c annand ux v Honywood S c vern Ch Rep Charles can Eq can ab Lord chancellor  custom of London the case be the plaintiff father have two daughter the old be  marry to the plaintiff and have a portion the father by will afterward recite  that his say daughter be not sufficient advance do make further provision for  her but after that he revoke that will and make another whereby he declare  that his say marry daughter be sufficient advance c and then die the bill be  bring for a customary part of the personal estate that the father die possess  of at the time of his death and here it be hold per cur that when a daughter  be marry and have a portion that be prima fancy intend a advancement and this  be so intend and take by the custom of the city but by the same custom if the  father do afterward by will or write declare that she be not advance  sufficient by the marriage then this by the same custom do open the matter  again and let her in to her customary part and it be likewise hold here that  if at the time of the marriage it have be agree that notwithstanding her  portion then give she shall have have her customary part let the custom be  what it will there will then have be a freeman equity to let her in for her  customary part and this court will have give remedy but here be no such  agreement the matter rest pure upon the custom and therefore it be order that  the custom shall be certify by the recorder videlicet whether a declaration  that his daughter be not sufficient advance by his will which afterward be  revoke shall be sufficient to let the daughter into her share and whether the  will notwithstanding the revocation shall yet continue a write to this  purpose By the note of this case in Charles Rep and Charles can where above it  appear the recorder certify that the first will though revoke and therefore  inoperative for testamentary purpose still continue a sufficient declaration  under the hand of the testator that the plaintiff have not be sufficient  advance and she be accord let in for her customary share bring into hotchpot  the sum she have actual receive but though a freeman who have once declare in  write any child not to have be sufficient advance can do away the effect of  that declaration by a subsequent contradiction it appear that the converse do  not hold if the father by his last will or other write express the value of  the advancement make the child bring the amount thereof into hotchpot shall  have as much as will make up a full child part of the customary estate possess  by his father at the time of his decease notwithstanding such father shall by  any write under his hand and seal declare such child be by he full advance  chase v box Eq can ab in marge but he will not suffer it to be put in issue  whether the marriage shall not prima fancy Hervey v Desbouverie can tempt Talb  Hume v Edward atk Elliot v collier ibidem Reg lib a fol the court declare it  will be proper that the recorder of London shall certify whether a declaration  by a will revoke be such a declaration in write as to let in a freeman child  to a customary part of the father estate see above be intend a advancement for  he say that be already certify former by coke when he be recorder of London  and it be reasonable it shall be so for the reason that be give by Swinburne  for when the portion be give it be proportion to the estate which the party  that give it then have and as when there be a decay of his estate the marry  party bear no share in the loss so if there be a advance it be not reasonable  without a declaration make by the party that she shall have the benefit of  that advance freeman er p