case Newstead versus Johnston July Reg lib b fol SC barn c r g l give the  residue of her stock in trade in trust for the separate use of her daughter  and appoint her executrix of her will but make no disposition of the surplus  this be not a legacy but a exception out of the stock the testatrix have give  to her son and do not exclude the daughter from the surplus Griffith v Roger  Prec Charles Hoskins v Hoskins Prec Charles Jones v Westcomb Prec Charles  Granville v Beaufort p W Lawson v Lawson bro p c and Edward bro p c grace  Lawson by her will give several legacy to her child and then direct pound to  be take out of her partnership stock in trade and settle in strict settlement  on her son the residue of her partnership stock she give to a trustee with  direction as to the management in trust for the separate use of her daughter  Elizabeth Johnston who be a feme covert and appoint mrs Johnston disposition  of the surplus the bill be bring by Reynold Newstead and Alice his who be a  daughter of the testatrix against Allen Johnston and his atkins child by  Elizabeth the other daughter to have the surplus distribute Lord chancellor  the give several other legacy to the rest of the child be no rule that the  child who be leave executor shall have the residue it be impossible to reduce  all the case as there be so great a contrariety between they to one general  rule but as the law stand now where a person appoint one executor it be give  he the residue unless there be a particular legacy the same rule hold in the  ecclesiastical court except there be a strong and violent presumption that the  executor be not to have the residue vern lady Glanville et all versus the  duchess of Beaufort p W SC see Farrington v knightly Cox p W n atkins er p  ever since the case of foster and Munt vern it be settle that wherever a  legacy be give to a executor for his care and pain he be as to the residue a  trustee only for the next of kin for it will be absurd to give one a legacy  for his care and pain in manage the estate for himself vern SC davers v Dewers  p W Joslin v Brewett bunb Southcot v Watson post vol Andrew v clark Ves this  reason in subsequent case have be carry further where general legacy be give  without assign any particular reason yet hold to be in exclusion of the  residue for a testator give a person part of his estate be a implication that  he do not intend he the whole Mr Vernon tell Lord Macclesfield that he take  this point to be as well establish as that a estate to a man and his heir be a  feesimple which his lordship mention in the case of Farrington v knightly wms  there be no sort of presumption to be admit from nearness or remoteness of kin  in the person who be leave executor that the testator do or do not intend he  the residue Randall v Bookey vern Martin v rebow bro Charles Rep though in the  case of ball and smith there be a distinction in favour of a wife vern S c the  present case fall direct within the reason of Griffiths and other and the  duchess of Beaufort in the house of lord December give a share in the  partnership stock to S in trust for the wife be consistent with intend her the  residue for have it not be do in this manner it must have sink in the residue  and the husband by this mean will have be entitle to it consequent I can never  say a implication arise from hence that the testator have exclude the  executrix from the benefit of the surplus for implication must flow from  natural and necessary consequence this be not a legacy but a exception out of  the legacy she have give of the partnership stock to the son atkins the give a  legacy direct to b or give it to a in trust for b be one and the same thing  and equal exclude the residue where a residue be give to the executor for life  as in the case before the master of the roll it imply a negative that he shall  not have it for any long term and distinguish it from the present case for  here be no express devise of the residue