case hall v terry November the that SC cite Ves Ves Com S c vin Abr pl m t be  entitle to the reversion of a estate after the death of his wife devise it to  c d and his heir so as he shall pay to his sister Elizabeth oades pound within  six month after the reversion come into his possession Elizabeth oades die in  the lifetime of the wife and Elizabeth representative bring the bill against c  d for the pound the legatee die before the time for raise the pound be come  her representative be not entitle it appear from a ms report of this case that  the testator charge the say manor c with the payment of say pound and after  give several pecuniary legacy give the rest and residue of his real and  personal estate his debt and legacy be thereout first allow c Lord Thurlow in  Godwin v Monday bro Charles Rep disapprove of this case and observe that it  can be reconcile with Lowther v give post vol the same remark seem to apply to  other case as particular to emes v Hancock post vol Hutchings v foy Com  Sherman v Collins post vol Tunstall v Bracken Amb bro Charles Rep S c Jeale v  Titchner Amb Hodson v Rawson Ves Michael terry be entitle to the reversion of  a estate after the death of his wife devise it to c d and his heir so as he  shall pay to his sister Elizabeth oades the sum of one hundred pound within  six month after the reversion come into his possession and devise the rest and  residue of his personal estate all his debt and legacy before bequeathe be  first deduct to c d and another who he make his executor Elizabeth oades die  in the life time of the wife and she likewise be now dead the representative  of Elizabeth oades bring this bill against c d to have the pound pay to he Mr  fazakerley for the plaintiff insist that this be a vest legacy and that the  legatee may have assign it or release it and if it be transmissable in her  lifetime it be after the death of legatee equal transmissable to her  representative and be not intend as a contingent payment but the time atkins  of payment only be postpone he rely chief on the case of king v wither t Cas  in Eq in the time of Lord chancellor Talbot but if the court shall be of  opinion against the plaintiff in this point he submit it that the pound may be  raise out of another fund the personal estate as the defendant allow he have  asset in his hand and that by virtue of the last word in the will all his debt  and legacy before bequeathe be first deduct it be a original charge on the  personal estate and therefore ought to follow the ordinary rule of pecuniary  legacy the attorney general for the defendant insist that on the face of the  will it be plain no legacy but only a charge upon the estate and be nothing  more than a gift of the real estate so as the devisee pay such a sum of money  that a charge upon a real estate be never subject to the jurisdiction of the  spiritual court and by their rule it be a vest legacy only that be  transmissable to the representative that the atkins er p law do not look upon  a charge on a real estate as a vest legacy till the day of pay mean come and  this court have always govern themselves in these case by the authority of  paulet v paulet Ventr a term limit by a settlement to raise portion for young  child Payable at or marriage one of they die under and unmarried her portion  shall not be raise for the benefit of the administratrix Mr brown of the same  side say to make the personal estate liable this legacy ought to be a general  charge which be not the present case because it be particular charge upon a  real estate which have never be construe a legacy but mere a testamentary gift  by impose term and condition on the person who take the estate where there be  a absolute legacy and the future time must come for the payment by the civil  law it be transmissable but here be no word that can make a gift of the money  nor can he claim it as absolute give for it be only annex as a condition to a  devise of land to another person and he rely on the case of carter v Bletsoe  vern a devise land to b his son and his heir and declare that out of the land  he shall pay pound to his daughter at her age of she marry and die under age  per cur there be no vest clause in the will the direction that the son pay to  the daughter at her age of vest nothing until she attain and she die before it  never arise Lord chancellor these be case upon which there have be great  variety of determination and they be not very easy to be distinguish the  question be whether the plaintiff be entitle to have the pound pay to he which  be give under the will of Michael terry to Elizabeth oades atkins the general  rule be where money be give to be pay out of a real estate at a future time  that if the person die before the time it shall sink into the estate and this  have be establish ever since the case of paulet v paulet in Ventr and so  likewise as to personal estate where the time of payment be annex to the  legacy if the person die before the time it can be raise there be other legacy  under the will of the testator to which the word his legacy before bequeathe  be first deduct be proper applicable and therefore no argument can be draw  from hence that the pound be intend as a original charge upon the personal  estate it be insist by the plaintiff counsel that the legacy be vest and only  the time of payment postpone for the convenience of the estate as it be a dry  reversion but I be of opinion that the gift of the sum of money be only by the  direction for the payment and that it can be say this be a original gift so as  to vest the legacy and the payment only postpone to a future time another  distinction have be attempt that the time of payment be not take from the  nature of the legacy or the circumstance of the legatee but from the nature of  the estate and that therefore this be different from all the case see Lowther  v give post vol but I doubt if I shall give into this reason I shall overturn  the case of portion or of other sum bequeathe for of late year it have be hold  that where a sum of money be give by way of portion or as a general legacy  charge upon land if the party die before the time it can be raise see prowse v  Abingdon ante and Sherman v Collins post vol g in the present case here be no  contingency the time be single within month after the death of tenant for life  when the reversion come into possession so that it never can be raise because  the person die before the time for raise as to the case of king v wither Lord  Talbot say that though the contingency on which the sum there give be Payable  have not happen yet that the time on which these sum be direct to be pay have  happen and therefore hold they to be vest the case of bright v Norton  determine by Lord Talbot be a very strong authority in the present case that  be a trust upon land for raise and pay a sum of money within six year after  the death of the testator to the second son who die within the time hold to be  intend for his maintenance only and not transmissable to his executor unless  he have live to the end of the six year in a ms report Lord Hardwicke be  report to have say Brighton v Norton be a strong case but what I ground myself  upon be that the direction of payment be the gift and she die before there be  no gift vide etian Ves bro Charles Rep note upon the whole I must direct the  bill to be dismiss but without cost atkins er p