case burton versus pierpoint Eq can ab pl Dowrymoney can be claim by the widow  against debt good paraphernalia not allow to the widow where there be not  asset at the death of her husband though contingent asset afterward fall in  but a specific legacy shall Mr William pierpoint of Nottingham upon his  marriage!With mrs darcy settle his real estate on himself for life remainder  to his wife for life remainder to the first c son of this marriage in tail  male remainder to his own right heir Mr pierpoint have two son by this  marriage and have a small estate in feesimple unsettle by his will devise his  wife jewel to her and likewise the use of the plate to her for her life after  which by his say will he devise all his real estate subject to his debt and  legacy and after his debt and legacy pay to his kinsman the marquis of  Dorchester grandson and heir apparent of the duke of Kingston and in the  testator die leave two infant son peer William at the time of the testator  death the real and personal asset be not sufficient for the payment of his  debt whereupon the creditor insist to be pay the testator widow give up her  jewel and her plate and twentyfive guinea purse be her dowry money which be  all apply towards the debt but in the decree obtain for the sale of the real  estate and for a account of the personal as well as real asset the widow claim  of her jewel plate and dowry money be save to her in the testator two son die  under age and without issue whereby the estatetail of the settle land expire  and the reversion in fee fall in become liable by the will to the debt and now  these point be determine by the Lord chancellor saint that as to the  dowrymoney claim by the widow it can not be good paraphernalia for these be  confine to the ornament of her person nor can it as have be urge be part of  her separate estate it be give to herself send vide Graham v Londonderry atk  and the case there cite by Lord Hardwicke and not to her trustee and the wife  can have a separate property in a personal thing without a trustee send vide  Bennet v Davis post but this dowrymoney in the nature of it be rather a gift  to the church the say dowrymoney be to be lie upon the book see gibson Codex  law Church rites part p dly that with respect to the claim of the jewel as  good paraphernalia the widow can have no title to they and that this case  differ from that of tip versus tip ante vol I regard be to he have here to the  time of the death of the testator when the real and personal asset be not  sufficient for the payment of the debt nay be a ply to the debt there be a  deficiency at the time when these jewel peer William of asset real and  personal for the payment thereof and though afterward upon a remote  contingency such as be not to be presume or wait for videlicet a death without  get have fall in yet that this shall not alter the case as to the good  paraphernalia for the same may not have happen until twenty or thirty year  after the death of the testator nor possible until after the death of the  widow when the end peer William er p and design of the widow wear her good  paraphernalia in memory of her husband can not have be answer and therefore it  be reasonable that this shall be reduce to a certainty videlicet that if there  shall not be asset real and personal at the testator death or at least at the  time when the jewel be apply to debt then the jewel shall be liable but dly if  the creditor by judgement of the testator shall after his death have take the  jewel in execution when the heir or executor or trustee have other asset to  have pay such debt this will have be a default in the trustee for which the  widow ought not to suffer as to her good paraphernalia but in the present case  here be no default nor any thing do but what ought to have be in regard the  just creditor of the testator be not to be keep out of their debt nor the  jewel which be legal asset detain from they in expectation of that which may  never happen a subsequent contingency of asset fall in must not exempt the  jewel from debt which at that time both at law and in equity they be liable to  answer vide tip v tip ante vol Ridout v earl of Plymouth atk Snelson v Corbet  atk Graham v Londonderry atk Lord Townshend v Windham Ves and particular tynt  v tynt post thly however in the present case forasmuch as there be a express  bequest of the jewel to the widow notwithstanding peer William that at the  time of the death of the testator there be not asset either real or personal  yet since afterward though by a remote accident asset have happen the court  hold there can be now no inconvenience to any creditor or other and that this  legacy shall be pay and the intention of the testator perform and the rather  for that here the real and personal asset be by the will make liable to the  debt and legacy especial it be the constant rule that a legatee where the real  estate be make liable to pay debt on the creditor exhaust the personal asset  shall stand in the place of the creditor and be pay out of the land and that  this be strong in the case of a specific legacy the principal case which be to  be prefer in payment before a pecuniary legacy Clifton v burt ante vol  haslewood v pope post vol also in the principal case all the legatee be decree  to be pay before the residuary legatee the marquis of Dorchester take any  thing peer William de term S michaelis