case east et maria ux v Thornbury sir Joseph Jekyll master of the roll Eq can  ab pl interest recover for a legacy though after a receipt give in full for  the legacy and the principal legacy pay the bill be to recover the arrear of  the interest of a legacy of pound after the principal legacy pay and a receipt  give for the same the case be thus one Thomas Thornbury give by his will to  his niece mary Thornbury now the wife of the plaintiff east a legacy of pound  Payable a year after his death and make his brother Thomas Thornbury and his  nephew the defendant Thomas Thornbury then a infant executor Thornbury the  elder executor die and the defendant the young be but nine year old  administration with the will annex be grant during his minority the plaintiff  mary marry the other plaintiff east they demand the legacy of the defendant  who desire they to let it continue in his hand for about two year long and pay  interest for the first year after the marriage take the plaintiff receipt for  the same as for a year interest due on the that of April be a year after the  marriage and afterward another year interest grow due the defendant pay that  year interest and the whole principal take a receipt from the plaintiff for  pound be a year interest due for the legacy of pound to the that of April at  which time the plaintiff give the defendant a receipt for pound leave to the  plaintiff mary by her say uncle will after seven year acquiescence the  plaintiff demand of the defendant the interest for the say pound legacy from  the peer William end of the year after the testator death which happen in  insist by the bill that the plaintiff by mistake take the say legacy to have  be make Payable by the will at the marriage of the plaintiff mary whereas it  now appear thereby to have be Payable a year after the testator death for the  defendant it be urge that there be no pretence of fraud on his part no conceal  of the will which give the legacy no misinformation by the defendant that the  legacy be not Payable until the marriage that the will have be prove in the  spiritual court where the plaintiff be at liberty when he please to see it and  as this legacy be part of the wife portion and the plaintiff a barrister at  law it must be presume he have see it that the receipt appear to have be draw  by the plaintiff himself who deliver they to one who bring the money from the  defendant in the defendant absence that interest be pretty much in the breast  of the court and may be waive by the plaintiff if he please and it be compare  to the case of a note give for a certain sum which carry interest from the  demand peer William er p though not express in the note and for which the jury  every day give interest but if the person to who such note be give will accept  of the money without interest it will be very strange to bring a bill in  equity or action at law for the interest only and yet that be a strong case be  the case of interest for a debt due which ought to be more favour than  interest for a legacy which be a bounty also it be say to be like the case  where a tenant have a right to deduct for the landtax do not however deduct  but pay his full rend under which circumstance a bill will not lie in this  court to recover back the tax which ought to have be before allow for the  tenant may if peer William he please waive deduct the tax and so may the  plaintiff waive the benefit of the interest of his legacy say per cur it be  plain interest for the legacy be due there be a certain time appoint by the  will which give it videlicet that it shall be pay within a year after the  testator death and as the plaintiff have a clear right thereto so he have do  nothing for ought appear to waive such right the defendant himself admit the  interest have not be pay which it be to be presume be occasion by the  plaintiff have apprehend that it be not due till after the plaintiff mary  marriage wherefore as the interest be due and admit by the plaintiff not to  have be pay and be not intend to be waive decree the defendant to pay the  arrear of interest from the year after the testator death with cost of suit so  hold by the Lord Harcourt in the case of Wildey v the Cooper company  Michaelmas where the bill be bring by a tenant to be relieve out of the arrear  of rend for the tax the tenant have actual pay on account of rend reserve to a  charity that appear to be exempt from tax and the bill be dismiss with cost  but more particular in the case of atwood v lamprey hear at the roll before  sir Joseph Jekyll Michaelmas where the cage be one in in satisfaction of a  widow dower mortgage land on condition to pay her pound per annum whereupon  the court hold that this be a annual payment secure by land shall answer tax  in proportion as the land pay but refuse to make the annuitant refund in  respect of the payment she have receive tax free and for which the party pay  have omit to deduct so curry v gold mad Denby v more b a peer William de term  S michaelis