case simons versus rutter maii Eq call ab pl pre Ch S c by marriage article  agree that pound the wife portion shall be invest in a purchase of land to be  settle on husband and wife for their life remainder to the heir of their two  body remainder to the heir of the body of the wife remainder to the plaintiff  the wife brother in fee the wife die without issue and then the husband die  the not be lie out whether this money be to be take as land and go to the  plaintiff to who the fee be limit or as money and go to the executor of the  husband on the marriage of Elizabeth Symonds with John rutter it be agree by  article in write that five hundred pound part of the portion of Elizabeth  shall be place in the hand of sir Francis child and William pain to be place  out at interest until it can be invest in a purchase with the consent of  Elizabeth and John rutter her intend husband in house or land of inheritance  to be settle to the use of John rutter and Elizabeth his intend wife for their  life and the life of the long liver remainder to the heir of their two body  remainder to the heir of the body of Elizabeth remainder to the plaintiff the  brother of Elizabeth and his heir the marriage be afterward have and the five  hundred pound deposit with the trustee before any purchase have Elizabeth die  without issue John rutter survive and receive the interest of the five hundred  pound during his life he be dead the plaintiff now claim the five hundred  pound by virtue of the remainder to he and his heir and as brother and heir of  the say Elizabeth and also as have administration to her de good non  administer by John rutter the husband who survive Elizabeth his wife per  Trevor and Rawlinson the five hundred pound in this case be to be look on as  money and not as land and go to the defendant as administrator to John rutter  the husband Vernon chancery case who survive first because no positive  covenant that it shall be lie out in land second not to be lie out in land but  by the consent of John rutter and Elizabeth his wife vide Lechmere v earl of  Carlisle p wms where the principal case be cite by the master of the roll and  it be there say by he that this clause make no difference for on a convenient  purchase propose the court will have order the money to be lie out unless  reasonable objection make and no purchase make or consent unto and it remain  therefore as money the interest by the article be only appoint to the survivor  and no disposition as to the principal and must go to the administrator of the  husband who survive and the bill dismiss for if settle the husband have per  Hutchins the intention plain it shall be invest in a purchase and plain that a  purchase may have be have after the death of one of they because the survivor  by the article be to have only the interest for his life and though if settle  the husband may have be tenant in tail yet have no issue be only tenant in  tail after possibility of issue extinct and conceive this case govern by the  rule that have be take in the several case of Whitwick and Jermin or Laurence  and Beverley be the same case and by the case of anon and Honywood annand v  honeywood ante Vol S c Kettleby and Attwood ante vol p SC and see the case in  not there for the learning on this head Abbott v lee post p be tenant in tail  and may have bar the issue and must not upon the same circumstance be take as  personal estate which in other case have be look on as land and go as real  estate Vernon chancery case er p