case brown versus dawson Eq Abr pl S c vern wms wms vezey atk brown parliament  case vol ib e contra vern wms wms vezey brown Rep a wife part with pound per  and of her jointure and the husband give her a note the his executor shall pay  her that sum during life and he after by will give her pound per and out of  certain land for life hold a satisfaction of the note Henry Dawson have  prevail on his wife to join in sell pound S per and of her jointure and after  pound S per and more and have give two several note that precedent in chancery  er p his executor shall pay her the say twoseveral sum during life he after  make his will and thereby give her pound per and during life out of certain  land and this be hold per curian to be in satisfaction of the note the most  recent authority be that of Devese v pontet all determine at the roll mich  term Nov that S c Cox Felix Devese in covenant by marriage article that in  case Barbara his then intend wife shall survive he and there shall be no issue  of the marriage that his heir executor or administrator shoulder within nine  month after his death pay her pound to be for her own proper use and benefit  and at her own disposal but in case there shall be any child or child bear of  the say marriage that the interest thereof shall be pay to her for her life  and after her decease that the principal shall be pay or divide to and among  such child or child c in the say f d make his will and thereby inter all after  bequeathe several specific article to his wife Barbara Devese direct that all  the debt due to the business which he then carry on shall be collect as soon  as possible that the stock in trade and household good shall be value and the  money that shall be in the public fund and the produce of all be collect he  desire that it shall be divide in two equal share the one to be the property  of his dear belove wife Barbara for her to dispose of as she please the other  to be devolve to his dear belove brother Peter Devese since decease appoint he  his heir general the testator die some time afterward without issue the bill  be file by mary Devese the widow and administratrix of the say Peter Devese  against Barbara Devese the testator widow and other necessary party the  question be whether the disposition under the will shall be hold as a  performance or satisfaction of the covenant in the marriage article master of  the roll how far this case can be construe a performance must be consider from  the term of the covenant to pay pound in nine month but I can see how give her  certain specific article or direct the payment of one half of the residue of  his good can be hold to be a legal performance of the covenant in Blandy v  Widmore wms the principle be lie down whether tie or not that it be a  performance in specie Lord Hardwicke proceed on this ground in lee v daranda  vezey and in Barret v Beckford vezey where he allude to that case and suppose  that he be decide upon the same principle make use of this expression this be  actual payment and performance presume the decision of those case proceed upon  a principle not applicable to the present I shall have no doubt in pass they  by consider this case not to be a performance with respect to its be a  satisfaction in most of the modern authority and since the principle of  satisfaction be establish the court have regret that the case have be carry so  far the rule shall be adhere to as lie down by a very great judge Lord summer  in goodfellow v Burchett vern who observe that case of this nature depend upon  circumstance and when a legacy have be decree a satisfaction it must be ground  upon some express evidence or at least a strong presumption that the testator  intend it as such in Lechmere v Lord Carlisle wms sir I Jekyll hold that the  intention ought to be the guide adopt this rule as unequivocal lie down by  Lord summer I can find any express evidence or strong presumption that this be  intend as a satisfaction if this opinion interfere with the disposition of the  will I shall yield to the argument but I think that it do not for I can say  that he have it in contemplation to satisfy the covenant a further argument  arise from consider what this covenant be it be that pound shall be pay to his  wife within nine month and then a further covenant that in case there shall be  issue that there shall be a provision for they have the testator intend to  perform this covenant it be unreasonable to presume he mean to do so in toto  suppose the wife have be ensient this will will not have provide for that  event here at least be a circumstance which render it doubtful whether he  intend it as a satisfaction and I must say with Lord Thurlow in Haynes v mico  brown if the question be put to I to say whether this be so intend I dare not  say so suppose a account go into and after the expense and delay occasion  thereby the surplus shall be equal to the sum covenant to be pay will this be  a satisfaction if the moiety of a general residue will not be a satisfaction  how do this differ precedent in chancery er p upon the general principle lie  down by Lord summer and the idea that the court have regret that the case have  be carry so far and that all aliquot part of a residue shall not be deem a  satisfaction in concurrence with the authority of Lord Thurlow I be of opinion  that this be not a satisfaction for what the wife be entitle to under the  marriage article