case Samuel Cox and hannah his wife and Elizabeth BELITHA plaintiff William  BELITHA executor of his father edward defendant lord commissioner Jekyll and  Gilbert Eq can ab pl pl though it may be a question whether the child of a  freeman of London upon receive a suitable portion may release to his father  his orphanage part yet if the child or the husband of such child covenant to  release to the executor after the freeman death this be good and equity will  execute the covenant Edward Belitha who be a freeman of London have two  daughter videlicet Hannah and Elizabeth and one son the defendant William the  plaintiff Cox marry the old daughter the plaintiff Hannah without the consent  of her father however after the marriage the father Belitha give a portion to  his say daughter of pound pound in money and the rest in a leasehold and  freehold estate which be settle by the consent of the husband for the separate  use of the wife and afterward to her child and thereupon the plaintiff Cox the  husband release to his fatherinlaw Belitha all his right and interest which he  have peer William or may have to any part of his personal estate by virtue of  the custom of the city of London or otherwise except such part as his  fatherinlaw shall give to he or his wife by cc will or otherwise and by the  say deed of release the plaintiff Cox covenant at any time after the decease  of his fatherinlaw Belitha to do any further act for the release of any right  which he may have by the custom of London to the executor or administrator of  the say Edward Belitha the father Obj the interest which a child have in the  orphanage part by the custom of London be a mere contingency and no present  right consequent it can no more be release than a heir may release before his  father death his right to his father real estate nevertheless the court seem  incline to think that the release be for a valuable consideration purport a  agreement to quit the right to the orphanage part and to be bind in equity but  though this may not be so clear yet where the husband for a valuable  consideration have covenant thereafter to release the say future right and the  defendant have bring a cross bill to compel the plaintiff in the original  cause to make such release to he as executor to the freeman and it be in proof  that the executor have before the bring the say suit tender such release and  that the soninlaw have refuse to execute it the court decree a specific  performance of the covenant by execute the say release to the executor of the  freeman dly the court hold that where a daughter be advance in part and the  freeman the father have settle some leasehold peer William estate to the  separate use of the daughter the feme covert this ought to be bring into  hotchpot it be in the strict sense a advancement of the child pro tanto dly it  be hold that any land of inheritance settle by the freeman upon his child be  not to be call a advancement either in part or in the whole within the custom  of London note land of inheritance give by a father to a young son be a  advancement within the statute of distribution in regard land of inheritance  be not within the custom which affect only the personal estate of the freeman  see the case of Babbington v greenwood and blunden v Barker vol by of a lease  for year peer William er p but if land of inheritance be give to a child by  the freeman in bar of the orphanage part and accept as such it will be bind or  at least the child can have both thly in this case the freeman have leave to  his other daughter Elizabeth pound as a legacy by the will but it appear to  the court that the say Elizabeth be but a weak woman and about forty year old  and not like to marry and it be positive swear by the answer of the defendant  the son that the father after the make of the will have desire the defendant  his son to secure a annuity of pound per annum to his sister the plaintiff  Elizabeth in satisfaction of her legacy and accord Elizabeth after the death  of her father in a public manner with the consent of her relation and friend  by a deed to which the plaintiff Cox and his wife Hannah and the trustee in  the father will be witness release peer William the say legacy of pound and  all her right to her father personal estate by the custom of London to the  defendant her brother and in consideration thereof the defendant the brother  by mortgage secure a annuity of pound per annum Payable quarterly to his say  sister Elizabeth free from all tax and it be now object by the plaintiff that  this annuity be not of equal value with the legacy that the sister be hereby  disable from marry and that the same can be no consideration for the release  the orphanage part say per cur it be a very ill thing in the plaintiff to  endeavour by a bill to set aside that deed which he himself before support by  be a witness thereto beside accord to the positive oath of the son by the  answer which be read and ought to be regard this be do by the son and accept  of by the daughter in piety to the direction of the father and out of regard  to his memory it be do by the consent and privity of the whole family and of  the trustee in the father will as think better for the sister be a weak woman  and not likely to marry and be plain for the benefit of the sister it be a  certain and plentiful provision to her for her life whereas the money may be  lose which seem here to be seek after by Cox the brother who probable bring  his sisterinlaw into this cause in hope of make some advantage of her and as  to the objection that the annuity be not equivalent to the legacy it be  possible the sister may intend to be kind to her brother betwixt who there be  the consideration of blood alone sufficient to raise a use even of a real  estate and the court will not be nice in weigh the consideration betwixt  brother and sister peer William wherefore let the bill be dismiss and Cox only  pay the cost and let he be decree in the cross cause to release his right to  the customary part in pursuance of the covenant and to pay cost there also  vide blunden v Barker ante vol Lockyer v savage stram medcalfe v Ives atk  morris v Burroughs atk