case heath versus very July a devise to five brother and sister no relation of  apiece to be pay to they at if they attain that age and not otherwise and if  any die before the legacy or legacy to be utter void the legatee bring a bill  for interest on their legacy be not entitle to the payment of their legacy  immediate they shall not have interest in the mean time nor the principal  particular secure to they till they shall arrive at their acre of twentyone a  person by his will give one thousand pound apiece to five brother and sister  but who be no relation to he to be pay to they a t their respective age of  twentyone in case they shall respective attain that age and not otherwise and  if any of they shall happen to die before they attain their respective age of  twentyone that then and in such case the legacy or legacy of one thousand  pound so give to they respective shall be utter void and of no effect and  shall sink and merge in the surplus of the personal estate then come this  clause and I do hereby give my executor full power and liberty during the  respective minority of the five legatee until they shall attain their age of  twentyone or the legacy otherwise become void to lie the money out in mortgage  or other security for the purpose and on the trust of this my will and my  executor not to be subject to any loss that and to call it in when they please  heath his residuary legatee the bill be bring by the legatee for interest upon  their legacy Mr Talbot for the plaintiff cite Nicholls versus Osborne p wms  and tailor versus Johnson p wms atkins Lord chancellor case of this kind how  far a legatee who be not entitle to the payment of his legacy immediate shall  have interest in the mean time depend upon particular circumstance some upon  relationship some upon the necessity of legatee and most of they upon the  particular pen of will and there be hardly one case which can be cite that be  a precedent for another some thing be certain in these case for if a legacy be  give general at marriage or at then the vest and time of payment be the same  and shall not vest till marriage or atkins er p to go one step further where a  legacy be actual vest as if give to a Payable at twentyone yet it shall not  carry interest unless something be say in the will that show the testator  intention to give interest in the mean time This be the case of a particular  legacy which be consider as part of the general personal estate so palmer v  mason ante l vol Atkinson v turner ante vol Haughton v Harrison ante vol Loyd  v William ante vol green v ekins ante vol Wyndham v Windham bro Charles Rep  Shawe v Cunliffe bro Charles Rep but with respect to a residue of a personal  estate it seem settle that if it be devise so as to vest upon a contingency  with a devise over if such contingency do not happen there the intermediate  interest will accumulate and go along with the residue green v ekins ante vol  butler v butler ante trevanion v Vivian Ves but if a residue be bequeathe to a  infant b way of present gift with a devise over in case of death under there  the interest to the death of the infant under will belong to he or his  representative tissen v tissen p W Nicholls v Osborn p W chaworth v Hooper bro  Charles Rep Hawkins v Coombe ibidem shepherd v Ingram Amb Descrampes v Tomkins  bro Charles Rep note indeed from the case of Nichols v Osborn chaworth v  Hooper and green v ekins it shall seem that if the residue be give to the  infant Payable or to be pay at which will alone make it a vest legacy with a  devise over in case of death under this limitation will not differ in  construction from the last rule b l the case of Descrampes v Tomkins appear  certain to make a distinction between a bequest by way of present gift with a  devise over and one Payable or to be pay at with a similar devise over a  distinction of this kind certain hold between particular legacy as appear by  the first class of case above cite and that of tailor v Johnson p W but all  these case be subject to this exception if it be in the case of a child for  then let a testator give it how he will either at or at marriage or Payable at  or Payable at marriage and the child have no other provision the court will  give interest by way of maintenance for they will not presume the father  inofficious or so unnatural as to leave a child destitute so glide v wright  Charles Rep Harvey v Harvey p W green v belcher ante vol incledon v Northcote  post Hearle v Greenbank post Coleman v Seymour Ves Beckford v tobin Ves Carey  v askew bro Charles Rep by as to grandchild palmer v mason ante vol Haughton v  Harrison ante vol I have a note of the case of Onslow v smith and by that it  appear to have be hear before Lord Cowper the that of July and there the  legacy be give at and yet be direct the money to be lie up in the mean time  till it be see whether the legatee will arrive at and in a new cause between  Onslow v draper the that of June and it be hold to be no vest legacy however  this direction may show Lord cowpers inclination yet it be not a absolute  determination and therefore be no precedent as to the case of bourn v tynt on  which a stress be lie in Acherly v Vernon Ventr that be a portion to a  daughter and a only one and also a vest one Payable at a future day a strong  circumstance atkins there for maintenance be allot to her during her minority  out of the very interest of the principal sum of pound but though this be  determine by a very great man I own I shall have have some doubt the trustee  have pay over the surplus for some time to mrs bourn but stop their hand the  plaintiff bring her bill and the cause be hear before Lord keeper finch when  he first have the seal on the that of June Charles consider the objection  there the per and be actual give to the mother for her maintenance though  indeed as it be the case of a daughter if the testator have not provide a  maintenance she shall have have the interest for that purpose but the court  lie hold of this single circumstance that the pound be not direct to be lie  out in land for the benefit of the residuary devisee and that nothing be give  to he but what be order to be invest in land it be a disinherit daughter and  therefore the court be Willing to strain in her favour the case of Philips v  Carey ante vol S c be clear a vest legacy and only the time of payment be  postpone it be a sum of pound and part of it out of a specific debt due to the  testator therefore this be a specific legacy and whether the whole or part of  a debt due to the estate be give as a legacy it be equal specific and  therefore a distinct tree and distinct fruit but where it be only give out of  the great tree of the estate there be no ground to sever a branch from it in  favour of a general legatee see purse v Snaplin ante vol note the next be  Acherly v Vernon p wms by the will that be not a vest legacy but make so by  the codicil the question be whether miss Acherley be entitle to the interest  of the pound before Lord Macclesfield give it as his opinion she be beside Mr  Vernon put himself in the place of a parent for she be the daughter of his  only sister and heir at law and he call it a portion therefore there be strong  circumstance to make it a vest legacy but the govern circumstance be this that  the testator have direct the residue to be lie out in land after the debt and  legacy be pay and Lord Macclesfield be of opinion till debt and legacy be pay  nothing be to be lie out in land atkins the question be whether any of these  case govern the present and I be of opinion they do not therefore the will  must be take into consideration the legatee be mere stranger to the testator  and therefore it be plain he intend they shall be contingent and to wait the  event of their attain if the testator have stop after the word in case they  shall attain their age of and not otherwise I shall have think it have not be  mere a neglect by reason of their nonage and for the legatee conveniency but  that he intend they shall not vest till but he go on and in case any of they  shall happen to die before they attain their respective age of that then and  in such case the legacy so give to they respective shall be utter void and of  no effect the legacy be mere contingent and direct to sink and merge this  plain atkins er p show nothing be to be take out for their benefit but that it  shall remain where it be at home as part of the old estate there can be no  doubt unless for the follow clause which be what the plaintiff chief depend  upon I do hereby give my executor full power and liberty during the respective  minority of the five legatee c see the clause it have be insist for the  plaintiff that this clause bring it to the case of Acherley v Vernon and bourn  v tynt and that though they shall not be entitle to the interest now yet it  shall accumulate in the mean time till they arrive at their age of if there  have be a particular direction for the benefit of the legatee by name there  may have be some weight in it I lie no stress upon its be a power for I do not  take this to be a direction to lie it out for the benefit of the particular  legatee but equal for the benefit of the residuary legatee for the purpose and  upon the trust c what be the meaning of this why to answer all the provision  of the will as well for the residuary as the other legatee therefore there be  no obligation upon the executor to sever a particular sum of money to answer  the legacy for the plaintiff and other particular legatee atkins but it be  strong still for he direct the executor either to call in or to continue the  security they shall find stand out at his death which empower they to do it  without any regard either to the interest of residuary legatee or the  particular legatee there be another thing which show that the testator know he  have give they as contingent legacy for he express call they contingent in  this clause therefore I be of opinion that the residuary legatee be entitle to  the interest in the mean time nor be the plaintiff entitle to have the  principal particular secure to they till they shall arrive at their age of but  to be lie out for the benefit of all the legatee the word of the decree in  theRegisters book be that what shall be come for the plaintiff say two legacy  be place out at interest upon government or real security subject to the  contingency in the say testator will Reg lib a fol indeed it seem now to be  settle that whether a legacy be vest or contingent the legatee may have it  appropriate for his benefit Philips v Annesley ante vol Johnson v de la Cresa  bro Charles Rep Ves SC Ferrand v apprentice Amb bro Charles Rep SC green v  Pigot bro Charles Rep caryi v askew bro Charles Rep Cooper v Douglas bro  Charles Rep Hutcheson v Hammond bro Charles Rep atkins er p