and the overfeers of each part account with each other. Orders of removal and certificates have been frequently made by and to the hamlet, but never by or to the rest of the parish. They have a joint poor house, and the juftices in the cafe ftated for the opinion of the court of K. B. don't find it as a fact that the parish could not reap the benefit of the 43 Eliz. Per cur.-This is only one district, affording one integral fund for the poor of both parts of it. The two parts account with each other, and when one overpays its proportion, it is repaid by the other, and it is merely for their own convenience that they fubdivide themselves; every fact establishes that they can have the benefit of 43 Eliz. and the contrary is not ftated as a fact. Thofe diftricts therefore cannot now be fubdivided, and maintain their own poor feparately. Rex v. Newell, 4 Term Rep. 266.

Portions.

[A]

(A) Raised how.

By Sale or Mortgage, &c.

16Vin. 432.

I.

DIRE

IRECTING a grofs fum to be raised, does not imply that it fhall be raised at once, for it may be raised out of the rents and profits, and so laid up till it amounts to that fum. 1 Atk. 550. Okeden v, Okeden. Nov. 1738.

2. Truft of fettlement or articles after marriage to raise portions for daughters on failure of iffue male, to whom the eftate was limited in tail: decreed to be raised after failure, notwithftanding a general releafe by a daughter, the fettlement not being known. 2 Vef. 305. 1751. Hylton v. Bifcoe.

3. Portions decreed to be raifed under a term in remainder after an estate tail and power of revocation. 2 Vef. 310.

4. Marriage fettlement on husband and wife for life, and truft term if no iffue male, or if all fhould die without iffue male before twenty-one, to raise portions for daughters, &c. A fon attained twenty-one, but died in the father's lifetime without iffue male: the portions are not raifeable, 2 Vef. 331. Worley v. Earl Granville. July 1751.

5. Power to father to raife for younger children not exceeding 3000l. if no appointment the estate charged with 3001. for fons at twenty-one, daughters at twenty-one or marriage. Nothing vested in the father's life, and the representative of one who attained twenty-one and became elder, but died in the father's life, not entitled to a share. 2 Ves. 5 30. 1754. Lader v. Løder.

16Vin. 434.

6. A power in a fettlement to raise a portion for a younger child at fuch time as the parent thould direct, he directs it to be raised when she is fourteen, and the dying, files his bill for it as her administrator, the portion fhall not be raised for the father. 1 Bro, Ch. Rep. 395. Lord Hinchinbroke v. Seymour. July 1784.

(B) At what Time to be raised or paid.

1. WHERE there is a term for years for railing daughters' por

tions, payable at a certain time, and a vested intereft, they fhall not stay till the death of the father and mother; but the court will lay hold of the flightest circumftance in a fettlement, that fhews an intention to poftpone the railing them in the life of the father and mother. 1 Atk. 549. Stanley v. Stanley, Mich. 1737.

2. Where a particular time has been appointed for the payment of a portion, the court has enlarged the power of trustees to raife it within the time. Ibid. 551.

3. A portion given to one payable at a certain age, and if he die, to another, without mentioning any age; if the first die before the time of payment, it vefts in the fecond immediately. Ibid 556.

4. F. C. by will created a term of one hundred years in trust out of rent, or by mortgage to raise portions of 100%. for each of the daughters of His fon 7. C. payable at eighteen, or day of marriage, and 67. a-year for their maintenance till their refpective portions became payable, with a provifo that his fon 7. C. may make a jointure of all or any part of the premises, and alfo a provifo that in cafe such person who fhall be next in remainder expectant on the term of one hundred years shall pay to the daughters of J. C. their portions of 100l. before the same are due, then the term of one hundred years to cease. 7. C. had two daughters but no fon, and left a widow who had a jointure of the whole premifes; E. C. the grandson of the teftator by his fecond fon, is become tenant in tail under the will; G. H. the daughter of J. C. who married eighteen years fince, brought the bill to have her portion raifed immediately: the portions cannot be raised in the lifetime of the jointrefs fo as to affect her, for when J. C. executed the power the estate arcfe out of the will of J. C., and is prece dent to the one hundred years term. 2 Atk. 355. Hall v. Carter, July 1742.

5. Of late the court has refused to raise daughters' portions in the lifetime of the father, and fome times the court has refused in favour of the remainder man. 2 Atk. 356. 1742. Hall v. Carter.

6. Conveyancers now infert negative words to prevent portions being raised in the father and mother's lifetime. Ibid. 357

7. The trust of a term here was for raifing portions for a daughter in default of iffue male, payable at twenty-one or mar

riage; the mother died leaving no fon, and only one daughter, the plaintiff's wife, who, with her husband, brought this bill against the father and the truttees to raise the portions immediately: the court held, she was not entitled to have it raised in the

father's lifetime. 3 Atk. 39. Stevens v. Dethick. Feb. 1743.

8. The court reluctantly raifes portions or interest on them out of reverfionary terms. 3 Atk. 416. 1746. Lyon & ux. v. Duke of Chandos.

9. Portions are not to be raised for the representative of a chi. dying before he wanted it. 2 Vef. 209.

Tey ham v. Webb.

1750. Lord

10. Portions by will are governed by rules from the civil law or ecc efi itical court, which are not applicable to a deed. Hubert v. Partons 2 Vf. 262.

1751.

11. Th- conttruction of portions is when the children want them.

Ibid. 203.

12. Settlement by father and fon, after marriage of the fon, on the fun and his wife for their lives, remainder to Robert the grandfon and his heirs male, in ftrict fettlement, remainder to trustees for two hundred years; the truft was declared to raise a portion for the daughter of the fon on the death of the grandfon without iffue male; a power was given to the grandfon to jointure; the grandfon marries and executes the power and died without iffe male; held, the portion not raifeable till after the death of the jointrefs. Ambl. 335. Churchman v. Harvey. June

1757.

13. Portions for daughters in case of failure of iffue male ordered to be raised in the lifetime of the mother. Ambl. 633. 1756. Smith v. Evans.

14. Portions charged on a reverfionary fund fhall not in general be raised till the perfon comes into poffeffion; yet when it is exprefsly directed under a power, that they shall be raised as foon as may be, they fhall bear intereft from the death of the teftator. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 267. Conway v. Conway, Trin. 1791,

(C) How much to be raised and paid.

tenance in what Cafes.

473

And Main- 15Vin.439

1. PORTIONS charged on eftates to pay in equal rates and proportions are meant to be paid pro ratá as to the value of the estates. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 286. Wardell v. Wardell. Eaft.

1793.

2. Settlement on marriage to the ufe of the husband for life, remainder to trustees for five hundred years in truft after the death of the husband and not before, unless with his confent as therein mentioned, to raise portions for younger children, to be paid in fuch fhares and at fuch times as the husband and wife fhould appoint, in default of appointment to be paid, if but one befides an eldest or only fon, 5000/. if two 6oool, if three 8000l.

and

and if four or more 10,000l., equally to be paid respectively at twenty-one or marriage, if daughters, if after the age of fixteen, if fuch times of payment happen after the death of the husband; if in his lifetime, then within twelve months after his decease and not before, unlefs with fuch confent; provided, that if any of fuch younger chil iren fhould die before his, her, or their portions fhould become payable, so that the number should be reduced to lefs than four, no more fhould be raised than what would make the whole fum for the portion of the furvivor or furvivors of fuch younger children, equal to the fum originally limited for the por tion or portions of fuch child or children, if one, two, or three. Three younger children only furvived their father, but more than four had attained twenty-one, the fum to be raised is 10,000l. 3 Vef. jun, 51. Willis v. Willis. Feb. 1796.

3. The court leans against the construction for raifing portions or maintenance out of a reverfionary term; and upon that principle, when the term fell into poffeffion, and the portion was raifed, refufed to charge the difference between the fum annually allowed by the infant's grandfather for her maintenance, and the fum charged. 4 Vef, jun. 440. Lady Clinton v. Lord Robert SexMarch 1799.

anour.

16Vin. 442. (D. 2) Maintenance or Intereft, payable in what Cafes and from what Time.

I.

1. THE principal of a portion directed to be paid to fons at twenty-one, to daughters at twenty-one or marriage, with intereft at 5 per cent. per ann. from the death of the father, to the payment thereof; the intereft ought not to accumulate till the por tions are payable, but to be paid annually, for it is given as a re compence in the meantime, till the principal becomes due. 1 Atk. 553. Boycott v. Cotton. Nov. 1738,

2. Whether a portion charged on land be given with or without intereft, by deed or will, if the perfon die before it becomes payable, it fhall fink in the estate. Ibid. 155.

3. But the maintenance is a prefent charge, and is not poft. poned till the term comes into poffeffion, and no harm can arise from mortgaging the reverfion, as the arrears must be satisfied the moment the terms come into poffeffion. 2 Atk. 357. Hale v. Carter.

1743.

4. And the defendant cannot redeem the term and exonerate the estate without paying intereft for the portions the moment they become due. Ibid. 358.

5. Portion on real estate carries intereft, though not mentioned, Earl of Pomfret v. Lord Windfor. 2 Vef. 487. 1752.

6. Portions for younger children under a fettlement; the fa ther provides other wife for one, intending 10,000l. each for the reft. They are confined to that, and are not also to claim an equivalent for the other fhare out of the provifion made. It would

be

be otherwife if they had no other fatisfaction. 2 Vef. 123. 1750. Duke of Bridgewater v. Egerton.

(E) Who is entitled by the Limitation, and how.

BY

Y fettlement on the marriage of H. A. with 7. C., in case there was no iffue male, and there fhould be daughters living at the death of the father, who fhould attain twenty-one, or be married, then fuch daughters fhould have 2000l. a-piece; there were no fons, and three daughters only; the defendant, who was one, married A. D. and previous to his marriage covenanted to align, with his wife's confert, 500l. to trustees in truft after the death of A. D., and the defendant to pay it amongst the children of the bodies of the defendant and A. D., and that he fhould, after the marriage, affign to the trustees all the money and fecurities for it then due and belonging to the defendant. H. A. died in 1744, A. D. in 1745, inteftate, to whom the defendant administered and received the 2000l.; the children, who are a fon and a daughter, have a right to the portion, and decreed to be fecured for their benefit. 3 Atk. 530. Bush v. Dalway. July 1747:

(G) Vested in what Cafes.

1.ON a fettlement previous to a marriage, the truft of a term

was in cafe the husband fhould have no iffue male, and there fhould be iffue daughters, &c., to raife, if two daughters, 25,000l., to be paid to them when they attain twenty-one or are married, but not to be raised till after the death of their grandfather; the father died, and left iffue two daughters only; the grandfather is dead; bill by plaintiff in right of his wife, one of the daughters, for 12,500l. and intereft from the time of the marriage: held, the portion vested at the marriage, and therefore intereft was decreed. 3 Atk. 416. Lyon v. Duke of Chandos. Feb. 1746.

2. Portions in a fettlement of a term after the mother's death for the defendant, to grow due and payable at twenty-one or marriage, one daughter after twenty-one and marriage, died in the lifetime of the mother; her portion fhall go to her reprefentative, and not to her fifter. 1 Vef. 208. Emperor v. Rolfe. Feb. 1748.

3. By marriage fettlement 1500l. were provided for younger children in fuch fhares as the parents fhould appoint, in default of appointment to all the children after the death of the wife; the parents afterwards made an appointment excluding one child: this deed vefts the portions in the other childrn, born or to be born. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 162. Mayhew v. Middleditch. Trin. 1782.

4. Portions by a marriage fettlement to be paid, transferred, or affigned to the fons at twenty-one, to the daughters at twenty

one,

16 Vin 444

16Vin. 444.