atkins case walker versus Jackson July will S c bunb S c the personal estate  under b s will pass as a specific legacy to the executrixs and shall not be  apply in exoneration of the real estate the question in this cause arise out  of the follow will of Beaupre bell who be indebt to the plaintiff upon bind  and seize in fee of land in Cambridgeshire Norfolk and Lincolnshire to the  amount of pound per annum and possess of a considerable personal estate I will  that all my estate in the county of Lincoln or a sufficient part thereof be  sell as soon as my executrixs convenient can for the payment of my lawful debt  and the legacy hereafter mention and the expense of my funeral which I leave  to their discretion I give to mrs Emma martial one annuity or yearly  rentcharge of pound to be raise out of all my estate not hereafter otherwise  engage in the county of Norfolk to be pay her halfyearly then he give several  specific legacy and a miniature picture and several print to Emma martial last  I appoint the abovementioned Emma martial and Dorothy Beaupre joint executrixs  of this my will write with my own hand this that of December on the of the  testator add these word to his will and atkins er p I give and devise to they  all my personal estate not herein before devise and then execute it over again  in the presence of three witness who name appear under it a bill have be bring  by the plaintiff and other bind creditor of the testator against Mr Jackson  who marry Dorothy Beaupre one of the executrixs and likewise heir at law to  the testator and against Emma martial the other executrix to set forth the  testator personal estate possess by they and for administer of asset  sufficient to pay the plaintiff and for the sale of the Lincolnshire estate  the principal question be whether the personal estate ought in favour of the  heir at law to be apply in exoneration of the real estate Lord chancellor that  the personal estate be to be apply for the payment of debt in the first place  be the general rule and it be as certain that a testator can as against his  creditor exempt the personal estate atkins but against his heir at law or the  devisee of his real estate he may substitute the real in the room of the  personal estate and charge the debt upon another fund which be not in its  nature primary liable there be several different way of give real estate  subject to his debt a testator may do it by a devise of the real estate for a  term for year in order to pay the debt or he may do it by way of charge and  let it descend upon the heir at law or he may do it by direction only without  devise it over but let he do it by either of these three way of which do it by  way of charge be much the strong yet neither of they show the real estate be  to be primary apply for if a man devise real estate by way of trust either to  be sell for a term of year or the inheritance to be sell if he have do nothing  to exempt the personal estate it shall be primary liable so Gower v mead pre  Charles dolman v smith pre Charles French v Chichester vern Stapleton v  Colville can tempt t haslewood v pope p W Ferreyes v Robertson bunb Brudenel v  Boughton ante Bridgman v dove post vol Lord inchiquin v obrien will Amb S c  bro Charles Rep SC samwell v wake bro Charles Rep the general rule of this  court though deliver sometime in one form and sometime in another be that the  personal estate shall be apply unless there be express word or a plain  intention of the testator to exempt his personal estate as a specific legacy  so Adam v Meyrick Eq ab pl Bamfield v Wyndham pre Charles Wainright v  Bendlowes ibidem Stapleton v Colville can tempt Talb Phipps v Annesley ante  Bicknell v page ante Ancaster v mayor bro Charles Rep web v Jones bro Charles  Rep see Galton v Hancock ante note minor v Wickstead bro Charles Rep for he  may do this as well as give the bulk of the real estate by way of specific  legacy therefore in the present case there must be a manifest plain intention  in this will to exempt his personal estate and I be of opinion there be such a  manifest plain intention to give the personal estate as a specific legacy to  his executrixs and to exempt it from his debt see the devise of his  Lincolnshire estate after give several specific legacy he say last I appoint  the abovementioned Emma martial and Dorothy Beaupre joint executrixs of this  my will if the testator have rest there it be only make they executrixs and  the personal estate will then have be applicable to exonerate his real but the  testator some time after add these word and I give and devise to they all my  personal estate not herein before devise atkins and in a formal manner  reexecutes his will and this I must take notice of as it must be make part of  the probate this be a extreme strong circumstance to show the intention of the  testator and indeed unsurmountable and a much strong case than if insert in  the win when first execute but if insert at first I shall even have think it a  strong case of exemption the additional word upon the republish the will do  not mean what the testator have before specifical devise out of the personal  estate make a provision out of his real estate for one executrix will not bar  her neither will the specific legacy give to one executrix bar either of the  residue in the personal estate for they be put in to give one a preference of  the other vide Blinkhorn v Feast Ves Wilson v vivat Ves Cox p W Southcot v  Watson post vol and to distinguish their two case for he intend mrs martial  shall have particular part as the will stand original the executrixs will have  have very little benefit from it and therefore upon the reexecution the  testator throw in this clause to give they the personal estate by way of  specific legacy when this circumstance be consider the case already adjudge be  not so strong as the present Adam versus Meyrick Eq Cas Abr all the roll be a  much weak case a by will give several pecuniary legacy and after devise land  to trustee in trust that they do and shall by mortgage or sale pay his debt  legacy and funeral expense then devise all his good chattel and household  stuff in such a house to b and then go on in these word all the rest and  residue of my personal estate I give and devise to my wife who I make sole  executrix sir Joseph Jekyll hold that the residue of the personal estate  belong to the wife as a specific devise and that the word be to be understand  the residue of what he have not before particular devise not the residue  afterdebt pay Adam versus Meyrick at the roll hill t those case where rest and  residue be give by will be the weak of all and several case upon these word  where it have be hold that the personal estate be not exempt from payment of  debt in the first place atkins er p it be no objection here that the person to  who it be devise be make executrixs for a testator may give a executor the  personal estate as a specific legacy exempt from debt as well as to another  person the word debt legacy and funeral expense be only word of style and no  weight to be lie upon they Bradysh versus Lisle the that of November be not so  strong as this nor hall versus broker Gilbert nor Stapleton versus Colvill  Trin t can tempt Talb S c Eq ab pl S c there be only a power give which speak  most strong that it be intend mere in aid of the personal estate atkins the  case of bampfield versus Windham Prec in Chan and wainwright versus Bendlowes  vern do not come up to this but be much weak than the present upon the whole a  strong circumstance can be than the republisbing his will and a alteration  from what it be before and unless it be construe to be his intention to exempt  his personal estate in favour of the executrixs the word be fruitless and vain  and do n more in their favour than the will as it original stand will have do  before therefore these word can have no other signification than to exempt his  personal estate the real estate be b that his lordship decree to be sell or a  sufficient part thereof for the payment of the testator debt Reg lib b fol