brown v peck that that July see wren v Bradley de g Sm Cartwright v Cartwright  de g m g consider in re more Trafford v Maconochie Ch d devise and legacy from  a uncle to his niece hold not redeem by a advancement upon her marriage  bequest of a allowance to a femecovert on condition she live apart from her  husband hold the condition contra bomos more and void William spark by his  will bear date the that of January devise inter alian to his niece Elizabeth  spark eight dwellinghouse with diverse remainder over and also give her two  several legacy of pound each the testator give to Charles Umphreville who have  marry his niece Rebecca spark five shilling and no more because he have marry  his say niece without the consent of her mother or one of her relation and  after leave his say niece Rebecca Umphreville pound for mourning he direct  that if she live with her husband his executor shall pay her pound per month  and no more but if she live from he and with her mother spark then they shall  allow her pound per month by indenture bear date the that of September make  upon the marriage of Elizabeth spark with the defendant peck the testator  settle five dwellinghouse one of which be the same with one which he have  devise to Elizabeth spark by his will and the sum of pound upon the husband  and wife successive and the issue of the marriage Eden er p upon a bill bring  to have the will establish and Eden explain one question be whether the  advancement by the settlement be a ademption there be another question upon  the amount of the allowance to be make to mrs Umphreville the testator have  four niece and evidence be enter into by the plaintiff to show that he intend  the portion to be a ademption of what be leave by the will but it amount to  nothing more than general declaration that they shall all be equal provide for  the solicitorgeneral and Mr Wilbraham for the plaintiff cite and rely upon  hartop v Whitmore p W and contend that the testator stand in loco parent and  that the case be therefore different from Shudal v Jekyl atk that it be  evident that the testator intend it to be adeemed from the circumstance of the  settlement comprise one of the same house devise by the will and also from the  declaration of the testator Mr Perrot and Mr common for the Umphrevilles the  attorneygeneral and Mr de grey for the Pecks the Lord keeper be of opinion  that the settlement make by the testator on his niece Elizabeth spark be not a  ademption or satisfaction of the devise and bequest make to her in the say  will but that she be entitle both to what she take under the settlement and  what be give to her under the will note the doctrine of ademption of legacy be  confine to the case of parent and person place themselves in loco parent there  be case as Lord Thurlow observe bro c c where a man may describe himself so  that the gift by will and that in his lifetime may be intend for the same  purpose but it must appear that he mean to put himself in loco parent for  there be no case where it have be so hold if the second gift appear to be to  visit to look upon spinks v robin atk Shudal v Jekyll ib grave v Lord  Salisbury bro c c Debeze v Mann bro c c Powell v cleaver ib ellison v Cookson  bro c c Ves jun trim v bayne Ves monk v Lord monk ba be ex part pie Ves vide  also Rumboll v Rumboll post vol bide v bide ib and upon the question whether  mrs Umphreville be entitle to the monthly payment of pound his lordship  declare that he be of opinion that she be and that the Eden condition annex be  both impossible at the time of impose it and contra bomos more the legacy be  simple and pure note of condition contrary to law and good manner vide Swinb  on testament part sect tooth vin ab vern Eden on injunction a three question  upon the consideration of the residuary clause be decide in favour of the  child of the testator nephew and niece live at his death Reg lib b fol