case richardson administratrix of the will annex of mrs Westbrook versus grief  march W by a will give to her servant g pound to be pay her within three month  after w s death and in another part say I give pound apiece to the rest of my  servant but not to g because I have do very well for her before and by a  latter clause give her land in trust to pay her debt and legacy W at her death  owe g pound on bind on the circumstance of this will there be sufficient to  take away the presumption that the legacy be give in satisfaction of the debt  see Nicholls v Judson atk Bellasis v uthwat atk and note the bill be bring to  stay execution upon a bind for pound and to have it deliver up mrs Westbrook  in her will say item I give to my servant jane grief pound to be pay her  within three month after my death in another part she say I give live pound  apiece to the rest of my servant but I do not give five pound to the say jane  grief because I have do very well for her before by another clause she give  her land lie in different parish in trust by mortgage or sale or otherwise to  pay her debt and legacy and after debt and legacy be pay then c Mr attorney  general counsel for the plaintiff lie it down as a rule of this court that  where the legacy exceed or be equal to the debt it have be hold to be a  ademption mrs Westbrook die in January and the legacy be pay to jane grief the  that of April who live two year after but never think of bring a action atkins  er p upon the bind he cite foul versus foul p W S c the that of may before  Lord Talbot who say there that no particular affection shall be a ground to  alter the general rule of the court atkins mrs grief be only a servant in the  family of mrs Westbrooke and there be several case much strong where legacy  have be give to a wife or child who be creditor upon the estate of the  testator and yet hold to be a satisfaction Lord chancellor the rule be to be  sure as lie down by Mr attorney general and therefore incumbent on the other  side to show how this case be distinguishable from it Mr brown for the  defendant state that mrs Westbrooke be ill of the smallpox mrs grief who have  never have it attend her during that illness at the hazard of her own life and  be upon this account in such esteem with the testatrix that she constant dine  with her afterward and be treat in every respect as a friend and companion  Lord chancellor prevent the defendant from go into evidence of this fact  because he think it ought to have no weight with the court Mr brown lie a  stress upon interest be pay by the representative of mrs Westbrooke on the  bind to mrs grief and on the legacys be give just before the death of the  legatee he insist that the legacy be give entire as independent of the bind  and as a reward for her extraordinary service but exclusive of these  circumstance he submit on the face of the will the defendant be entitle both  to the bind and legacy he allow the generality of the rule as lie down by the  attorney general but say if it be to be examine into argument may be use to  show its absurdity for it sound a little odd that if the testator owe pound to  a and give a legacy of pound a shall have nothing and yet if he leaves pound  to b to who he owe nothing b shall have the legacy of pound after debt and  funeral expense pay then I give c seem calculate to show that she intend both  debt and legacy shall be pay which be something particular and different from  the common form of will a precaution take that debt and legacy shall be pay  and likewise a precaution that no more than the legacy of pound shall be pay  for the testatrix preclude her from the pound give to the rest of the servant  he cite chancy case p wms which come very near the present atkins to construe  it a satisfaction of the legacy will be to reject very material word videlicet  after the payment of my debt c Atkinson versus web vern it be a rule where a  legacy be give Chargeable upon land it be not due unless the person life to  the time it become Payable urge this as a argument to show that this legacy be  subject to a accident and a contingency and therefore can not be in  satisfaction of a debt unless it have be certain and a legacy vest and  absolute in the legatee upon the death of the testator Mr mariot of the same  side cite grave versus boil atk July before Lord Hardwicke on sir Samuel garth  will where his lordship say he will not extend the rule of satisfaction far  than it have go before and that a intention of a testator shall cooperate with  the rule and vern in Lord some time and salk Cranmores case in Lord harcourt  time and Crompton versus sale p wms Eq Cas Abr mrs grief live a servant  between and year with the testatrix so that her wage upon a reasonable  allowance must amount to pound the sum for which the bind be give the  testatrix do not give mrs grief X because she have already do very well for  her which be a circumstance at least to show that she intend her the pound  exclusive of the bind the bind beside be execute but a month before the make  of the will so that she can not possible be think to have forget the bind Mr  attorney general in reply say there must be some reasonable solid rule in  these case or else nothing will be so precarious as this kind of property as  to testatrixs expression after debt and funeral expense it will not weigh with  your lordship for where the law will have do it if not express nothing service  atkins er p as to the observation upon the exception of the legacy it be a  short way of do it than to have name every one of her servant and be mere to  save time and trouble atkins as to the latter word because I have do very well  for her before mean no more than that she have be bountiful to her already  which she may be very well say to be even after the pound be deduct Lord  chancellor the general rule of ademption be too well establish to be dispute  and it be admit that where a legacy either exceed the debt or be equal to it  that be where there be a debt due in the testator lifetime and nothing but a  plain general legacy give to the creditor it shall prevail length of time will  not suffer it to be shake now as it be become the fix rule of property and yet  the maxim debitur non prsumitur To give as a present will not hold if it be p  e to be reconsider for the court have always show some dissatisfaction at the  rule and endeavour if there be any room to do it to distinguish case out of it  they have say indeed they will not break the rule but at the same time have  say they will not go one jot further and have be fond of distinguish case  since if possible but then these distinction be not to be take from particular  circumstance of the legatee dehors the will such as relationship affection  service c unless they be to be find in the will itself this bring it to the  question whether there be such circumstance in the present will I be of  opinion there be sufficient here to take away the presumption that the legacy  be give in satisfaction of the debt the word here after debt and legacy be pay  then I give c be much strong than in chancy case before Lord chancellor king  that all his debt and legacy shall be pay p wms as for the worldly good and  estate wherewith it have please God to bless I after my debt and funeral  expense be discharge t give c what do this import why that after her debt c be  pay she intend to dispose of the whole real and personal estate atkins here  the legacy give to jane grief be at some distance after other legacy but  suppose it have immediate follow or suppose it have be the only legacy will  any body have say this be a satisfaction there be no difference whether it be  place first or last in the will whether it be the only legacy or in company  with other legacy but I think there be a strong distinction still from common  case the testatrix say jane grease shall foot have because I have do very well  for her before these word appear to I to be a declaration that what she have  give her before she intend her as a bounty mere and not as a satisfaction it  will be too much for a court of justice to make those nice distinction as to  the quantum of the bounty of the testator which Mr attorney general have  attempt by say the testatrix intend no further bounty than pound after the  pound pay I do not rest it upon this foot only but look upon these word to  intimate the testator mean the five hundred pound to be equal a reward for  jane grief service as the five pound be for the other servant and legacy to  servant have never be hold to be in satisfaction of debt she exclude jane  grief from the five pound legacy because she have do very well for her before  neither be the argument that it be not to be pay in three month to be throw  entire out of the case and if it have be charge upon real estate only and not  at all Chargeable upon the personal estate I shall have think it of great  weight for will not the possibility and contingency of legatee die before the  legacy become Payable have be take into consideration as the legacy may not  have be Payable at all if the legatee have die before the three month and hold  so in several case one to this purpose be in Lord some time Yates v fetti  place vern where a legacy be charge upon a mix fund of personal and real  estate if the personal asset be sufficient the legacy be Payable though the  legatee die before the day of payment otherwise if the legacy be out of a real  estate only see prowse v Abingdon atk hall v terry atk van v clark ante atk  attorney general v milner atk Mr Cox note to p W Butl   Litt atkins er p upon  all these circumstance I be of opinion here be enough to take it out of the  common rule and that this legacy be not to go in satisfaction of the debt  atkins his lordship decree that the plaintiff shall pay the defendant the  principal and interest due on the bind in six week and to be without cost but  if the plaintiff shall not pay it in that time the defendant be to be leave at  liberty to apply for cost