atkins case Nicholls versus Judson at the roll may W l give a m a bind for  pound and interest in and in pay her pound in he make his will and give all  his land in b for a term of year upon trust to raise and pay within two year  after his death to a m pound and also devise other land to the same trustee  for year on trust to pay pound to a m within one year after his death the  executor of l pay some part of the bind to a m in her lifetime the bill pray  that the legacy may be decree a satisfaction of the bind and that b er  executor may refund what he have receive in part payment thereof the master of  the roll hold this to be a contingent legacy for if the legatee have die  before the time of payment it will have sink in the land and that the rule of  ademption not extend so far as to take in a contingent legacy this be not a  satisfaction of the bind with respect to satisfaction of debt by a debtor give  a legacy to his creditor see Cox p W as to satisfaction of portion and legacy  see Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol note one William low to reward the good  service of Ann Mansell who have live with he a great number of year give her a  bind in in the penalty of pound for payment of pound and interest on a day fix  and in pay her pound part of the pound and all interest in he make his will  and thereby among other legacy give to Mr Mangenis all his message land c in b  in the parish of W to bold to he his executor c for year upon trust out of the  rend c by mortgage or sale to levy raise and pay to Ann Mansell within two  year after his death pound and subject to this term he devise the same premise  to the plaintiff and his heir and also devise other land to the same trustee  for year upon trust to pay pound to Ann Mansell within one year after his  death in other part of his will he give her plate linen c and other personal  legacy atkins er p the executor of low pay off some part of the bind to Ann  Mansell in her lifetime the prayer of the bill be that the legacy devise by  the will of William low to Ann Mansell may be decree a satisfaction of the  bind and that the defendant Judson who be her executor may be direct to refund  such sum as he have receive in part payment of the say bind from the executor  of low for the defendant Judson be cite Cuthbert v peacock salk Atkinson v web  vern chancy case p wms Eastwood v wink p wms master of the roll the question  be whether two sum of pound and pound devise to Ann Mansell by the will of low  and to be raise upon the testator real estate by different term of year shall  be consider as a satisfaction of the debt due upon the bind to mrs Mansell it  be object by the counsel for the plaintiff that this be not in the nature of a  legacy for that there be a difference in the expression of the will for in  some instance he say express I give such thing to the say Ann Mansell as plate  linen c but as atkins to the pound and pound it be a direction to trustee to  levy raise and pay the say sum to mrs Mansell but it be answer very clear by  this observation that though the money be to be raise by the trustestate yet  it be the gift of the testator notwithstanding for it will have be absurd to  have say that the trustee shall give for that will have make they the donor  and not the testator and therefore there be no manner of difference between a  direction to trustee to pay and a gift and though the general rule be that a  legacy which be great or as great as the debt shall be take to be a  satisfaction and be too well establish to be shake now yet in late case where  there be circumstance or a presumption that the testator intention be not that  the legacy shall be a ademption of the debt the court have lean against the  rule so far as to hold it not to be a satisfaction so in the present case the  testator direct that the pound and pound shall not be pay till one or two year  after his death be a very considerable circumstance in favour of mrs Mansell  and show strong that the intent of the testator be not that it shall go in  satisfaction of the debt for the bind be Payable immediate and the testator  bad no right to suspend the payment of a debt though he may suspend his legacy  and though executor have a year low they to pay legacy yet that do not extend  to debt but they be liable to be sue the moment after the testator death so  that the payment of these legacy at a future time be extreme material and take  this case out of the general rule beside too I be incline to think this be a  contingent legacy for the trustee be direct to pay it within two year and one  year do not oblige they to pay it soon for if the legatee have die before the  time of payment it will have sink in the land for the benefit of the plaintiff  accord to the settle rule of this court with regard to legacy charge upon land  vide paulets case vent Stapleton versus Cheales Prec in Chan duke of chandos  versus Talbot p wms hall versus terry November Tr atkins Rep prowse versus  abington fast term Tr atkins Rep Weedon v fall ante note and as the rule of  ademptions have never be carry so far as to take in a contingent legacy I must  decree for the defendant that the devise of the pound and pound be not a  satisfaction of the bind