case babington versus greenwood ux Eq Abr c S c wms S c and ibidem wms wms and  atk Vid Inst hark Edward b to b and burn ecclesiastical law respect the custom  of London a freeman of London on his intermarriage agree with trustee to add  pound to the wife portion which be pound more to be lie out within two year  after the marriage in a purchase of land and settle on the husband for life  remainder to the wife for life in lieu and bar of her dower and jointure  remainder to their issue this be no bar of the wife customary share the  plaintiff father be a freeman of London and have no real but only a personal  estate do by article in on his marriage with Frances his wife now the wife of  the defendant in consideration of pound portion to be pay to the trustee  covenant within two year after the marriage to pay pound to the trustee and  his wife father covenant likewise within the same e pa they pound precedent in  chancery for his daughter portion which two sum make pound be direct to be lie  out in the purchase of land to be settle on the husband for life remainder to  trustee during his life to preserve contingent remainder remainder to the wife  for life for her jointure and in bar of dower remainder to such child or child  to be beget between they by such proportion and in such manner as he by write  or write attest by three or more witness shall direct and for want of such  direction to such child or child equal to be divide between they and their  heir and for want of such child or child to his own right heir the marriage  take effect the two plaintiff be the only issue of that marriage the husband  in by will devise pound apiece to the plaintiff to be pay at and take notice  of his marriage article and that a purchase and settlement have be make  pursuant thereto he confirm that settlement and devise the same land to his  wife accord to the settlement for life and after her death to his child the  plaintiff and give the residue of his personal estate except his plate and  furniture to the plaintiff for their life and in case of their death to his  wife the defendant who he make executrix and die the wife after his death  prove the will and give security to the chamberlain of London for pound S  halfd be the surplus of his personal estate and now the plaintiff have attain  their full age be about year after the testator death bring this bill against  the defendant and his wife who be the widow and executrix of the plaintiff  father for a account of his personal estate and to have their several legacy  pay they the defendant by answer insist that the husband the plaintiff father  precedent in chancery er p be a freeman of London she be entitle to her three  part as his widow by the custom and whether she shall be allow it or not be  the principal point precedent in chancery for the plaintiff it be argue that  the husband be a freeman of London at the time of his make this settlement  must be suppose to have in his view and under his consideration the make of  such settlement as a freeman can make which consider as such can be only of  his personal estate and with regard to the influence he must be suppose to  know the custom will have over it at his death when the settlement on his wife  be to take place that this be the strong in regard it do not appear that he  have any real estate whatsoever at the make this settlement and therefore it  be so far a diminution and lessen of his personal estate to make this  provision for his wife which ought to be look upon as a compound with her for  any customary share thereout and it be say that this differ in that respect  from the case of Atkins and Waterson Eq Abr S c pale yellow Rep S c where it  appear that the husband at the time of the marriage have a real estate and  make a settlement thereof on his wife and therefore there nothing be take out  of his personal estate as there be in this case and cite the case of Hancock  and Hancock vern where a man covenant to lie out a sum of money in the  purchase of land to be settle on his wife for her jointure and in bar of dower  and after the marriage he purchase a leasehold estate only and settle it  accord and this be decree and afterward affirm on a rehear to be a bar of the  wife customary share but it be argue on the other side that this settlement be  only that the wife may be sure of some provision in all event that the custom  do not operate on the personal estate till the freeman death that if he shall  the very day before his death have lie out his whole personal estate in the  purchase of land and declare express that it be to prevent the custom operate  upon it that in that case the wife will be without remedy that therefore since  it continue personal precedent in chancery estate to the time of his death she  ought to have the benefit of it that immediate upon these article the money be  to be so far look upon as land that it must go to the wife and issue accord  that if a purchase have not be make they may have bring a bill in this court  to have compel it that it be no way relative to the personal estate and  therefore can be no bar to any share come out of the personal estate that it  may as well be pretend to be a bar of the share on the statute of distribution  if the husband shall die intestate where he be not a freeman that real and  personal estate be of two different kind and a provision out of one have no  relation to the other that in the case of Atkins and Waterson with vern vern  vezey vezey it be clear decree to be no bar and though that be a settlement of  land that can make no difference for the money in this case as soon as the  article be execute be to be look on as land too and Mr Vernon cite a case of  Platt and Stanton where it be decree by my Lord chancellor Cowper in mich term  that a provision for a child on her marriage by a freeman be no bar to any  future share she may be entitle to by the custom no more than it will be to  her take by descent or devise Lord chancellor be clear of this opinion that  from the time of the article the money be a debt which the husband be oblige  to pay that it be no part of his personal estate from that time but must be  look upon as land and then it can be no bar of her customary share of the  personal estate that the custom do not operate at all till the party death and  then whatever personal estate be leave be to go accord to it there be another  point in this case whether the wife shall take any benefit at all by the will  since now she think fit to claim by the custom and a case of Langston versus  Langston be cite that she ought precedent in chancery not that she ought whole  to adhere to the will or whole to the custom ante and wms atk atk but my Lord  chancellor seem to be clear that if the will no way interfere with the custom  but that there be sufficient over and above what be give to the wife to answer  her customary part and the child that she may well take for he may give his  own testamentary part as he think fit and to say that the wife shall be  exclude in that case from take any part of the testamentary share devise to  her will be to say that he have a power of dispose a three part to any body  provide it be not to his wife and child which will be absurd and monstrous  precedent in chancery er p but it be urge that there be abundance of precedent  to the contrary it be direct that they shall be search before any  determination give on this point and yet it seem not at all unreasonable that  the wife have in all event secure herself of a provision and of a provision  too out of the personal estate and that before marriage in respect of which  the husband be bind so that whatever accident or misfortune befall he he have  no power or control over that not for the payment of debt provision for child  or any other emergency whatsoever that upon these consideration the rest of  the personal estate shall be look upon to be entire free and exempt from the  custom and the rather for that if a man before marriage settle a jointure out  of land be it never so small it will total bar the wife to claim any further  jointure or to have dower out of her husband estate though it shall b increase  to many thousand a year at his death and why therefore shall not this  provision out of the personal estate bar her likewise to claim any further  share thereout note it come on after on the master report when the Lord  chancellor decree the testamentary three to precedent in chancery go towards  the make up the plaintiff their legacy pound apiece by virtue of the devise of  the residuum to they but decree the plate and furniture to the wife by virtue  of the say will though she have reject the say will as to her customary share  which be compare to fox content Edmondson where in such case she be even debar  of any freehold estate give her by the say will and to Kitson content Kitson  ante S c and other case precedent in chancery de boundary S HILLARII in curian  porter