case cleaver ux versus spurling S c Eq Cas Abr p wms at the roll a child full  advance be bar from her customary share the father of mrs cleaver a freeman of  London make his will and thereby recite that whereas he have no child but mrs  cleaver who he have full advance on her marriage he have a power to dispose of  his whole personal estate mosely report which he therefore devise as per will  the testator die and the plaintiff file this bill against the executor for a  account of the personal estate and the question be whether mrs mosely report  er p spurling be entitle to her orphanage share or whether this declaration in  the bill shall bar her master of the roll I be of opinion that the daughter be  marry with the father consent and the husband have admit in his bill that he  receive pound portion and it be in proof that the father portion all his  daughter on their marriage though the witness do not know what the portion  amount to especial the marriage be about forty year ago together with the  declaration in the will be a sufficient evidence that the daughter be full  advance and be the best evidence the executor can give now the father be dead  and the husband be a party and this advancement will bar her of her orphanage  part and I find myself on the writ de rational part will do you much good king  b which be a topical writ and lie in Wales York and London where the child by  the custom be entitle to a orphanage share and the word of the writ be who in  vita father of oneself non preferred thing to be and it be say the custom be  the same in all these place so that the writ lie only for child unadvanced and  therefore advancement be a bar and the supposition be that the child be full  advance if the sum do not appear in London a child advance whether she be a  sole orphan or whether there be more child shall be let into her orphanage  portion if it appear under the freeman hand that she be not full advance but  if the certainty do not appear in that manner it be presume that she be full  advance and I never know a inquiry direct by this court what the child receive  but it must appear under the father hand for how can such a inquiry be  practicable after the death of the father when it be the interest of the child  to suppress the truth the case of Dane versus de la war vern be several time  before the court there the father have enter the sum advance by he in his book  of account and upon the master take a account the advancement appear not to be  equal to a three part of the freeman estate but if on the inquiry it have come  out to be equal or more it will have bar her in the case of chase ux versus  the executor of sir Ralph box sir Ralph box in order to bar his daughter of  her orphanage share who have marry the plaintiff without his consent by the  advice of sergeant Pemberton which be take from   he declare by his will that  he have full advance his daughter in marriage and mention the sum mosely  report which upon a account before the master be find not to be a full  advancement she be admit to her orphan part by the very mean her father  propose to have bar her of it and it be no objection here that if the father  will shall be take as a evidence of the advancement the child will be at the  mercy of the parent because there be other concurrent evidence to confirm it  vern Chan Cas salk   light b Mr peer William for the defendant the testator  give his daughter the plaintiff a legacy of thirtyfive pound in case she or  her husband shall not sue molest or trouble his executor for her customary  share but do or shall upon payment or tender of the say legacy execute a good  and sufficient release thereof and in case they or any of they shall sue or  refuse or neglect such payment or release then he devise it over to another  this bill be plain a breach of one word of the condition which can be construe  to be in terror because of the devise over master of the roll in the case of  Clare versus Acmooty the testator give a legacy to his wife on condition she  shall not trouble his executor or sue or molest he for her widow share she  file a bill against the executor for a account of the personal estate of her  husband and this be adjudge to be no forfeiture of her legacy because she have  a right to inquire whether her legacy or her customary share be of most value  which can not appear till the master have take a account but here such a  inquiry be unnecessary for the plaintiff be bar of her customary share by a  full advancement from her father and so have no election and the legacy be  devise over the court can give the plaintiff no relief because it can mitigate  the condition as to they without injure the right of the other and therefore I  be of opinion that the plaintiff have forfeit this legacy mosely report er p  mosely report Saturday June the saint rehear