case husband versus husband novembris in court Lord chancellor Ch can S c  devise of pound to be lie out in finish a house testator life to lie out as  much himself but leaves the house unfinished the pound shall not be lie out  the case appear to be thus a man intend to build a seat upon his estate and  have lie the foundation of it make his will which in time be a little after  the Vernon chancery case er p make of the act of fraud and perjury and by his  will devise land for raise portion for his young child and pay of his debt and  appoint that pound shall be lie out in perfect the building of his house t  stator by his will devise to the plaintiff his son all his timber and other  wood and material for building which he shall have at the time of his death  for the building of his mansion house at east Somerton and will that the  plaintiff shall have all arrear of rend and interest money due to he at his  death and for the better enable he to finish the house by he begin he thereby  devise to he pound more to be pay out of his personal estate and after his  debt and legacy pay he devise the residue of his personal estate to be equal  divide among his child r l vide friar v morris Ves at the roll it happen that  he live several year after the make of this will and in that time expend upon  his house above pound although he leave the same unfinished and die leave such  will as aforesaid but the same be defective as to the Vernon chancery case  pass of the land intend to be pass thereby for not be subscribe by witness  accord to the say Act of parliament it be now insist by the counsel for the  young child that the heir at law ought to have no benefit of the pound by the  will appoint to be lie out on this house saint because the testator himself  after the make of this will have expend above that sum on the house and  instance in some case of the like nature where it have be so decree ndly the  testator intent appear and plain express in his will be to have charge his  land with several sum of money but that intent be frustrate by the Act of  fraud and perjury the heir have a great benefit thereby than if the devise  have stand good and the pound be to be lie out on the house for his estate be  now ease of pound that will have lie upon it if the will have be good in form  and therefore it will now be very hard for a court of equity to charge the  testator personal estate with this pound whereby the provision intend the  young child which be already by their father not observe of the Act of fraud  in make of his will very much abridge will in a manner be whole defeat as to  the first objection it be answer that the testator have a little before his  death and after he have expend such money as they on the other side mention to  be pound declare his intent to be that whether he live or die that work shall  be perfect and his usual say be that his house shall never be call Mockbeggars  hall as to the second objection they conceive the pound ought not to be take  away upon that pretence unless the same have be express charge upon the land  which in this case it be not Vernon chancery case but the Lord chancellor  decree against the heir at law who be plaintiff here in equity to have the  benefit of this pound upon the first objection and so there be no opinion  declare as to the second point though the court seem to incline against the  plaintiff in that also the principle that govern the doctrine of ademption  seem to govern two class of circumstance only the saint class include all  those under which it may appear that the testator do not intend the legatee  shall take any benefit by the bequest and the d all those under which it may  be presume that the testator by act of his in his lifetime consider the  individual bounty intend to be give by the will as already anticipate and  complete as to both which it appear to be clear hold that a intention on the  part of the testator to deprive his legatee of the benefit of his legacy or to  have satisfy he must plain appear and that no particular act which do not of  itself declare plain one or other of those intention will do e g the call in  by testator in his lifetime of a debt bequeathe by his will earl of thomond v  earl of Suffolk p wms orm v smith post vol Baugh v read Ves jun Coleman v  Coleman Ves jun inn v Johnson Ves and case respective there cite as to the  distinction take under the first class of circumstance in respect of a debt  bequeathe between the debt be pay in voluntary and call in that distinction be  former make but now say to be explode vide rider v wager p wms and case cite  in note there inn v Johnson Ves but quaere if the court will not under  circumstance listen to such a distinction now Coleman v Coleman Ves jun see as  to this Barker v Rayner mad and case there cite particular friar v morris Ves  Le grice v finch mere if the deduction above draw be correct it be evident  that each case under the head of ademption must be decide upon the  circumstance govern by the abovementioned principle and also as to the second  class of circumstance with reference to another principle namely that this  court lean against double satisfaction distinguish however between the case of  a legacy a portion and a debt the lead case in the first class be earl of  thomond v earl of Suffolk p wms crockat v crockat p win rider v wager p wms  ford v Fleming p wms Ashton v Ashton p wms Vernon chancery case er p Lawson v  stitch atk jefferys v jefferys atk Drinkwater v falconer ves hambling v Lister  Amb attorneygeneral v lady Downing Amb and case cite therein respective see  also simmons v vallance bro Ch Rep Robert v pocock Ves chaworth v beech Ves  Kirby v potter Ves Raymond v Brodbelt Ves Sibley v very Ves Webster v hale Ves  dean v test Ves Wilson v Brownsmith Ves Lambert v Lambert Ves Gillaume v  Adderley Ves smith v Fitzgerald v b Mann v Copland mad those in the second  class be mention and arrange in Bellasis v Uthwatt atk and the note there see  also Freemantle v bank Ves trim v bayne Ves Robinson v Whitley Ves Hartopp v  Hartopp Ves ex part pie Ves Weatherby v Dixon Ves coop monk v monk ba be Dwyer  v lysaght ba be thellusson v Woodford mad bell v Coleman mad the decree as to  the pound be in the register book as follow after direct a account of the  testator personal estate the master be direct to allow the executor what they  lie out or expend in or towards the say new building since the death of the  say testator and then after deduct specific legacy and child portion and a  certain debt of pound therein mention and if there shall be sufficient after  payment thereof and the other allowance to be make as aforesaid to pay the  remainder of the then the same be to be pay out of the personal estate or as  far as the same will extend and the master be to direct the payment thereof  accord and the deed relate to the real estate be to be bring into court on  oath by defendant executor for the plaintiff benefit and if upon the account  therein before direct after payment of debt and particular legacy and the say  pound and the remainder of the say pound give to plaintiff by his father will  any surplus shall appear same shall be distribute and proportion between  plaintiff and the say young child and pay to they by defendant the executor  accord Reg lib a fol n b this case be report under the name of husband v  Lulman