case ford versus Fleming Lord chancellor kin Eq can Abr pl one by will give  pound due to the testator for rend from b and now in b s hand afterward the  testator sue b for his rend and recover it yet this be no ademption of the  legacy for the testator sue for it may have be occasion by his think the debt  in danger a by her will give to her grandaughter mary ford pound out of a debt  due to the testatrix from I S for rend she the say mary ford allow her part of  the charge of recover the same and the testatrix by her will give the residue  of the rend clue to her from I S to her grandson William weeden ford he also  allow his part of what shall be expend in the recovery thereof after the make  the will a the testatrix sue for these arrear of rend and receive they in her  lifetime on a bill bring by the grandaughter for this pound Mr rider on behalf  of the defendant insist that the diversity take in this case have be if the  debtor who can be peer William compel to keep it voluntary pay in the debt so  that it be his own act and the creditor be bind to receive it this be no  ademption of the legacy for it must be the act of the testatrix and not to act  of the debtor who be a three person which be to revoke the will but in the  present case where the testatrix call in the debt nay sue for it and will not  suffer it to continue where it be this be alter the condition and state of the  thing bequeathe and must consequent as to that be a revocation of the will it  be like the case where one devise land and afterward dispose of it this be a  revocation nay though the feoff be to the use of the testator and his heir nay  even though it be to the use of the will and it be observe that the will  intend this debt shall continue until the time of the testatrixs death because  it be say the legatee shall allow their proportion of the charge of recover it  to which it be reply that this legacy be pound can not be call a specific  legacy but only so much money and the debt due for rend be add in favour of  payment of the legacy and what be intend in the legatee as a certain fund for  favour and for the benefit of the legatee ought not to be turn to his  disadvantage peer William er p and the case of orm and smith vern as also  poulet case in Raymond be cite as in point where though the debt bequeathe be  call in and receive by the testatrix herself in her lifetime yet it be resolve  this do not avoid the legacy for that the receive in the debt increase the  personal estate which be to answer the legacy Lord chancellor take time till  the next day to consider of this case and observe that the authority of the  book be peer William that though the testator call in the debt yet it be no  ademption of the legacy and so be the two case cite poulet case in Raymond and  also in Swinb and that the reason give why the testator call in the legacy  shall not be a ademption thereof be because it must be presume to have proceed  from the testator apprehension the debt be in danger and therefore to have be  do in favour of the legatee to the intent he may not lose his legacy and what  be do out of kindness to the legatee ought not to be interpret to his  prejudice see the case of earl of thomond v earl of Suffolk vol his lordship  take notice how the same action have be construe in two such opposite sense  however he hold upon the authority aforesaid that the testatrixs receive in  the debt herself though upon her sue for it be no ademption of the legacy vide  earl of thomond v earl of Suffolk ante vol rider v wager ante