case brown versus allen discuss levuin v levuin Ves sen miller v Huddlestone  Mac g Eq can ab pl S c in case of deficiency of asset a specific legatee shall  not abate in proportion with pecuniary legatee but one pecuniary legatee shall  abate in proportion with the rest though his legacy be direct to be pay in the  first place it be declare by the Lord chancellor that where a man devise a  specific legacy there though the other legacy fall short yet the legatee must  have his specific legacy entire Reg lib a fol and say it be a settle doctrine  in equity that a specific legacy be never break into in order to make good a  pecuniary one Herne v Mericke salk master v master p wms Hinton v pink ibidem  Drinkwater v falconer ves nor be a specific legatee of a mortgage bind by a  account settle between the executor of the mortgagee and the mortgagor Langley  v earl of Oxford Amb so not to contribute to cost in aid of pecuniary legacy  but he must contribute so far as the cost of inquiry respect his own specific  legacy ibidem et vide house v chapman Ves Barton v cook Ves but where a  freeman of London devise a lease for year to I S who be evict of a moiety  thereof by the widow claim it by the custom the specific legatee shall have no  satisfaction out of the surplus testator have power only to dispose of a  moiety web v web post vol and under circumstance a specific legatee shall be  charge with the payment of a pecuniary legacy sayer v sayer pre Ch pale yellow  Rep so legatee of specific part of a chattel liable to abate among themselves  upon deficiency of the specific thing bequeathe sleech v Thorington ves page v  Leapingwell Ves so on a deficiency of general asset for payment of debt long v  short p wms so specific legatee of distinct chattel duke of Devon v Atkins p  wms say vide Gibson v Scudamour mose Hinton v pink ub sup so where a devise of  a estate in mortgage and bequest of several specific legacy the specific  legatee on a deficiency shall abate before the mortgage premise shall be  affect Warner v Haynes Kel as to what shall constitute the distinction between  specific and general legacy vide Mr Cox note to Hinton v pink p wms and  bequest of residue not specific Bowaman v reeve pre Ch et vide Richardson v  brown Ves chaworth v beech ibidem inn v Johnson ibidem Kirby v potter ibidem  Nesbitt v Murray Ves Raymond v Brodbelt ibidem how v earl of Dartmouth Ves  Sibley v very ibidem land v devaynes bro Charles Rep Gillaume v Adderley Ves  apreece v apreece v b hill v mason I W grave v Hugh mad but where a man devise  several legacy as pound to one and pound to another c there although he direct  the legacy of pound to be pay in the first place yet if the other legacy fall  short there the legatee of the pound must make a proportionable Vernon  chancery case er p abatement of his legacy so levuin v levuin Ves Beeston v  booth mad