case Nicholls versus osborn at the roll Eq can ab pl pl a have a niece a  infant about the age of devise to her the surplus of the personal estate  Payable at the niece shall have the interest pay her in the mean time though  the surplus be devise over if the niece die before twentyone or marriage the  devise over be but a condition subsequent one mrs Powel by will after several  legacy devise her household good to I S and the surplus of her personal estate  which be about pound to her niece be a infant of about seventeen to be pay to  her at her age of twentyone year and if she shall die before twentyone or  marriage then the testatrix devise it over and she also devise a small estate  in land to the say niece in possession on the death of the testatrix the  question be saint who shall have the produce and interest of this surplus  during the infancy of the niece dly whether by the devise of the household  good the plate shall pass object this produce c ought to be lie up until the  niece shall come to twentyone or be marry and be then pay to the niece but if  she shall die before in such case it ought to be pay to the devisee over and  that nothing be to be pay before the niece shall come to twentyone or be marry  because it be not due till then peer William for the niece it be argue that  the surplus be devise to the niece Payable at twentyone or marriage this be  debt is owed in prsenti though to loosen in going to be and the devise over in  case she shall die before twentyone or marriage be in nature of a condition  subsequent can not defeat the first devisee of the mesne profit accrueing  before the devise over take effect as if I shall devise land to a infant to be  void if the infant shall die before twentyone though the infant shall die  before twentyone yet will he be entitle to the mesne profit until the time of  his decease so if I be to devise to one pound and if he die before twentyone  then the same to go over the devisee the infant shall have the interest till  his death so tailor v Johnson post neither be there any diversity betwixt a  devise of a particular sum that be as between the first taker and the devisee  over and the devise of a surplus for this last may by computation be reduce to  a certain also when the devise be of a surplus to a infant and if he die  before twentyone then to go over the surplus devise over be the same surplus  which be devise to the infant whereas it will be a different and great surplus  be it to carry the interest accrueing during the life of the infant add to  what be the surplus at the time of the testator death which seem not to have  be intend master of the roll let the master take the account but reserve the  point whether the infant shall be entitle to the interest of the surplus  during her infancy and let it be speak to in court it not be fit to be  determine on a private hear by consent afterward in Trin Vac this cause come  on upon the master report whereby though there be report manifest peer William  intention and declaration of the testatrix as to the other point that she do  not intend the plate shall pass yet the master certify that the plate be  common use in the house his honour reject all the evidence touch the intention  of the party there be a complete and plain Willing write which must not be  alter or influence by parole proof but as to the mean profit of the estate the  court take it clear that the infant niece be entitle to the profit and the  interest of the surplus which shall incur from the death of the testatrix and  in the lifetime of the niece though she shall happen to die before attain her  age of twentyone c and decree accord peer William er p so Lillcot v Compton  vern master v master ante vol Snelson v Corbet atk contra Jesson v Essington  pre Charles on a petition prefer to the master of the roll to rectify the  minute in this cause allege that as the register have take they the testatrixs  plate general be direct to be deliver to I S the legatee whereas it appear  that some part of the plate which the testatrix be possess of at her death be  only pawn to her and that doubt have arise whether such part will pass under  the general direction his honour declare that such part of the say plate as  well what be the testatrixs own as what be pawn to her which be in common use  pass by the bequest to I S Reg lib b fol vide Reg lib b fol and fol and so  tissen v tissen ante vol green v ekins atk chaworth v Hooper bro c c Hawkins v  comb bro c c Shawe v Cunliffe bro c c the same thing be determine in shepherd  v Ingram Amb where a residue be bequeathe without mention of any time of  payment a bequest of a residue Payable at a future day carry interest from the  death of the testator contrary to the general rule that a legacy so Payable  shall not carry interest before the time fix for payment as to which see the  note to Harvey v Harvey ante Crickett v dolby Ves Terrell v Terrell Ves Sisson  v shaw Ves because the operation of the rule in this case will lead to a  partial intestacy namely as to the interest which the court endeavour to avoid  Wadley v north Ves booth v booth Ves Bolger v Mackell Ves leak v Robinson mere  skey v barn mere bird v Hunsdon swan so the legatee for life of a residue be  entitle to the interest immediate from the testator death angerstein v Martin  Hewett v morris turner overrule Stott v Hollingworth mad and tailor v Hibbert  James W but where a bequest of a residue of personal estate be contingent the  interest until the happen of the contingency will accumulate Studholme v  Hodgson post vol butler v freeman atk Trevannion v Vivian ves bullock v stone  ves Montgomery v Woodley Ves Glanville v Glanville mere unless in case where  the legatee as be the infant child c of the testator be entitle to the  interest in the shape of maintenance for which see note to Harvey v Harvey ub  sup