case roberts versus KUSSIN January distinguish in re Robson Ch SC barn Charles  a party who be at liberty to surcharge and falsity be not mere confine to  error in fact but may take advantage of error in law a devise of pound on a  mortgage passes the principal only a gift of pound upon a bind do not carry  the interest incur in the testator lifetime a devise in express word be not  extend by subsequent general ones Money will not pass by a devise of all good  and thing of every kind where the devisee have a money legacy at the outset of  the will where this court say Lord chancellor by a decree give direction to a  master to examine account and the party be at liberty to surcharge and falsify  you be atkins er p not mere confine to error in fact but you may take  advantage likewise of error in law Owen Robert in make his will to the follow  effect I give to my son Thomas Robert pound secure by a mortgage on the estate  of Mr Marriot and all the message land and tenement for secure the same Lord  chancellor this entitle the devisee to the principal only of the mortgage and  not to the interest from the time of the execution of the will nor from the  death of the testator or any other time whatever if a man give three hundred  pound due upon a bind by his will this do not carry the interest incur in the  lifetime of the testator because it be quite doubIful what it may amount unto  from the uncertainty of the time the testator may live after make his will  atkins where there be a devise in express word the construction in this court  be that subsequent general word shall not extend it further than the natural  meaning of the precede one will do a by his will devise to his daughter all  good and thing of every kind and sort whatever which shall be find in her  closet at the time of his death the question whether pound S d in money find  in it at his death will pass to the daughter by that devise Lord chancellor if  this will have be construe strict in law or equity I be of opinion it will not  have carry the pound and d to the daughter for in the outset of his will he  give her a money legacy which must be presume to be the whole he intend his  daughter by way of money legacy beside in the clause which be in dispute good  be first name therefore the subsequent word thing must be confine to household  good and what be of the same species Timewell v Perkins ante see also more v  more bro Charles Rep for it will be unnatural to extend it to money a closet  too be a very improper place to refer to for money the testator will have  certain mention cabinet or bureau or any other thing where money be usual keep  if he I ad intend a further bequest of money but by refer to a closet it be  reasonable to believe he mean furniture only which the daughter make use of in  the closet at law the cost follow the justice of the demand and in this court  the plaintiff shall likewise have his cost unless circumstance arise which be  a excuse on the part of the defendant where the plaintiff have succeed in his  demand for he be under a necessity of come into this court or he must have  lose his money bring a bill or year after a account be settle for error in  that account be not too long a time for bill of this nature have be bring  after a much great distance from the settle of the account as to open account  and surcharge and falsify they see Vernon v Vaudry post barn Charles Rep SC  fuel v bridge Ves earl pomfret v Lord Windsor Ves pit v cholmondeley ibidem  Brownel v Brownel bro Charles Rep