atkins case crichton versus synes June a testatrix say I give to b c all my  good wear apparel of what nature and kind soever except my gold watch all her  wear apparel and ornament of her person except her gold watch pass to the  devisees and any household good and furniture but no other part of her estate  the question in this case arise upon the will of Dorothy Colby the plaintiff  have bring their bill for the residue of the testatrixs personal estate and  find their claim upon these word in the will I give and bequeathe to the  plaintiff all my good wear apparel of what nature and kind soever except my  gold watch Mr brown for the plaintiff cite the case of the duke and duchess of  Bolton and Newstead versus Johnson before Lord Hardwicke July ante atk S c the  general presumption he say be with the plaintiff for it be not to be presume  that the testator die intestate that it be a general devise and carry the  whole residue for there be nothing more know than that the word in all  respects good will convey every thing in the civil law Mr Browning of the same  side cite more Portman versus Willis and p wms anon both as to the general  doctrine of in all respects good that wear apparel be only intend for the sake  of the exception of the gold watch and be no revocation of the residue Mr Noel  counsel for the defendant the executor and Elizabeth clark the only survive  sister of the testatrix say there be no general introductory clause that show  her intention of dispose of her residue as all my worldly good I intend to  dispose of or any such general expression it be difficult to find case which  correspond exact with odd uncertain clause in will yet there be some where it  have be hold that all my chattel of what nature or kind soever will not carry  the residue Pratt versus Jackson p wms Eq Cas Abr it be a woman will make it a  strong case for the defendant for the testatrix consider all ornament as wear  atkins apparel since it be not good and wear apparel but all my good wear  apparel of what nature or kind soever which show that she mean only to give  wear apparel and ornament of the person such as jewel c Mr brown in the reply  say as to the observation that there be no general word which show her  intention to dispose of the residue it may have weight in the determination of  those case where there be such word but the law suppose that every person in  make a will intend to dispose of every thing it have be say the testatrix do  not mean personal estate in general but some species of good but the word good  of what nature or kind soever in common parlance mean every thing that the  plaintiff be the testatrixs near relation and that the natural construction of  the word be all my good except my watch atkins er p Lord chancellor case of  this kind be seldom very clear the reason and argument to show the intention  seem to preponderate in favour of the defendant it have be say the testatrix  have not set out with general word of disposition I lie no weight upon that  because all testator intend to dispose of the whole she seem to have make a  exact calculation of what her personal estate will amount to for here be a  lapse legacy of pound which take out of the residue nothing remain but only  pound so that she imagine she have dispose of the whole there be no doubt as  to the observation upon in all respects good svan that both by the civil law  and law of England it will pass the whole but what do these case amount to in  general only that if a man give a legacy and then say I give all my good it  will pass the residue but there be instance where good have be take in a more  restrain sense as to what Mr brown say that in common parlance it mean  everything I take it to be the direct contrary that they mean good only and  not the hole personal estate atkins this be not intend to be a residuary  clause for she afterward give a legacy of pound to the executor indeed if  there have be the word residue I shall have think it strong for the plaintiff  it have be insist for the defendant that the word wear apparel explain the  testator meaning as if she have say all my good to wit my wear apparel but  wear apparel must be construe the same as and wear apparel and can be strain  to this sense for there be no occasion to introduce wear apparel in order to  except the gold watch for if she have say all my good except my gold watch it  will have do as well therefore I be of opinion as these word stand in the will  she intend to give only her wear apparel ornament of her person household good  and furniture but no other part of her personal estate the house of lord be  never clear than in the case of Pratt versus Jackson vide p wms that the word  good relate only to the testator household good and furniture and do not  extend to good in the way of his trade or his good as a contractor for the  government one have a house in which he life and household good and have also  a house at Gosport near Portsmouth for invalid seaman with a vast number of  bed sheet and household stuff and by marriage article it be agree that his  wife shall on his death have no claim upon his personal estate except his  household good and household stuff this exception to extend only to the good  which he have in the house in which he live and not to such as be in the  hospital and make use of by the government Pratt versus Jackson the testatrix  mean here to give not only what be proper clothes but the ornament of her  person and the exception of the gold watch show the latitude of the expression  and what make this plain be it be agree by the party that pound which be now  the residue be a lapse legacy his lordship decree that all testator wear  apparel and ornament of her person except her gold watch pass to the plaintiff  and any household good and furniture that she have but not any part of her  estate note with respect to the construction of the word good in a will see  the case of anon p W Ryalle v roll ante atk chapman v heart Ves more v more  bro Charles Rep