  provision by marriage settlement in bar and satisfaction of dower and three  Druce v Dennison ub sup et vide plume v plume Ves trim v bayne ibidem and for  distinction as to satisfaction between the case of a double portion and  performance of a covenant ibidem Robinson v Whitley Ves and as to legacy to  servant dict per Lord Hardwicke legacy to servant have never be hold to be in  satisfaction of debt Richardson v grief atk but this be at present a question  sub judge in a case of Wallace v pomfret which will probable be find in the  that vol of vesey jun report Ves other case on the subject of satisfaction  will be find collect in the note to chancy case p wms Eastwood v Vinke p wms  and goldsmid v goldsmid swan the principal case however be not a case of  satisfaction but of performance