case brewin versus brewin follow remnant v hood de g f I refer to Davies v  Huguenin h m sub nom bruen v bruen n r henly v wrey Ch d and on appeal Ch d  may ante post Eq Abr pl S c atk S c cite by Lord h who observe it be exact  right as here report brown Rep S c cite a term be create by marriage  settlement to raise pound for daughter portion within twelve month after the  death of the survivor of the husband and wife there be one daughter the father  devise the trust land to make good his wife jointure and to raise pound for  his daughter portion the daughter shall not have two portion of pound and she  die at the age of five year and the portion to be raise out of land it shall  not be raise for her administrator but the interest or maintenance the child  be entitle to shall a man by his marriage settlement create a term for a raise  pound for a daughter and daughter of that marriage to be equal divide between  they if more than one and to be pay within a year after his and his wife death  then he by will have one daughter his only child and heir devise the  inheritance of several land to his wife to make up her jointure pound per and  and for raise pound for his daughter portion without limit any time of payment  and devise the say land so charge by the settlement with the pound to his  brother the daughter bring a bill against the devisee of the land to have the  pound or foreclosure but die it be observe in Eq Abr that the daughter die  within the year pen the suit about five year of age her mother administer and  revive the suit and insist on the case of the earl of river versus Derby Eq  Abr pl S c vern S c and that there be no provision for maintenance for the  daughter till the portion become Payable and therefore it be Payable present  the defendant allege by his counsel that if the case rest on the deed alone  the plaintiff can have no right and the will do not mend it the pound  precedent in chancery by that be the same as the pound by the deed for they do  not demand two pound and then it must stand on the deed as to the time of  payment the will have appoint no time at all but take it in the most  favourable sense for the infant it can be construe be a portion precedent in  chancery er p Payable only when she want a portion which can not be at five  year old and this case be upon the reason of all the case of debt is owed in  presenti to loosen in going to be and so within the rule of paulet versus  paulet vent and the will be only to better the fund the settlement be  defective in value and be plain not substantive but relative to the deed and  if it be it will be against they for be a portion and out of land it will sink  for the benefit of the heir and the distinction between a deed and a will have  be explode even in that case Lord keeper if it have be a personal legacy it  must have be pay and that present though the child die before the appoint day  or as a devise out of land by the will though no time of payment limit but  here the will be relative to the settlement and both make but one security and  by the will the portion shall have be raise in a reasonable time when the  child come to want it but not present though she shall have have reasonable  maintenance in the mean time it be within the rule of all the former case in  case of a personal legacy Payable at or marriage I think the court always  appoint maintenance out of the interest of it but not if express limit  otherwise in the mean time and the bill be dismiss by the master of the roll  and affirm on appeal but the land be charge with mark per and maintenance for  the child white it live