case hambling against lister a debt specifical devise and afterward call in  whether it be a ademption be a question of intention if no account can be give  why it be call in it be otherwise if a account can be give as in this case it  be not a ademption see what be say of this case by sir wm grant in wood v  Penoyre Ves lib Reg a fol a S c hill ms that and that June Elizabeth the wife  of lee be entitle to pound lend upon mortgage intrustees name make her will  pursuant to a power for that purpose and give to defendant Gibbons pound to be  pay by the trustee out of the mortgage money as soon as the same shall be  receive and give to plaintiff pound more to be pay out of the say mortgage  when the same shall be receive and direct the trustee to place other pound in  their name at interest out of the say mortgage money when receive for the  benefit of her niece Elizabeth Martin after make the will there be a  considerable arrear of interest upon the mortgage and the principal and  interest amount to pound mrs lee agree to a composition and accept pound for  the whole that be due and within a small space of time afterward lie out the  money which she so receive on other security bill by plaintiff to be pay the  pound out of mrs lee asset Q whether the receive the mortgage money be a  ademption ambler master of the roll specific legacy differ from pecuniary  legacy both with respect to advantage and disadvantage as in the common case  put in Vandemour v reeves report in Lucas Lord Macclesfield determine that a  specific legacy take in execution shall not be answer out of asset a  alienation of a legacy if there be nothing else in the case be a ademption and  equity will not set it up again the inference I draw from the case be that  there must be a indication of change of mind to work a ademption at debt give  specifical and call in and no account appear why it be call in be a ademption  but if any account be give it be otherwise it be the intention that govern it  be so in the Roman law just Inst be full in point the receive the money in the  present case be account for the debt be increase from pound to pound it be in  so much danger that the testator take pound for it I do not agree to the  distinction take in some of the case between voluntary payment and be call in  as lie clown general it be deny by Lord Macclesfield in the case of Lord  thomond and earl of Suffolk by Lord king in ford v Fleming wms and by Lord  Talbot in Ashton v Ashton wms I do not go so far as Lord Talbot do in the last  case and say that the call in a debt by the testator be not a ademption  because it may be from a apprehension of such debt be in danger but if there  be proof that it be call in for any other reason than from a intention to  adeem I think it be not a adempt but see Humphreys v Humphreys Cox Barker v  Rayner mad see in attorneygeneral v Parkin post ambler er p decree the pound  and interest to be pay out of the money which be receive in and lie out on  other security in consider whether in any case a legacy have or have not be  adeemed it may be lie down as a general principle if the legacy be specific  and the subject of the gift do not remain in specie at the death of the  testator the gift be go if however the legacy be not specific but what be call  in the civil law demonstrative that be a general pecuniary legacy with a  particular security it will not be adeenied though the fund or security on  which it be charge have cease to exist at the death of the testator see Barker  v Rayner mad the true question in each case therefore seem to be whether the  legacy be specific or demonstrative see Stanley v potter Cox earl thomond v  earl of Suffolk p wm that edit p and note there in Stanley v potter Cox rider  v wager p wms chaworth v beech Ves inn v Johnson ib friar v morris Ves Barker  v Rayner mad the legacy be specific in Coleman v Coleman Ves jun Robert v  pocock Ves Kirby v potter ib Raymond v Brodbelt Ves Le grice v pinch mere they  be demonstrative see rider v wager Ves see Ellis v walker ante p  attorneygeneral v Parkin post Bronsdon v winter ante p see the case in the  text and see Asburner v Mguire bro c c Badrick v Stevens bro c c Stanley v  potter Cox inn v Johnson Ves friar v morris Ves decree declare that the act do  by the say testatrix in compound for and receive the money due on the say  mortgage and in employ and place out a part of the same again Fartly by a loan  on bind to the say S b and I m and partly in discharge of two mortgage on her  real estate do not amount to a ademption of the say legacy of pound Payable  out of the money due on the say wilham watt mortgage but that so much of the  money receive in and lie out again by the say testatrix be still to be  consider as a fund for the satisfaction of the say legacy