case reresby versus newland refer to piper v piper my king Lord Macclesfield  Eq can ab pl the trust of a term be for raise a portion for a daughter in  default of issue male Payable at eighteen or marriage or as soon after as the  same may convenient be raise the mother die leave no son and leave only one  daughter the court be of opinion that the portion can not be convenient raise  by sale of the reversion this be a bill bring by the plaintiff and his wife  for his wife portion of pound and a maintenance secure in a marriage  settlement by a peer William term of year commence in default of issue male of  the body of the plaintiff wife father and mother for provide portion for the  daughter of the marriage to be raise by rend and profit or by sale or mortgage  and to be pay at the daughter attain the age of eighteen or marriage provide  that no maintenance shall commence until the death of the father but the same  to begin at the first quarterday after provide that if all the daughter die  before eighteen or marriage then the year term to be void with power to the  father with consent of the trustee to revoke all the use the mother die  without leave a son and leave only one daughter who marry the plaintiff  without her father consent and with her husband bring this suit for the  recovery of her portion of pray a sale or mortgage of the reversionary term in  her father lifetime for the raise the same for which purpose the case of  greaves and Maddisonin raym and Jones and particular that of Sandys and Sandys  vide vol be cite and it be more peer William er p over urge that the  settlement express say that the portion shall be pay at eighteen or marriage  which shall first happen the same be plain due that the trust be to raise the  portion by mortgage or sale this reversionary term must be either mortgage or  sell peer William as also the proviso have say that if the daughter shall die  before her age of eighteen or marriage then the portion be not to be raise  this be a strong indication that if the daughter live for eighteen or marriage  she shall be entitle to her portion that if the settlement have intend the  reversionary term shall not be sell it will certain have be so express  especial when there be a provision therein that no maintenance shall be raise  in the father lifetime then it be observe that the daughter be here a  purchaser of her portion by the mother marriage who appear to have bring pound  and for pound pay so long since it be but a reasonable bargain to be bind to  pay pound at so distant a time from the marriage as this portion become due  and it must be suppose to have be the contract or bargain make by the wife  relation that this portion with the addition of pound at such a distance of  time shall be pay back to the only child of the marriage if a daughter at her  age of eighteen or marriage that as the chief end of secure the portion be to  prefer the daughter in marriage so if this be not do at a seasonable time and  which the settlement have fix at eighteen it may prove whole insignificant for  the father may and probable will marry again and neglect his daughter by his  first wife who may also grow to be fifty year old in the lifetime of her  father and consequent pass marriage before such time as she will become  entitle to her portion peer William last as to the power of revocation it be  insist that when the portion become actual due as here it be it will be then  too late for the power of revocation to divest what be actual vest  attorneygeneral contra this case be not the same with Sandys and Sandys but  extreme different but if it be the court find the grow mischief that have  proceed from the resolution entitle the daughter to their portion at eighteen  out of these reversionary term by tempt they to disobedience to throw off all  their dependence upon their father and to ruin themselves by rash and unequal  match ought at length to make a stand against such mischief though the deed of  settlement say that the portion be Payable at eighteen yet this be not all  which be say in the deed for the other part thereof show that the portion be  not intend to be raise until after the father death and the settlement be to  be take and consider all together and with all the contingency one of the  proviso be that if there shall be no daughter live at the father death and the  wife not ensient then the term for raise portion be to be void now one of  these contingency have happen videlicet the wife be not ensient at his death  the other may happen videlicet there may be no daughter live at the time of  the death of the father and therefore this portion must not be raise until  this latter contingency be also determine and the proviso mean no more than  that if there shall be no daughter live or in ventre sa mere at the father  death then no portion shall be raise peer William it be true it may be think a  hard case suppose the daughter shall marry and die before the father leave  several child that yet she shall have no portion but this must be leave to the  breast of the father who can be suppose to be unkind to his own child on the  other hand in the present case there be a instance of disobedience in the  daughter by her have marry without her father consent a instance which  probable proceed from her dependence upon be able to recover her portion in  despite of her father and this contingency videlicet whether or no a daughter  shall be live at the time of her father death make the case to be exact like  the case of Corbet and Maidwell salk as to the case of Sandys and Sandys there  be no proviso that the term shall be void if no daughter live at the death of  her father nor any such power of revocation as in the present case and the  father be to be consider as much a purchaser of this power of revocation by  make the limitation of the settlement as the daughter a purchaser of her  portion peer William er p Mr Talbot on the same side as to the inconvenience  of the daughter stay a unreasonable time for her portion the same  inconvenience must have be if the mother have live as well as the father there  be no pretence to say that if the father and mother have be both live then the  portion can have be raise peer William the whole deed must be take together  else you will have the intention of the party by half beside the word of the  clause for pay the portion be that the same shall be pay at the daughter age  of eighteen or marriage or as soon after as convenient may be so that it be  consistent with the deed if the portion be pay as soon after the daughter age  or marriage as convenient may be and sure it can be say to be convenient pay  when there be no other way propose for do it but by sell a reversionary term  to the ruin of the family the payment of the maintenance must in the course  and nature of it precede the payment of the portion and no maintenance be to  be pay until after the death of the father by the express word of the  settlement there consequent can be before that time no payment of the portion  the hardship in this case on the family be so visible that if it be but a  doubtful point or in any sort unsettle or vary from former resolution the  court it be apprehend will strain hardto make a distinction in order to  preserve the family to which it be reply by Mr Lutwyche that as to the case of  hardship and that what be pray by the plaintiff will tend to the ruin of the  family the same may be and in act have be urge in all case where the court  have decree the sale of reversionary term for raise portion for daughter in  the lifetime of the father peer William but that it will be as much a hardship  to take it the other way videlicet if the daughter shall marry suitab and die  in the father lifetime leave many child that this daughter shall have no  portion provide for her by the settlement that it have be very easy have the  party so intend it to have insert a proviso in the settlement that the portion  shall not be raise in the father lifetime especial when as observe before it  be provide that no maintenance shall be raise in the father lifetime Lord  chancellor the case of greaves versus Maddison be a strange one and not common  sense I will go just as far and not one jot further than former resolution  have go for raise portion for daughter by the sale of reversionary term and  whenever such a case happen I mean when a daughter apply in order to have the  portion raise in the father lifetime I will study and labour to find out a  difference between that case and the former in order to discountenance such  suit the sense of the nation seem to be with I in this case by there be  general vide vol in the case of butler v Duncomb nowadays a clause insert in  settlement to prevent the sale of a term for raise portion in the lifetime of  the father it be hard that a court of equity shall encourage a daughter just  when she come to fourteen or perhaps twelve year of age to say to her father  come I be fit for my portion pray pay it I or I will marry and then I can  compel the raise of it by he sale of your estate what disobedience will this  breed in a daughter what rash peer William and unequal marriage will this  produce accord I have observe that in most of these case as in the principal  case the daughter have marry without the consent of the father which sure be  fit to be prevent but it be object the father will not in a reasonable time  raise this portion resp but of the two which be fit to be trust the father or  his infant daughter doubtless he must be presume out of his natural affection  to his daughter to be Willing to do her right but the present case differ from  the former case where the portion have be recover by sale of reversionary term  this portion be to be pay at eighteen or marriage or as soon after as the same  shall or may be convenient raise so that it be not to be raise until it can be  do with conveniency now in my opinion it can convenient be raise by sell a  reversion which will incommode the family to that degree as to ruin the estate  for which reason I think it can be convenient raise until the death of the  father beside there be a proviso which make this contingent during the father  lifetime and that be another reason why it can be raise videlicet a proviso  that if the father die without leave a daughter or his wife ensient with a  daughter then the portion be peer William er p not to be raise which proviso  import no more than that if at the death of the father there shall be no  daughter bear or in ventre sa mere then no portion be to be raise peer William  it be true so far have happen that there can be no daughter in ventre sa mere  at the father death no posthumous daughter but still there may be no daughter  live at the father death so that there be a contingency still subsist which  prevent the portion from become due and make this case resemble that of Corbet  and Maidwell as to the proviso which say that if the father provide for the  daughter a portion equal to what be secure by the settlement then the term to  be void by this it seem it must be intend if the father provide such portion  Payable at such time as the portion by the settlement be make Payable  videlicet at eighteen if the portion be construe to be then Payable with  respect to the power of revocation it be still a subsist power and consequent  suspend and prevent the portion from be as yet Payable because the father by  consent of the trustee may yet revoke he may revoke at any time before the  portion be raise and pay and it can be no objection to say that the right to  this portion be vest in the daughter for suppose there have be a son bear then  a right to the remainder will have vest in such son and yet there can be no  doubt but that the father with the consent of the trustee may have revoke this  vest remainder and by the same reason may he with consent c revoke this term  which secure the portion and if the term fall all the trust thereof must fall  also and consequent the trust for raise the portion indeed it have be object  that it will be a breach of trust in the trustee to join in such revocation  peer William but I think it may not be only a justifiable but commendable  thing in the trustee under some circumstance to consent to such revocation as  suppose the daughter shall be draw in to marry some very unworthy man who  shall use her in a most barbarous manner and the daughter shall afterward die  without issue upon which the husband shall sue for the portion in this case it  will be very reasonable in the trustee to join with the father in revoke these  use or suppose the daughter shall have leave child by such marriage it will be  reasonable for the trustee by consent to a revocation to prevent the portion  go to the husband and if practicable to carry it to the child of the daughter  so that this power seem to be still a subsist power which there may be  hereafter very good reason to put in execution for these reason I think the  portion remain as yet liable to a contingency and therefore not to be raise  until this contingency be out of the case which can be during the life of the  father vide butler v Duncombe ante vol this decree be afterward affirm by the  house of lord bro p c bro p c and ed or within as short a time after as the  same shall or may be convenient raise the elder of the daughter to be first  paidand for the yearly maintenance of such daughter or daughter until her or  their portion or portion shall or may be raise as aforesaid if there shall be  but one the yearly sum of pound and if two or more the yearly sum of pound  apiece to be pay to such daughter or daughter upon michaelmasday and ladyday  the first payment thereof to begin upon such of the say feast as shall first  happen next after the death of the father it be the true intent and meaning of  the party that no yearly maintenance shall be due to or raise for any such  daughter or daughter during the life of the father provide that if the  defendant shall die without any daughter by the say mary live at his decease  and she shall not then be ensient of a daughter which shall afterward be bear  and live or if all the daughter c as above bro PC bro p c and ed peer William  er p