bide v bide April a upon his second marriage settle land to raise pound for  the child of the marriage have four child by that marriage he by his will in  which he take no notice of the settlement give pound to each of they as his  and her portion hold that they be not entitle to portion under both instrument  and that as they have accept the provision by the will they be bind by such  acceptance SC Cox Ralph skinner bide have issue by a former wife one son John  bide on who his real estate be settle upon his second marriage by indenture of  settlement bear date the d of July in consideration of his marriage and the  marriage portion settle other land on himself and his wife Sarah for their  life and the life of the survivor remainder to trustee and their heir in trust  to sell the same to his son John bide for pound for the provision and  maintenance of such child as lie shall have by his second marriage to be give  and distribute to and among such child and Eden child some or any of they as  he and his wife shall by deed or write c appoint and in default of such  appointment to such child equal to be divide between they as tenant in common  if more than one if but one then the whole to such only child with remainder  in default of such issue to his own right heir and if the say son shall refuse  to accept the land at that price or shall be dead before the event happen in  trust to sell for the most money and distribute the same in manner aforesaid r  S bide have three child live by his second wife who be pregnant and be seize  in fee of considerable freehold estate by his will date that July recite that  his meaning be to provide for the maintenance of his say child give pound to  each of his three child by name as and for his and her portion respective and  pound to such child as his wife shall be enceinte with to be pay at their  respective age of twentyone year if male if female at twentyone year or  marriage with interest at per cent for maintenance in the meantime and if any  shall happen to die before c the portion of such child or child to go to the  survivor or survivor and if all the child of the second marriage shall die  then to go to the say John bide the son of the first marriage and he charge  all his land whatsoever of which he have any power to dispose with payment  aswell of his say portion as of his debt and legacy after the testator death  the say John bide pay the pound portion and give notice to the trustee that he  accept the purchase upon the term of the settlement and call upon they for a  conveyance but before any conveyance can be make he die leave the defendant  his cousin his devisees and executor the testator widow die in the plaintiff  be the only Eden survive child of the second marriage bring the bill to have  the purchase complete and to be satisfy the pound out of John bide asset over  and above the portion she have receive under the will the only question be  whether she be entitle to both or only one of the provision the  attorneygeneral the solicitorgeneral and Mr perrott for the plaintiff the gift  by this will can be take as a satisfaction of the settlement the general rule  of the court be certain that where a portion be give by will by a parent to a  Eden er p child entitle to a similar provision under a settlement the court  presume that the testator mean it as a satisfaction there be so many case  about portion satisfy or increase that it will be needless to run through they  all Bloyes v Bloyes cit vern Thomas v keney ib Savile v Savile vin ab Copley v  Copley p W Grimes v Alleyn but in every one of the case upon this subject  except the single one of Jesson v Jesson vern it have be hold requisite that  it shall either be the same sum or a great the inclination of the court  against double portion have always be influence by the apparent intention of  the donor for there be no doubt that if he intend a satisfaction they must be  bind but such never can have be his intention in the present case first  because the sum be not the same but less the issue of the second marriage be  entitle to pound under the settlement and to pound only by the will second  because it be not of the same nature by the settlement they be make tenant in  common by the will the portion be to survive under the will by one contingency  they may take the whole land for in case of the heir refuse to purchase the  issue of the second marriage will be entitle to the whole land Eden the devise  be make to visit to look upon videlicet for their provision and maintenance  during the life of the mother because under the settlement the trustee can not  raise the portion till after the mother death the court have never hold that a  less sum shall go in satisfaction of any great because it will not preclude a  testator from be bountiful as well as just Mr jewel Mr de grey and Mr Hoskins  for the defendant this case be very different from all the case of  satisfaction between debtor and creditor for there equity suppose the testator  mean to satisfy because it be natural every man shall be just before he be  generous but the case of child go upon another ground because equity be averse  to double portion which will great encumber the inheritance and therefore  presume wherever a parent have give a child a portion it be all he mean that  child shall take unless there be circumstance and wherever a child be entitle  to a portion under a settlement and a parent give by will another it be  presume to be in satisfaction unless the contrary appear as when land at  commonlaw be give in frankmarriage such child can not come in as a coparcener  and as to its be a less sum that can be no objection because a less sum raise  at one time may be more than equal to a large at another so in Jesson v Jesson  there be no doubt of its be a satisfaction pro tanto the only question be  whether it shall not be take as a satisfaction for the whole second as to the  testator intention which alone can overrule this principle it be clear that he  mean to give this pound in satisfaction of a settlement that be as far as he  can by offer something conditional to they in lieu of their provision under  the settlement he have give this as a portion eastern nomin which they may it  be true have reject and claim under the settlement but in fact the provision  Eden under the will be more beneficial for that be present and with interest  in the mean time until come of age by way of maintenance whereas that under  the settlement be future and uncertain when it be to happen be not raiseable  till after the mother death who be young and no interest in the mean time and  this be still more forcible in the present case because the child have accept  the portion under the will upon come of age the Lord chancellor the bill be  bring by the plaintiff to have her share of portion which be to be raise under  the deed of settlement of the d of July and her claim be find on this that the  father mean to give the child of the second marriage portion by his will  beyond and independent of what they may be entitle to under the settlement  there be two objection to their claim the first be that of have a double  portion the second which I think be very material be that they accept the  portion give under the will the plaintiff have anticipate the first objection  by endeavour to distinguish the present from the case of a double portion they  say that a double portion must first be a legacy equal to the portion second  equal beneficial and three the same nature and certain and it be true that  where the question arise upon a simple devise of a legacy of a sum to a child  without intimation of the amount and intend d application of it these be  establish rule but I think they do not apply to the present nor to any case  wherein the intent of the testator be manifest as I think it be here and  express declare in his will for it be a everlasting maxim of law and equity  that every man may impose what term he please on his gift and legacy therefore  the question be primary what be the testator intent Eden er p Eden the case in  short be no more than this b S bide settle land on himself for life remainder  to his wife for life remainder to trustee and their heir in trust after the  death of the wife to convey to I bide his son and heir by a former wife upon  his pay pound and if he refuse or neglect to purchase the same then to sell  for the most money and distribute the same equal among the child of the second  marriage for their provision and maintenance in case the father and mother  have make no joint appointment in their life after this without take any  notice of the settlement by his will he give pound to such child pound to each  of they as his and her portion it be insist that I must construe this  expression not accord to the entire idea which the word obvious convey and the  grammatical sense of it but that I must take it as additional as a further  portion or part of portion now with the utmost attention I have be able to  give I think I shall do violence to the will if I be to put so narrow a  construction upon the word the whole collocation as the grammarian call it of  the sentence indicate that the testator mean to express one entire thing  videlicet a portion or full portion the expression be perfect and fit adapt to  a single idea and as he know there be a provision under the settlement he can  never express himself in word so entire in their meaning if he have intend to  give a additional portion this seem to I a insurmountable reason arise from  the context of the will to take it accord to the express sense of the word and  that his intention be they shall have their option to take it in lieu of the  provision under the settlement why then if this be his intent the objection  take and arise from the inequality from the sum not be equal beneficial or  certain be not for I to determine Eden for they have be determine already by  the best judge videlicet by the party themselves for then the legacy be  conditional and the party accept must be bind by his acceptance note as to  acceptance of conditional legacy vide Eden if a man give a curiosity of art or  a natural production by way of satisfaction of a debt or a portion and the  legatee accept it though the value be less than the debt there can be no  ground for equity to interpose for so equity will control the natural power of  one party to give and the other to accept what be offer all the case where the  testator meaning be not plain be not applicable to the present I be clear the  testator be disjunctive and that he have not particular in view either the  pound or pound but mean to each child a election to accept or refuse such  share or legacy under the will this opinion be cite and approve by Lord c b  Eyre in his judgement in the case of dyer v dyer Cox a lead case upon the  doctrine of advancement and where all the prior case be advert to he observe  that it will have be a more simple doctrine if the child have be consider as  purchaser for valuable consideration he collect the clear result of all the  case as follow that the trust of a legal estate whether freehold copyhold or  leasehold whether take in the name of purchaser or other joint or in the name  of other without that purchaser whether in one name or several whether joint  or successive result to the man who advance the purchasemoney that this result  trust may be rebut by circumstance in evidence that the circumstance of one or  more of the nominees be a child or child of the purchaser be to operate by  rebut the result trust and that such circumstance shall do so as a  circumstance of evidence see also Glaister v hewer Ves finch v finch Ves  Prankerd v Prankerd S and S to repel the presumption evidence of the father  intention must be contemporaneous with the payment of the purchasemoney  Murless v franklin Swa bill dismiss Reg lib a fol Eden er p