case Bagwell versus dry Reg lib a fol Lord chancellor Macclesfield Eq can ab  pl pl one devise the surplus of his personal estate to four equal and leaves I  S executor in trust one of the four die in the life of the testator his share  as so much of the testator estate undisposed of by the will shall go accord to  the statute of distribution I S inter all bequeathe the surplus of his  personal estate unto four person equal to be divide between they share and  share alike and make a b his executor in c peer William er p trust one of the  four residuary legatee die in the life of the testator after which the  testator die and the question be to who the four part devise to the residuary  legatee who die in the life of the testator shall belong the Lord chancellor  after time take to consider of it do this day deliver his opinion that the  testator have devise his residuum in four and one of the residuary legatee die  in his lifetime the devise of that four part become void and be as so much of  the testator estate undisposed of by the will see the case of Lord bindon V  earl of Suffolk ante that it can not go to the survive residuary legatee  because each of they have but a four devise to they in common and the death of  the four residuary legatee peer William can not avail they as it will have do  have they be all joint legatee for then the share of the legatee die in the  life of the testator will have go to the survivor but here the residuum be  devise in common it be the same as if a four part have be devise to each of  the four which can not be increase by the death of any of they show salk his  lordship far declare that this share can not go to the executor he be but a  bare executor in trust and consequent that it must belong to the testator next  of kin accord to the statute of distribution as so much of the personal estate  remain undisposed of by the will and that as to this the executor be a trustee  for such next of kin see this case cite in Farrington and knightly pre Charles  but the report there be not warrant by the register book so page v page post  Vol h man v man stram Owen v Owen I atk Peat v chapman ves Akeroyd v Smithson  bro c c so where the bequest be revoke as to one residuary legatee Cheslyn v  Creswill bro p c and Edward bro p c Eden S c Androvin v Poilblans atk Ackerman  v burrow v b Skrymsher v Northcote swan