case kemps versus Kelsey jul ante a man who marry a freeman of London daughter  without his consent join with his wife in a release to the father in  consideration of pound of all their right to his personal estate after his  death this shall bar they of their customary share the defendant testator be a  freeman of London and have several child the plaintiff marry one of his  daughter without his consent but some time after the marriage the father agree  to give the plaintiff pound provide he will release what precedent in chancery  er p ever customary share he may be entitle to of the father personal estate  after his death and it be prove in the cause the father say he will not leave  the plaintiff the less for it and that it be what he himself have do upon his  own marriage accord the defendant and his wife acknowledge the receipt of this  pound and the husband covenant that he do and will accept it in full of  whatever customary share he may be entitle to in right of his wife out of the  father personal estate the father after make his will and have only two  daughter the plaintiff and one other marry to the defendant he devise pound to  the defendant to be put out at interest for the benefit of the plaintiff wife  for life and after her death give this pound precedent in chancery to the  defendant it be compute that the plaintiff orphanage share will have amount to  pound or thereabouts and this bill be now bring to have a account of the  testator personal estate and to be let into their share of the orphanage part  notwithstanding the say release and covenant for the plaintiff it be insist  that there be a great deal of difference between this case and a woman  contract before her marriage with a freeman as to her customary share that she  be at liberty whether she will marry or not and therefore whatever contract  she make before marriage to exclude herself of any part of his personal estate  ought to be bind and be always look upon as a compound for her customary share  but a child be a child whether she will or not that it be not a matter of her  own choice and therefore a act of this kind be to be look upon as proceed from  the awe and influence of a parent and ought to be no far bind than it be just  and if it be otherwise she may for pound or a lesser sum be exclude from five  or ten time as much or perhaps a great deal more that this be in the nature of  a release of a possibility of what the father will die worth which can not  then be know or he may lie out his whole personal estate in land and then  there will be nothing for the custom to operate upon and therefore this  release of a possibility in the case of a child to its parent ought not to be  conclusive especial as she be under coverture and the husband in regard to his  wife be under the same awe and influence but notwithstanding these reason my  Lord chancellor be clear of opinion that the plaintiff have no pretence in the  world for this bill that this release be execute only by the husband and wife  there precedent in chancery be nothing under the father hand whereby the  certainty of this provision for they appear in write and then by the custom  they be express bar to make any demand of more that if the plaintiff who be  the very person who give this release shall be let in to set it aside it will  be a direct fraud on the father for he be not oblige to give they a groat and  when he become so far reconcile as to give they this pound upon consent to  give this release and the husband covenant to accept it in full of his wife  customary share that if they shall now be admit to set all this aside it will  be a direct fraud on the father who if it have not be for this release may  have lie out his personal estate in the purchase of land and thereby have  prevent entire the plaintiff from the least pretence of any further share and  that perhaps the reason of his not do of it may be in confidence of the  plaintiff be bar from demand any more that this tittletattle of his not leave  they less be of no consequence when he be not oblige to have give they any  thing and he say this custom of the city of London be the remain of the old  commonlaw that a man can not give away any part of his estate without the  consent of his child and be so take notice of in Bracton but it be find  extreme inconvenient and hard it be by the tacit consent of the whole nation  abrogate and grow into disuse for what law have be ever make to repeal it but  in the city of London where the mayor and alderman have the care of orphan  they by that sole authority and power have preserve this part of the commonlaw  in London which be disuse and disapprove every where else precedent in  chancery and he say this differ from the case of Frederick and Frederick wms  where the father have express covenant to make himself a freeman of London  which be intend to let in the child of that marriage into the customary share  as a provision for they and he though frequent apply to for that purpose  refuse to do it which turn the fraud on his side and so the bill be dismiss  save only that the defendant be to give security to answer the interest of the  pound during the plaintiff wife life precedent in chancery er p