case harvey versus harvey at the roll Eq can ab pl a father give a legacy to a  infant Payable at twentyone in what case and in what manner the court will  allow maintenance to the infant out of the legacy before it be due one seize  of a real estate and possess of a personal estate and have several child  devise all his real and personal estate to his old son charge the same with  pound apiece to all his young child Payable at their respective age of  twentyone but in the will no notice be take of maintenance for the young child  in the mean time the young child bring their bill in order to recover interest  or some maintenance during their infancy upon which the master of the roll  have take time to consider of the case and have be also attend with precedent  decree that the young child shall recover maintenance his honour observe that  these be vest legacy and no devise over it will be extreme hard that the child  shall starve when entitle to so considerable legacy for the sake of their  executor or administrator who in case of their death will have the say legacy  peer William that in this case the court will do what in common presumption  the father if live will nay ought to have do which be to provide necessary for  his child that a court of equity will make hard shift for the provision of  child as where young child be leave destitute and the old a infant equity will  make such a liberal allowance to the guardian of the old as that he may  thereout be enable to maintain all the child and for the same reason the court  will likewise take a latitude in this case that since interest be pretty much  in the breast of the court though the will be silent with regard to that yet  it shall be presume that the father who give these legacy intend they shall  carry interest if the estate peer William er p will bear it for every one must  suppose it to have be the intention of the father that his child shall not  want bread during their infancy nay that for this reason it have be hold that  though a legacy be devise over in case of the legatee die before twentyone yet  the infant legatee ought to have interest allow he during his infancy in order  for his maintenance with this difference only that where the estate have  appear to be small the court in who discretion it always lie to determine the  quantum of interest have order the low interest the court cite Chan Rep vo  Clyde versus wright Chan case Rennesey versus parrot Chan case leech versus  leech where a distinction be take between a vest legacy and a legacy devise  over videlicet in the former case to allow a maintenance though the legacy be  not Payable but to give no maintenance where the legacy be devise over and his  honour say that of late it have peer William be the practice to allow  maintenance even in case of legacy that be not vest also be cite vent bourn  versus tynte though the name do not there appear a strong case of interest be  allow for a infant legacy before the same become Payable as to the case of  bourn v tynte vide Acherley v Wheeler ante vol heath v very atk but it seem  that if one not a parent give a legacy to a infant Payable at twentyone  without any devise over and the infant have nothing else to subsist on the  court will order part of this legacy in order to provide bread for the infant  to be pay present allow interest for the same to the person pay it out of the  remain principal though this be do very spare vide walker v Wetherell Ves  Beasley v Magrath Sch l ex part Darlington ba be ex part MKey ib ex part green  James W pierpoint v Lord Cheney ante I vol Lanoy v duke of Athol atk petre v  petre atk tweddell v tweddell turner and the court have even allow a large  maintenance in respect of a illegitimate brother of the infant by the same  father and mother Bradshaw v Bradshaw I and W so attorneygeneral v Thompson  pre Charles green v belcher atk Haughton v Harrison atk heath v very atk  Hearle v Greenbank atk incledon v Northcote atk the general rule be that where  a legacy be give Payable at a particular time and the will give no direction  as to interest interest shall be give only from that time the case except be  where the legacy be a residue as to which see Nicholls v Osborne post and  where the legatee be the child of the testator Crickett v dolby Ves Terrell v  Terrell Ves chamber v Goldwin two Ves pet v fellow I swan n or a person to who  the testator have put himself in loco parent Beckford v tobin ves hill v hill  v b be a infant raven v wait swan and have no maintenance provide for he by  the will Mitchell v bower Ves long v long ib n winch v winch Cox and in these  case interest shall be give from the death of the testator as a maintenance  for the legatee mole v mole dick caryi v askew Cox a wife be not except nor a  grandchild or natural child as such Coleman v Seymour ves Demazar v Pybus Ves  very v Whitehead Ves Ellis v Ellis Sch l Stent v Robinson Ves Lowndes v  Lowndes Ves where a legacy be make Payable with interest on the legatee attain  c and bequeathe over in the event of his die under age and the testator have  not direct maintenance the court will give it even though the interest be  direct by the will to accumulate if the testator be the father of the legatee  mole v mole ub sup stretch v Watkins I mad or if the legatee over consent or  if the legacy be give to a class of infant with benefit of survivorship and no  ulterior devise over but not otherwise greenwell v greenwell Ves Fairman v  green Ves Lomax v Lomax Ves ex part Kebble ib errington v chapman Ves errat v  Barlow Ves martial v Holloway swan Haley Bannister mad peer William er p