case hartop versus Whitmore see Pym v Lockyer my Cr Lord chancellor Parker pre  Charles Eq ab pl one devise to his daughter a portion of pound and afterward  in his lifetime give her in marriage king the will pound for her portion in  marriage and four year after die without revoke the will the husband be a  bankrupt the assignee not entitle to the pound legacy nor any part thereof one  by will give his daughter a portion of pound afterward the father marry the  daughter and give her pound for her portion and life four year after the  marriage of his daughter without revoke his will the husband of the daughter  become a bankrupt the assignee under the commission bringa bill against the  executor of the father for the pound insist that though the father have give  to his daughter a portion yet he may give her a legacy also as well as a  portion and in this case it be to be the rather intend that the testator  design his daughter shall have both because the portion be less than the  legacy like the case where a debtor give a legacy to his creditor which be  less than the debt owe to the legatee this be never hold to go in part of  satisfaction of the debt and what make the principal case still strong be that  the testator survive the marriage of his daughter four year and all that while  never think proper to revoke his will which in peer William all presumption he  will have do if he have not intend his daughter shall have have both the  portion and the legacy it be likewise observe that by the statute of fraud a  will in write can not be revoke without write wherefore at least the plaintiff  ought to recover pound to make up the portion tantamount to the pound legacy  Lord chancellor with great clearness if a father give a daughter a portion by  his will and afterward give to the same daughter a portion in marriage this by  the law of all other nation as well as of great Britain be a revocation of the  portion give by the will for it will not be intend unless prove that the  father design two portion to one child and as to the objection of his have  live so long after give the portion to his child on her marriage without ever  revoke that part of his will there can be no need for the father to revoke  that legacy which he before have do by give the portion in his lifetime since  that will be but revoke the same will twice and this demand be the hard  inasmuch as it be make by the assignee of the commissioner of bankruptcy  against the husband so that the wife who portion this be say to be will be  never the better for it dismiss the bill with cost the bill have be dismiss  nothing appear in the register book but the bare order of dismissal but from  the bill and answer in the sixclerks office the case appear to have be  thisJohn Whitmore by will date October he have at that time four son and ten  daughter devise considerable real estate to each of his sonsand to every one  of his daughter except Frances the old to who he have give a full portion on  her marriage and his daughter Dorothy on who portion this question arise and  his daughter nabell who have disoblige he by turn Roman catholic he give the  sum of pound if they marry with their mother consent otherwise but pound  apiece he then give his wife the residue of his personal estate in trust peer  William er p for the performance of his will he then give to his daughter  Dorothy pound if she shall be live at her age of year and unmarried or marry  by and with her say mother full consent first have and obtain in write but if  marry when it be thereby appoint to be pay her and that without her mother  full consent as aforesaid then and in such case he give her pound only and  that to be pay at her age of year and he appoint Sarah Whitmore his wife sole  executrix it appear by Sarah whitmore answer that at the time of make the will  Dorothy be under her father displeasure and then in London with a milliner but  upon Thomas young pay his address to her the father and mother be inform of it  by a Mr Fleming by letter that they thereupon offer to give her pound as a  portion and no more that young for some time refuse to marry her without a  large portion but they be afterward marry without the consent of the father or  mother after the marriage upon young apply to the father for dorothy fortune  the father offer he pound and the defendant Sarah at that time say that if she  survive her husband and have it in her power she will add another pound young  will not then accept the pound but afterward write a letter to the father for  it who thereupon pay it to Mr Fleming for the use of young and take a receipt  for it in the follow word Nov that I do acknowledge to have receive this day  of I Whitmore esquire the sum of pound to be return up to London and be pay to  Mr Thomas young for his wife portion I say receive upon the account and for  the use aforesaid by I Richard Fleming the testator live two year afterward  without revoke or alter his will young become a bankrupt and Peter hartop his  assignee bring this bill against Sarah Whitmore the executrix and against  young and his wife for the legacy of pound Jenkins v Powell vern Elkenheads  case cite ib ware v Lant pre Charles Farnham v Phillips atk spinks v  Robins Shudal v Jekyll ib Watson v earl of Lincoln Amb grave v earl of  Salisbury l bro c c ellison v Cookson bro c c bro c c I Ves jun pound Cox  Debeze v man ib Cox clarke v Burgoine dick finch v finch bro c c pound Ves jun  trim v bayne Ves Hartopp v Hartopp Ves monk v monk ba be thellusson v Woodford  mad but the same presumption do not arise in the case of a stranger Powell v  cleaver bro c c brown v peck Eden and for this purpose the father of a natural  child be consider prima fancy as a stranger to his son ex part pie Ves  Wetherby v Dixon Ves coop the advance of a portion be not a ademption of a  bequest of a share in the residue smith v strong bro c c Freemantle v bank Ves  and see Robinson v Whitley Ves