case Laurence versus Laurence widow SC bro p c see fan v Henry dr W Roland v  Cuthbertson l r Eq dower Act will c S novemb Eq can ab pl Eq can ab pl pl  Freem SC one by will give a legacy to his wife and devise to her part of his  real estate during her widowhood and devise the residue of his whole estate to  I S for life remainder to his first son c whether if the wife accept of this  devise it do not bar her of her dower Mr Laurence by his will devise some  legacy out of his personal estate to his wife and devise to her part of his  real estate during her widowhood and devise the residue of his estate to  trustee for twentyone year for payment of debt and legacy the remainder of the  whole estate he devise to the plaintiff who be his godson and of his name but  a remote relation for life and to his first and other son in tail c in this  case the Lord chancellor summer be of opinion that although what be give to  the wife be not declare to be in lieu and satisfaction of dower and although  no estate for life be devise to her but only during widowhood yet that in  equity it ought to be take that what be so devise Vernon chancery case be  intend to be in lieu and satisfaction of dower and that it may be plain  collect and intend from the will that it be so intend because he have thereby  devise all other his real estate to other use and a collateral satisfaction  may be a good bar to dower in equity though not pleadable at law and decree  that she must either take her dower and waive the devise or accept the devise  and waive her dower this decree be afterward reverse by Lord keeper wright  that Nov Lord keeper wright conceive there be nothing in the testator will  that show a intention to bar defendant of her dower and in case any such thing  do appear by the will it will only be a bar at law where the matter have be  already determine his lordship therefore reverse so much of Lord some decree  as award a injunction against defendant proceed at law and order that so much  of the bill as seek relief touch the dower shall stand dismiss afterward in  hill term the next remainderman bring his bill to be relieve against defendant  judgement in dower and for a account which cause come on before Cowper Lord  chancellor that December who declare that Lord keeper wright determination  have ever since remain unquestioned he shall not vary it but nevertheless  decree a account afterward that may the widow appeal to the lord from the  decree of Lord Cowper so far as it concern the point of dower and there appear  to their lordship no direction in decree that so much of the bill as relate to  the question of dower shall be dismiss their lordship order the bill to stand  dismiss as to that point bro p c journ Ho lord vol p with pound cost Eq can ab  pl and see incledon v Northcote atk as to the claim of dower it appear that at  the commonlaw a jointure upon a woman even of full age will not bar her dower  before stat Henry cap   Litt b et vide note where the principal case mention  but by that stat jointure will bar Harvey v Ashley atk earl of buck v Drury  bro p c Eden but it must among other requisite to a effectual bar be express  or aver to be in satisfaction of dower   Litt ub sup but a man may by certain  act at law bar a wife of dower from which the intent be infer as where there  be a fine by way of render per master of the roll Baden v earl of Pembroke  ante p so where the husband only a trustee though contrary to Nash v Preston  cro car it appear from a m S note that the above case of Nash v Preston be  cite in chancery that July before jefferies Lord chancellor in a case between  the creditor of the earl of Pembroke and his heir and by his lordship and the  judge assist namely Lutwyche and Powell and by the bar unanimous declare to be  against equity and the constant course of chancery vide Bacon tract and such  say to be the constant practice of the court Noel v jevon mich Freem so where  the husband beneficiary and trust or entitle only to the equity of redemption  of mortgage in fee vide case cite in note bank v Sutton p wms but this court  require that the intention to bar shall be plain lemon v lemon vin ab pl  Charles v Andrews Mod Hitchin v Hitchin pre Ch post SC brown v Parry dick the  report of which be very short but it seem by that case as though the opinion  of the court be that in a devise or bequest to the wife in order to be a bar  it must be express it appear however as a general principle that the intention  will do walker v walker ves which be the case of a covenant before marriage to  settle part of a real estate in bar of dower out of all land of freehold and  inheritance of the husband of which he be then or shall ever thereafter be  seize and which be hold to bar the widow from claim free bench in copyhold  land after purchase and it be clear dower may be bar by provision for the wife  though not express to be by way of jointure ibidem and Eldon Lord chancellor  seem to be of opinion that a covenant by the husband in marriage settlement  that widow shall within six month after his death have a conveyance payment  and assignment of one full and clear moiety of all such real and personal  estate as the husband shall be seize and possess of or entitle to at his  decease will be imply to be a provision in bar of dower garthshore v Chalie  Ves but not decide on that point see coat v Needham ante and note Vernon  chancery case er p