Charles Blois all plaintiff versus dame jane Blois and jane Blois infant  DEFENDANS mich year car two see the same case Chan Rep c the case be thus sir  William Blois who have issue the plaintiff and two daughter by a former  venture and jane the defendant by a second venture upon his second marriage  settle land for the jointure of his wife and after her decease in case he have  issue only a daughter to raise l for that daughter to be pay her at the day of  marriage so Ventris er p that she marry after sixteen or otherwise at the age  of eighteen year and if she die before either then his heir to have the  benefit afterward sir William Blois by his will devise the reversion of his  settle land and all his other estate to jane his relict one of the defendant  and three other and say that after the son by a convenient match shall have  raise l for his three daughter that then they shall let the son the now  plaintiff have his estate the question be now that if the daughter by the  second venture have l pay her whether she shall have any far benefit by the  settlement and so take a double portion one upon the will and another upon the  settlement the decree make by my Lord finch be that if the heir pay l the  security by the settlement shall be discharge the will be but cumulative  security and so the defendant jane be to have but one l and be subject to the  same contingency with the settlement and give the heir two year time to pay  the Morley devise and in the mean time jane to have a three part of the profit  of the lan Ventris my Lord chancellor cite one pine case where a man have  secure portion for his child and afterward by his will devise to each of they  a like sum it be hold that this will not double their portion unless plain  prove that he intend to do so notam if one sue in chancery a executor of one  obligor to discover asset you must make all the obligors party that the charge  may lie equal queare whether you may not sue the principal and leave out they  that be bind only as surety but it be clear that if a judgement be bad at law  against one obligor you may sue the executor of he alone to discover asset c  because the bind be drown in the judgement