case HAYFORD wainwright and Elizabeth his wife against BENLOWS senior and  BENLOWS junior Michaelmas g real estate devise to be sell and the surplus  subject to debt and legacy give from the heir at law residue of personal  bequeathe to the testator sister who be make sole executrix the real estate  shall exonerate the personal from payment of debt and legacy lib Reg b foe S c  Prec Ch Verm hill ms Thomas Benlows brother of plaintiff Elizabeth and  defendant John Benlows senior by his will date that February devise his land  tenement and hereditament in Kirklington c to the say John Benlows junior for  his life and after his decease to his brother Philip Benlows for life and  after his decease to the heir male of the body of Thomas Benlows the testator  father and direct that his household good at his house at b shall go along  with his house to his brother and be preserve for the benefit of his heir the  rest of his land and tenement he devise to the plaintiff Hayford and to the  defendant John Benlows senior to be sell for payment of his debt and the  overplus of the money arise by such sale after payment of his debt he direct  shall be divide between the plaintiff Hayford and the two defendant all the  rest and residue of his good chattel debt and credit he give to his sister the  plaintiff Elizabeth and make her sole executrix the plaintiff bring their bill  to perpetuate the testimony of their witness and to have a sale of the trust  estate for payment of the testator debt and to have a allowance out of the  money arise by such sale of such sum as the plaintiff Elizabeth have pay  towards discharge the testator debt the defendant by their answer admit the  will and that the testator leave several debt due to several person at the  time of his decease but insist that the personal estate ought in the first  place to be apply towards payment of the debt and that ambler er p no more of  the real estate ought to be sell for that purpose than what will be necessary  after the personal estate be apply ambler it be insist for the plaintiff that  the executrix shall have the personal estate by virtue of the will discharge  from the testator debt the testator have devise land to be sell for payment of  his debt lev Feltham v the executor of de harlston and the rather because the  surplus of the money to be raise by such sale be give away from the heir for  the defendant it be insist that the testator have devise his personal estate  and make the devisee executrix she shall take as executrix and not by virtue  of the devise and a executrix always take the personal estate subject to the  payment of debt accord to the case cutler v Bathurst Chichester v French lady  Gainsborough and Lord meath v coote all adjudge in this court Lord Cowper  chancellor decree the executrix to take the personal estate discharge of the  testator debt it appear that the testator intend a beneficial legacy to her as  well as to his brother and nephew and as money devise to be lie out in land be  in a court of equity look upon as land so land devise to be sell and turn into  money must in equity be look upon as money it differ from the case where a man  charge his land with payment of his debt see Gravenor v hallum Ambl there he  seem to have a intent to preserve his land or as much as he can of it for his  family and as he seem to have a regard for the preservation of it so will this  court as far as it can but in this case the testator seem to have reject the  land by direct it to be sell out of his family and therefore shall be look  upon as if he have sell it in his lifetime and turn it into money if a sum of  money devise in trust to be lie out in land be in equity to be consider as  land and to go or descend in the same manner as land will do why shall not a  estate in land devise to be sell and convert into money by parity of reason be  consider in equity as personal estate to go and be apply accord and if a sum  of money shall be devise in trust to be lie out in land and the use to which  the land shall go be not declare if the money thus devise be consider as land  why shall not the benefit of that money go to the heir at law as a result  trust ambler if so by parity of reason if a real estate be devise to be sell  and no particular direction be give how the purchase money shall be apply in  whole or in part why shall not the money thus undisposed of go to the executor  to be appliedin a course of distribution or to a residuary legatee of the  personal estate if any such there be the heir at law be the favourite of the  law and of equity and be not to be disinherit without express word or by  necessary implication but what be he heir to it be only to land and the same  law which give land to the heir give personal estate to the executor or at  least to the next of kin who frequent be not heir if then favour be show to  the heir with respect to land which be all that can descend to he as heir why  shall not the like favour be show to the executor or next of kin with respect  to personal estate which they be by right of law equal entitle to it appear  from the report of this case in Vernon that the Lord chancellor conisdered  that the word rest and residue be not intend to be use in their general sense  as applicable to what remain after payment of debt and legacy but be mean  specifical to convey what the sister possess of personalty beyond the  household good c before bequeathe and see Adam v Meyrick Eq can Abr pl  Anderton v cook cite bro c c Bicknell v page atk but the mere circumstance of  the gift of the residue be precede by a specific bequest of chattel will not  now be consider sufficient to exonerate the personal estate see tait v Lord  Northwick Ves and bridge v Philips Ves see the case collect in the note to  inchiquin v French ante p and see Bootle v Blundell mere where most of the  previous case be consider and it be lie down by Lord Eldon that in order to  ascertain in each case whether the personal estate be exempt or not the  question must be do there appear from the whole testamentary disposition take  together a intention on the part of the testator so express as to convince a  judicial mind that it be mean not mere to charge the real estate but so to  charge it as to exempt the personal for it be not by a intention to ambler er  p charge the real but by a intention to discharge the personal estate that the  question be to be decide No principle of equity be better establish than that  money direct to be lie out in land and land devise to be sell and turn into  money be to be consider as that species of property into which they be direct  to be convert Fletcher v ashburner bro c c Ackroyd v Smithson ib Durour v  motteux l Ves Yates v Compton p wms Trelawny v booth atk Wheldale v partridge  Ves Buckmaster v Harrop Ves if land devise to be sell and the produce to be  apply as after mention but no disposition make the heir shall take Sheldon v  barn Ves jun see Collins v Wakeman Ves jun city v Parker ib how be v chapman  Ves kennel v Abbott ib upon the question of result trust general see grave r v  hallum Ambl Ambl Boutch v Newton pre Ch simpson v Hornsby ib city of London v  Garway vern Pickering v Stamford Ves jun berry v usher Ves Tregonwell v  Sydenham dow and the same rule hold with respect to the heir of customary land  gascoine v Barker atk Ackroyd v Smithson bro c c house v chapman Ves parson v  freeman Ambl