case chaplin versus Horner et ux at the roll where money be covenant to be lie  out in a purchase of land and to be settle on a in fee the heir and not the  executor of a shall have it see Lingen v Sowray ante but if a himself have  receive any of this money this be a good payment and shall not be repay by a s  executor to his heir also if a in this case die a s heir shall recover the  remainder of the money not receive by a so if a s heir be a infant and the  remainder of the money be decree to be bring into court it shall be look on as  land James chaplin the plaintiff father on his marriage with the plaintiff  mother now the wife of defendant Horner in consideration of pound portion make  a settlement of land to the use of himself for life peer William remainder to  the wife for life remainder to the son of the marriage in tailmale remainder  to the daughter of the marriage in tail general remainder to his own right  heir also the plaintiff father covenant to lie out pound then in the hand of  trustee in the purchase of land to be settle on himself and his heir the  marriage take effect and there be issue thereof only the plaintiff a daughter  not long after the plaintiff father die intestate but before his death he have  receive pound part of this pound which on the marriage be secure on a mortgage  from one mrs Avery the wife mother and have receive this pound lie it out in  the purchase of a office for his life after his death his widow the plaintiff  mother take out administration to he and the plaintiff Elizabeth chaplin as  the only issue and heir of her father bring this bill to have the covenant in  the marriage settlement perform in specie and likewise claim two three of her  father personal estate under the statute of distribution Mr Vernon for the  defendant insist that the pound be pay to the plaintiff father who will have  have a absolute power over the land if purchase and settle this payment be a  good payment and ought not to be refund by his administrator in order to be  invest in land for the benefit of the plaintiff the heir which be agree by the  master of the roll he next insist that the remain pound ought not to peer  William be lie out in land but to be look upon as personal estate and the  defendant the widow to be entitle to a three thereof the old rule of the court  vide silly v Jago ante be that if money be agree to be lie out in a purchase  of land to be convey to a in fee if a have bring a bill for the performance of  this trust equity will have decree the money itself to a nay that former the  court go further videlicet where money be to be lie out in land and settle on  a in tail remainder over and a bring a bill for the performance of this trust  the court have in such case decree the money to a because if the land be buy  and settle on a in tail he may suffer a recovery and bar the entail and turn  the land into money again so that in the order of such purchase and settlement  the court will be do a vain thing and that this be the practice till Lord  cowpers time when in the case of colwal and Shadwell the court decree the  trust money to be lie out in a purchase of land and settle on a in tail  remainder to b in tail to the intent that the issue in tail and the remainder  man may have the benefit of the chance intend they by the person create the  trust in case the tenant in tail shall die before suffer a recovery or levy a  fine but that here the plaintiff father be to be tenant in fee peer William of  the land when purchase and have a absolute power over it as well by will as  otherwise and this pound be as yet actual but money it shall as he urge be  look upon only as personal estate but the master of the roll contra that this  pound ought to be take as land and go to the plaintiff as heir vide Scudamour  v Scudamour pre Charles the like determination by Lord Parker the dispute in  this case be not betwixt the party himself the father and the party who be to  pay the money but betwixt the heir and executor who become entitle to this  money subject to the covenant and it be the rather to be deem a real estate  because this be part of the marriage agreement and the covenant be make in  consideration of a marriage and a marriage portion peer William er p wherefore  the court decree that the shall be bring before a master for the benefit of  the plaintiff be a infant but will not decree it to be lie out in land because  if the plaintiff shall die before such disposition it will go to her heir of  course vide Edward v countess of Warwick post Vol two in the case of v marsh  in easter term at the roll where money be article to be lie out in land and  settle on the first and other son in tail and the court in order to preserve  the chance to the second son will not decree the money to the old son but  order the same to be invest in a purchase pursuant to the article the old son  get one to lend he a purchase and to settle it with a intention forthwith to  suffer a recovery and to reconvey the estate back to the seller and though all  this appear by the master report yet his honour after some hesitation allow it  Qure whether the money may not better have be pay to the old son