case else against walker d June one partner by will give to the other pound  which appear to be due to he on the last settlement in trust c if he do not  draw it out of trade hold these last word make it a specific bequest without  they it will not have be specific No entry in l r John Witham be in  partnership trade with defendant Benjamin walker by will that August give to  the say walker pound which appear to be due to he on the last settlement in  trust to pay his mother interest of pound and to his aunt the interest of  pound during their ambler life and after their death he give pound to walker  and pound to his niece mary Hodgkinson if he do not draw it out of trade  before he die and then dispose of the residue of his estate and effect Lord  Hardwicke chancellor two question saint whether this devise of the pound be a  specific bequest d if it be whether there have be a ademption of it or any  part of it if those latter word videlicet if I do not draw it out of trade  have not be insert I shall have be incline to think it be not specific but I  can get rid of those word there have be various determination on legacy be  specific the court lean against consider legacy as specify because of the  consequence but where they be clear specific and any act be do to take away or  change the thing it be a ademption of the legacy but several distinction have  be make by the court some legacy be specific be of a individual thing as a  horse c see hambling v Lister post attorneygeneral v Parkins post so bequest  debt is owed well a means of knowing if he part with the horse or call in the  debt it be a ademption a distinction have prevail where there have be a legacy  of a sum of money out of a debt it be not specific but consider to be give out  of the debt as a ready fund I doubt if the determination in paulets case sir t  raym be law if any thing can be bequest debt is owed well a means of knowing  that case be so several case be cite in that case which warrant the  distinction of a bequest out of a debt if it depend on the former word I shall  have think this case within the distinction the testator be partner with  walker they make up a account by which pound that be in value appear to belong  to the testator walker will not have be answerable for pound at all event but  only for the testator share of the stock it be not a gift ambler of pound debt  but of so much out of the partnership stock but these latter word if I do not  draw c make great alteration and in my opinion make the legacy specific d  question whether there have be a ademption in part or in toto as to pound he  draw it out of trade and receive the money and therefore I be of opinion that  be a take out of trade and within the contingency in the will though not a  strict ademption as to the other pound it be to be consider as in trade till  it be receive in and pay over though it be not liable to all the contingency  of trade yet it be liable to some both the partner must have join in get it in  and if the trade have fail or the money have be lose the testator must have  bear the loss bill be bring by residuary legatee for distribution chaworth v  beech Ves Kirby v porter ib inn v Johnson ib Sibley v very Ves Webster v hale  Ves simmons v valance bro c earl of thomond v earl of Suffolk p W Saville v  Blackett p W rider v wager p W attorneygeneral v Parkins post and case there  ashburner v macguire bro c c foul v Willoughby S S smith v Fitzgerald v b  Backwell v child ante ambler er p