case SHUDAL versus jekyll February see Pym v Lockyer my Cr Kirk v Eddowes hare  a legacy of pound give under the will of I to the plaintiff not satisfy by the  pound give upon the marriage in the testator lifetime the bill be bring  against the executor of sir Joseph Jekyll for a legacy of pound it do not  appear that there be any particular time appoint for payment of this legacy  sir josephs will be date the that of may soon afterward Mr Shudal the  plaintiff late husband make his address to her and some time in July follow  atkins er p apply to sir Joseph who be her uncle she be great niece of the  half blood by the mother side to sir Joseph for his approbation who be satisfy  with the match say he will give he pound but as it be not convenient to let he  have the money he will draw a note Payable to he on the that of march and  lodge it in Mr hill hand to be deliver to Mr Shudal after the marriage be have  which he do accord and also say that he will leave something to his niece by  his will but that he will not be put under any obligation of do it upon the  that of August sir Joseph die without revoke his will and the very next day  the plaintiff and Mr Shudal be marry the question be whether the legacy of  pound give to the plaintiff under the will be satisfy by the pound give upon  the marriage in the testator lifetime Mr solicitor general for the plaintiff  argue that this case be not within the general rule of presumptive  satisfaction for when it have be so construe it be where the bequest under the  will be express give to a daughter for a portion and cite hartop versus  Whitmore p W atkins here the legacy of pound be give general to the plaintiff  who be the testator grand niece there be no ground to imagine that because the  testator give pound in his lifetime to the husband he intend it shall go in  part satisfaction of the plaintiff legacy vide spinks versus cope Jan ante S c  beside the note give to the husband be by no mean for her benefit for it may  have go to his executor nor be there any settlement make by the husband in  consideration of the sum so advance and he be now dead insolvent Mr attorney  general for the defendant the executor say that as the testator be consult on  the match and not her own father sir Joseph stand in loco parent and  consequent from the nature of the case it be intend as a portion a strong  circumstance to show his intention with regard to the plaintiff be that  notwithstanding the testator have give to another niece Margaret hill a legacy  of pound yet upon advance to her afterward pound upon her marriage he tell his  secretary Mr Mortimer that now she shall have but pound under the will and  though it do not appear that he express himself in the same manner upon the  marriage of mrs Shudal yet it be most natural to suppose that his intention be  the same the chancellor make two question in this case first whether there be  a presumption of satisfaction or a ademption of the legacy by what sir Joseph  Jekyll do afterward in his lifetime second if there be not a general  presumption then whether there be a thing in the cause which amount to a proof  that he intend it as a satisfaction this must depend upon the note and the  evidence sir Joseph by his will have give to the plaintiff by the name of  Elizabeth parson and to and parson her sister a general legacy of pound apiece  about ten week after Mr Shudal acquaint sir Joseph Jekyll with his intention  of marry the plaintiff who approve of the match and immediate draw a note for  pound Payable to Shudal the that of march next after this conversation and the  give of the note it appear to have be the intention of the party to have marry  in a fortnight or three week at far atkins the question be if there be any  presumption to be draw from hence I be of opinion that if the case rest here  it will not create a presumption of satisfaction either of the whole pound or  part of it the general run of case be upon a father make provision by way of  portion for a daughter in his lifetime this be true say to be a debt of nature  from a parent to a child and though he give a legacy general under a will yet  he must be understand to mean it as a portion and therefore if he give a sum  afterward to her upon her marriage it be for the same end and consequent a  ademption of the legacy see Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol note this court to be  sure lean strong against double portion or double provision and whether the  portion give in the lifetime be less or not be no way material but all these  case differ extreme from a bounty give by a remote relation though I will not  say but there may be case between collateral relation which will be consider  as a ademption for suppose a child to be a orphan without father or mother  under the care of a collateral relation who by his will give her a legacy and  express it to be for her portion and afterward make a provision for her in his  lifetime I shall be incline to think this a ademption atkins er p but in the  present case the plaintiff father be live and a collateral relation only her  great uncle give her a general legacy now I do not know any case where such a  relation give a general legacy and afterward advance the same person in his  lifetime have be hold to be a satisfaction and therefore differ from the case  of father or grandfather stand in loco parent spinks v robin ante Powell v  cleaver bro Charles Rep the chief strength of this case depend upon the second  question whether from the proof which have be read it appear that the testator  intend it as a satisfaction I be of opinion that the evidence do import quite  the contrary and parole declaration have be constant admit in all these case  Rosewell v Bennett post vol sir Joseph jekyll say to Shudal that he will leave  the plaintiff something but that he will not lie himself under a obligation to  do it for she must take her chance import that he intend to give her a legacy  by the will atkins but how be it possible for a court of justice to settle  what be the quantum the testator intend and can I imply that he intend to  leave her no more than pound suppose even in the case of a father he have give  pound to a daughter or to the husband as a portion and have say at the same  time I will leave her something by my will but will not lie myself under any  obligation and you must take the chance a court of equity will not have hold  this to be a ademption of the legacy under the will but it be say the  construction in this case must be by way of analogy to what sir Joseph Jekyll  have do with regard to another great niece mrs Margaret hill but though he  have alter his will as to one person I can never take it to be a evidence of  his intention to alter the legacy of another person and therefore the  inference to be draw from hence make rather for than against the plaintiff as  therefore I be of opinion that even a father give his daughter a portion in  his lifetime and accompany it with such declaration will not have be a  ademption of any legacy bequeathe to her under a will a strong I ought in this  case to decree the executor to pay pound to the plaintiff with interest at  pound per cent from one year after the testator death I shall give no cost on  either side Reg lib b fol