case Weyland versus Weyland may where a husband by a settlement before  marriage be oblige to do a particular thing for the benefit of the wife and he  do a thing equal satisfactory the court will presume a satisfaction by  implication vide peacock v Glascock Charles Rep mark Weyland on his marriage  with the defendant in by marriagesettlement convey ten long annuity of ten  pound a year each to trustee in trust to permit he to enjoy they during his  life then to permit his intend wife to enjoy they for her life with a  remainder to all her child of the marriage equal this limitation be subject to  two proviso first that the husband and wife with the consent of the trustee  may dispose of these annuity absolute and no provision be make for any other  settlement in case they do so a second proviso that it shall be lawful for mrs  Weyland after the death of her husband to disclaim the benefit of these  annuity and in such case she shall enjoy such share or interest of and in his  personal atkins er p estate as she will be entitle to in case he be a freeman  of London at the time of his death atkins and in case she elect to take as a  freeman widow the annuity be to go to the executor and administrator of Mr  Weyland about the year Mr Weyland without the consent of his wife sell these  annuity and convert the money arise by sale to his own use note with the  consent of and his wife subscribe the say annuity order into the S S company  and receive the money arise thereby to his own use in Mr Weyland upon the  marriage of his old son settle pound old and new South sea annuity upon  himself for life then upon mrs Weyland fr life remainder to his son for life  with remainder to his intend wife for life with remainder to the issue of the  marriage c in Mr Weyland who never be a freeman of London die intestate leave  a widow and several child and this bill be bring by some of the child to have  a account and distribution of his estate and the two follow point be make  first whether the estate for life limit to mrs Weyland by the settlement in be  not to be take as a satisfaction for her interest in the long annuity in the  settlement of and consequent oblige to elect whether she will take that or  come in as a freeman widow and wave the benefit of it second whether before  the son can be admit to come in for his share of the intestate estate he must  not bring in the whole pound old and new Southsea annuity into hotchpot or  only so much as his estate for life in those annuity be value at Lord  chancellor I think the wife under the first settlement may if she wave her  annuity take her share as a freeman widow and also her share under the statute  of distribution in the testamentary three as to the question of satisfaction I  be of opinion that she must make her election and that the provision in the  second settlement be a imply satisfaction for her interest under the first  vide Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol and note by the first proviso the settlement  be entire in the power f the husband and wife for if they sell these annuity  there be a end of the settlement and the child can claim nothing and in such  case there be a end of her election likewise for that suppose they in be at  the time of his death so if after the death of Mr Weyland she disclaim these  annuity the child can have no benefit of the settlement for in that case they  be to go to the executor of the husband atkins if no second settlement have be  make she will have have a right as against her husband who have dispose of  these annuity without her consent to be satisfy for they out of his estate  subject to the election give her by the deed this show that the husband by his  disposition of they become a debtor to her for this provision and must be so  consider at the time of make the second settlement the question then arise  upon the effect of the deed and be whether or not she can claim that e  provision make for her as a mere bounty and also her share of the personal  estate by the proviso in the first deed the general rule be that where a party  to a deed be oblige to do a particular thing for the benefit of another and he  do a thing equal satisfactory the intent be answer this court will presume a  satisfaction by implication some exception allow to this rule now if in this  case the husband by his act be become a debtor for this provision it be the  same as if be have by the article original be bind to make it if he have be so  bind by article or a covenant I know no case wherein this court have not  consider such subsequent settlement to be a satisfaction and I think his be  bind to do it by his own act be the same thing suppose a covenant to settle  land and the person suffer land to descend it be a presumptive satisfaction  wilcocks v wilcocks vern Hern v Hern vern and the case of brown v Dawson vern  come very near to this vide Blandy v Widmore Cox p W note lee v DAravda post  vol there be no difference between a deed and a will except that the  presumption of satisfaction be strong in the case of a deed than of a will  where a bounty be suppose to be intend to this it have be object that this can  be a satisfaction to her because it can be a satisfaction throughout videlicet  to the child and the rule have be lie down atkins er p down that the  satisfaction must be commensurate to the thing satisfy and a total  satisfaction to all the party and here it be no satisfaction to the child but  the child by the first deed be leave absolute in the power of the husband and  wife and if she elect her widow share they be to be total deprive Mr Weyland  therefore have no reason to think himself bind to satisfy they and it be the  same thing to they as they be entitle to a equal share of the residue atkins  but I think that the rule lie down be not a right one the case of wilcocks v  wilcocks be contrary to it for there be a constructive satisfaction not  coextensive with the deed to all where land descend have be hold a  satisfaction I know no case where the court have direct a settlement of those  land so as to answer the remainder over I think therefore that this provision  for the wife be a satisfaction for her demand under the former settlement but  subject to her power of election which no act of his can deprive her of as to  the second question what the son advance be to bring into hotchpot I be of  opinion that where a father make a provision for a son on his marriage all the  limitation in such settlement to the wife and child of such son must be  consider as part of that advancement and it be not the child estate for life  only that ought to be value and bring in note his lordship direct the master  to set a value on the say pound S S annuity settle in for the benefit of the  plaintiff his wife and child in compute and settle whereof the plaintiff be to  be charge with thefull value thereof deduct only the value of the estate and  interest limit to that e plaintiff father for life c the intent of the statute  be to make all equal and if a daughter portion be covenant by her husband to  be lie out in land and settle it will be very strange if that shall make any  alteration or give her a better right to the residue of her father estate so  if the son have die in the life of the father leave child if his advancement  only be to be bring in they will be oblige to bring nothing into hotchpot and  yet will be entitle to a equal share with his other child I which will be  direct contrary to the intent of the statute Lord Hardwicke declare that the  provision make for the defendant and Weyland the widow by mark Weyland the  intestate in his lifetime by give her a estate for life in the pound Southsea  annuity mention in the deed of the that of may ought in equity to be consider  as a satisfaction to her for the ten long annuity of pound a year each settle  by the deed of the that of march but the defendant and Weyland the widow have  signify her consent to relinquish any interest or benefit in the pound  Southsea annuity and to take a proportion of the intestate personal estate as  she can have claim or be entitle to in case he have be a freeman of London at  the time of his decease Lord Hardwicke declare that she be entitle to her  widow chamber and paraphernalia and to onethird of the clear atkins surplus of  the intestate personal estate and to a three part of another three of the say  surplus of the personal estate and that the dividend of the pound Southsea  annuity which have accrue and shall accrue from the death of the intestate  during the life of and Weyland the widow ought to be pay to the administrator  of mark Weyland and consider as part of his personal estate and decree that  the widow chamber and paraphernalia be deliver to and Weyland and that the  clear surplus of the intestate personal estate after payment of his debt be  divide into three equal part onethird whereof to be pay to and Weyland the  widow and one other three to be divide between the plaintiff and the defendant  the other child of mark Weyland and the remain three to be divide into three  equal part one three whereof be to be pay to the say and Weyland and the other  two three to be equal divide between the plaintiff and the defendant Reg lib b  fol atkins er p