c grise v Goodwin Lord keeper a man by his will devise pound to his grandson  Jo and pound to his grandson Thomas and charge his land with the payment of  those legacy and then go on item I give to my grandson a pound and to my  grandson b pound c freeman and the question be whether the other legacy shall  be charge upon the land as well as the legacy of John and Thomas and it be  insist by the counsel that they shall e cause item as to the construction of  this word see Cheeseman v partridge atk and other authority there cite be as  much as also and more than and which only will have couple the gift of the  legacy but item imply more and that they shall be raise in the same manner and  here be the more reason to put that construction upon it because the other  legatee be the testator grandchild and therefore equal relate with John and  Thomas and he seem to have equal kindness have give they the like sum but per  curian these latter legacy shall not be charge upon the land for nothing be a  more know rule in law than that a legacy of money give general be Payable only  out of the personal estate and nothing appear of the testator intention to  charge the land the word item will not be sufficient for that purpose Hopewell  v ackland salk but decree that if the personal estate be not sufficient to pay  all the legacy John and Thomas shall have their whole legacy out of the real  estate and shall not come upon the personal estate to defeat the other legatee  ante c p note to the reference cite in which add Norman v Morrell Ves which be  say to be the common case among creditor where there be not asset sufficient  such creditor as have real security shall have their debt out of the real  estate or otherwise the creditor by simple contract shall have the benefit of  their security pro tanto to come upon the real estate And if t bill have be  file for administration of asset and it shall subsequent appear that a  specialty creditor have be pay out of the personal estate it be not necessary  to file another bill for the purpose of marshal the asset but the court will  itself without be call on give the necessary direction Gibbs v Ougier Ves  another point be a term for year be settle upon marriage by the testator wife  father in trust for the testator for life and after his decease in trust for  such person or person as he shall nominate or appoint and for default of such  nomination or appointment in trust for his executor or administrator and the  testator devise the estate and the question be whether the devisee take it as  devisee only or by virtue of the execution of the power by the testator for in  the first case it will be asset but in the last not and it be strong argue  that this term shall be asset and that it be in the nature of a legacy only to  the devisee and a case be cite between Thompson and Townley Prec in Charles  and vern where a man sell his estate and leave the money in the hand of the  purchaser to be pay to such person or person as be freeman shall by his will  direct and appoint and by his will he devise it away and the question be  whether this money shall be asset or not and decree that it shall and that  decree affirm in the house of Lords Journ h of l vol p freeman er p the Lord  keeper agree that case and say it be a Lincolnshire case but differ this case  from it because there the purchase money be upon the sale of his estate once  his own money and a man shall not by settle his own money in that manner  defeat his creditor by make it no asset but here this term be ne er in the  testator but settle upon he by his wife father with a power to dispose there  be a evident difference between a power and a absolute right of property not  so much with regard to the party possess the power as to the party to be  affect by the execution of it confine our attention to the former there be no  reason why the money he have a right to raise shall not be consider his  property but the latter can only be charge in the manner and to the extent  specify at the creation of the power per sir wm grant m r in Holmes v Coghill  Ves and see Jones v curry I Swanst and he have devise it it be a execution of  his power although it be devise without any reference to his power ex part  Caswall atk and therefore he be of opinion it shall not be take as any part of  his asset and decree accord de term S mich in curian porter