case lady poulet versus lord poulet cite as a lead case in king v wither Forr  S c vern freeman follow remnant v hood Bea v Bellairs v Bellairs l r Eq henty  v wrey Ch d Ch d novembris in court Lord keeper Eq can ab pl Ch Rep vent term  limit by a settlement to raise portion for young child Payable at twentyone or  marriage one of they die under twentyone and unmarried her portion shall not  be raise for the benefit of the administratrix otherwise if the portion be tot  be raise out of a personal estate the Lord poulet the defendant father by  settlement limit a term to trustee for the raise of pound apiece for his young  child for their portion to be pay they at their respective marriage or age of  one and twenty year which shall first happen and for pay unto they pound per  annum maintenance in the mean time and after these portion and maintenance  raise then the residue of the term be to be in trust for his heir the  defendant the say Lord poulet have two daughter by the plaintiff his second  wife videlicet veer and Susanna make his will and thereby give to his say  daughter pound apiece for their respective portion to be raise and pay they in  such manner as by the say settlement be direct but declare they shall have but  one pound apiece and not two Vernon chancery case by the settlement and will  unless the defendant his son shall die without issue in which case he devise  that they shall have pound apiece more to be pay in the same manner as the  pound veer one of the daughter die be about eight year of age the lady poulet  the mother take letter of administration to her daughter veer and exhibit a  bill against the trustee and the Lord poulet the heir at law to have her say  daughter portion of pound raise and pay in this case the question be whether  the pound portion of mrs veer poulet the daughter do cease by her death or  shall be raise for the benefit of her administratrix vide Yates v Fettiplace  post vol pre Chan S c where devise of portion out of land to be pay at  twentyone or marriage daughter die under twentyone and unmarried the portion  shall sink for the benefit of the heir and that whether hres born or hres  factus so brewin v brewin pre Chan but maintenance allow and charge on the  land ibidem tournay v tournay ibidem Jennings v look p wms so no diversity  where portion charge by will and where by deed smith v smith post vol say to  be govern by the principal case duke of chandos v Talbot p wms and vide the  exception to the above rule and the case on the subject cite and class by Mr  Cox in not to the case of duke of chandos v Talbot and where a bequest of  residue to child but not to be claim till twentytwo the child in the mean time  to be educate with the interest such interest be hold vest Dodson v hay bro Ch  Rep et vide further as to the vest of legacy Robinson v Fitzherbert bro Ch Rep  Hoath v Hoath bro Ch Rep where hold as settle that give the interest of a  legacy vest it so leak v Robinson mere Jones v Mackilwain Russell and no  difference when give for maintenance Robinson v Fitzherbert ibidem Walcot v  hall ibidem where say per master of the roll the legacy though vest by give  the interest yet liable to be divest if legatee die before twentyone say qure  Hutchin v Mannington Ves jun and in not in Stapleton v palmer bro Ch Rep but  in Pulsford v hunter bro Ch Rep merelle give a maintenance till legacy Payable  do not vest as in the case of interest cricket v dolby Ves very v wood ibidem  Wadly v north ibidem Mackell v winter ibidem booth v booth Ves Corbin v French  ibidem beef v Bremer ibidem Middleton v messenger Ves Harrison v foreman  ibidem Holloway v Holloway ibidem Barton v cook ibidem Bolger v Mackell ibidem  Godfrey v Davis Ves Gaskell v Harman ibidem hanson v Graham ibidem Daniel v  Daniel ibidem Weddell v Mundy ibidem brown v big Ves Branstrom v Wilkinson  ibidem bell v phyn ibidem Wilmot v Wilmot Ves Cambridge v rous ibidem Paul v  Compton ibidem Elwin v Elwin ibidem Bayley v bishop Ves dean v test ibidem  lane v goudge ibidem in which the construction of word apparent of condition  be consider Smithser v Wilcock ibidem king v Hake ibidem balmain v shore  ibidem Lord keeper say this be a very hard demand in equity for a jointress  who have already the provision intend her on her marriage and be before a  stranger in the family to go away with this pound and neither the heir nor  young child benefit by it she be not to make any distribution if the pound  have be to have be raise out of the personal estate it have be clear the  plaintiff must have have it so Jennings v look p wms but where the portion be  out of land be become Payable and the child die but the portion not pay  because land not sell it shall be pay to the personal representative  Bartholomew v Meredith post and note the essential difference between the  principal case and that of Lord river v Lord Derby post vol quod vide seem to  be that here a time of payment be limit videlicet twentyone or marriage but in  the other case no time be mention it be consider as vest immediate and  consequent that it shall go to the personal representative but be here a  charge upon the estate of so Jennings v look p wms but where the portion be  out of land be become Payable and the child die but the portion not pay  because land not sell it shall be pay to the personal representative  Bartholomew v Meredith post and note the essential difference between the  principal case and that of Lord river v Lord Derby post vol quod vide seem to  be that here a time of payment be limit videlicet twentyone or marriage but in  the other case no time be mention it be consider as vest immediate and  consequent that it shall go to the personal representative the heir he will  consider of the case and advice he with the judge about it note this bill be  dismiss that may and afterward upon a appeal to the house of lord the decree  of dismission be affirm Vernon chancery case er p