case rogers v rogers Lord chancellor king Sel can in Charles can tempt Tal Eq  can ab pl one make his wife his sole heiress and executrix of all his real and  personal estate to sell and dispose thereof at her pleasure to pay his debt  and legacy and give his brother who be his next of kin and heir pound the wife  have the residue to her own use and not as a trustee one make his will and  thereby give pound to his brother who be his heir at law and make and  constitute his dear belove wife his sole heiress and executrix of all his land  and real and personal estate to sell and dispose thereof at her pleasure and  to pay his debt and legacy the question be whether the wife be a trustee for  the heir at law as to the surplus of the real estate after the payment of the  testator debt and legacy after great debate by counsel on both side the Lord  chancellor decree that the testator wife be entitle to the premise devise for  her own benefit and that there be no result trust to the heir at law of the  testator hill v bishop of London atk Walton v Walton Ves peer William that the  case of north v Crompton Chan Rep be in point that the devise that the wife  shall be sole heiress of the real estate do in every respect place her in the  stead of the heir Nov hob sty and not as a trustee for he that it be the plain  by reason of the language of tenderness and affection his dear belove wife  which must intend to her something beneficial and not what will be a trouble  only and what make it still strong be that the heir be not forget but have a  legacy of pound leave he Reg lib b fol memorandum on the other S e be cite the  case of the countess of Bristol v Hungerford vern where one devise his real  estate to be sell for the payment of his debt and the surplus if any to be  deem personal estate and to go to his executor to who he give pound apiece  decree the surplus a trust for the heirsat law but the court think this a  strange determination and to go much too far this may well be think a strange  determination and the rather for that Mr Vernon say it be affirm in parliament  the case be different report in the look entitle precedent in chancery p where  it be say the surplus be decree a trust in the executor subject to  distribution and this be warrant by the register book the decree appear to  bear date July and to have be make by sir John Trevor the then master of the  roll the lord whereof be as follow and as to the surplus of the say estate  after the debt and legacy pay his honour have be attend with the will and have  consider thereof declare that the say testator have by his say will give to  each of his executor pound apiece see petit v smith peer William er p ante vol  there be a result trust in they for the benefit of the representative of the  say testator and that the defendant mrs Reppington and mrs Meredith who be  coheir and representative of the say testator sir William Basset be well  entitle thereto and do therefore order and decree that the residue and surplus  of sir William Basset estate his debt and legacy be pay as aforesaid be equal  distribute between they it further appear by a subsequent order of the that of  November in the abovementioned cause that this part of the decree be affirm in  parliament for it recite that the decree of the d of July have be sign and  enrol and that the judgement creditor appeal to the lord in parliament who on  the that of February adjudge bro p c bro p c and ed that the decree so far as  it have be execute shall not be set aside or open but that as to the money  remain undivided pursuant to the decree the appellant be to be let into a  satisfaction of their debt accord to the priority of their several security  after which the order proceed to give some direction in regard to the creditor  it be obvious to perceive that the same person be heir and likewise next of  kin though they take only in the latter capacity occasion this mistake in Mr  Vernon report of the case