case rogers versus rogers p will S c a among other legacy give a legacy of  pound to b his brother and heir and then make his belove wife c his sole  heiress and executrix of all his land tenement good and chattle the same to  sell and dispose of as she shall think proper to pay his debt and legacy this  be a gift to her of the surplus in fee and there be no result trust for the  heir William Roger make his will and give a legacy of pound to h Roger his  brother and heir at law among several other legacy and then he constitute his  belove wife mary Roger his whole and sole heiress and executrix of all his  land tenement good and chattle whatsoever real and personal the same to sell  or dispose as she shall think proper to pay his debt and legacy of that his  last will and testament Reg lib b fol the question be whether there be a  result trust c for the plaintiff the heir at law it be say for the plaintiff  that in case parallel to this the determination have be that there shall be a  result trust the rule at law in devise of legal estate be that the heir at law  shall not case tempt Talbot be disinherit without express word and equity have  follow the same rule with respect to trust in the present case it be not say  what be to be do with the estate after the particular purpose be satisfy Chan  can vern Culpepper v Aston et e contra Randall versus Bookey there be a legacy  give to the heir at law as in the present case from whence it may be collect  that it be not intend he shall have any thing else yet it be hold that no more  of the land shall be sell than be necessary and that the residue shall go to  the heir vern Hobart versus the countess of Suffolk vern Bristol versus  Hungerford vern which case in p will note c be say to be in Vernon erroneous  but in Prec in Chanc accurate report these case go far than any other in  favour of the heir and even than the present case for there the surplus be  give to the executrix express yet it be decree to the heir at law loader  versus loader mosely there land be devise to one for life with remainder to  his first and every other son in tail and so on to a second person in like  manner and for default of such issue the remainder in fee be devise to the  testator kinsman Robert for so it be express and his heir pay pound to  particular person who be heir at law of the testator yet it be hold there  shall be a result trust for the benefit of those heir at law heron versus  Elford pasch Geo vern   on the other hand it be argue for the defendant it can  be controvert but that the legal estate passes by this will for the very make  one his heir be a devise of the fee to that person as be put in the place of  the heir at law but though the legal estate do pass in point of law yet when  that have be do for a particular purpose and that purpose be satisfy it have  be construe to be a result trust to the heir ante therefore the present point  under consideration be what the testator intend for make a construction  contrary to that will be make a new will instead of expound one case tempt  Talbot er p and a difference be take between a will and a deed the former  import a bounty which the latter do not Chan can be of a deed and it appear  more strong to be a trust than in the present case beside in that case there  be no colour case tempt Talbot for suppose a bounty but here the testator have  call the devisee his well belove wife which import a kindness for her   be not  applicable to this matter for there a difference be take between a sum in  gross and one issue out of the rend and profit and this in order to determine  what quantity of the estate the devisee be to have and not whether a trustee  or not in this case the testator have give the heir at law a legacy of pound  but suppose it have be only a gift of a shilling every body know that will  have imply a strong intention that he shall have nothing else if this be  construe to be a result trust there must be a different meaning put upon the  same clause as to the personal estate and the land for as to the surplus of  the former it must be for her own benefit when as to the latter she must be a  trustee for the benefit of the heir at law and that too when the testator have  constitute his wife by his will to be his heiress vern Randall v Bookey be a  devise upon trust and as the testator have call the devisee a trustee the  court will not determine he to be otherwise the same answer may be give to  vern Hobart v the countess of Suffolk but vern countess of Bristol v  Hungerford Mr attorneygeneral say be a case too strong to prove any thing for  there money be decree against the executor when the surplus be express give he  in loader versus loader there be a express trust and in heron versus Elford  land be devise upon special trust and confidence to sell for payment of debt  in case the personal estate shall prove deficient unless the devisees shall  think proper to raise the same by any other way and mean the case cite in  favour of the defendant be chancery case north versus Crompton Katherine  Crompton spinster seize in fee of the land in question make her will in the  follow word I ordain and constitute Henry north Esq executor of this my last  will and I do give all my estate real and personal to dispose of for the  payment of all my just debt and for the perform of all such legacy as I have  herein or by the codicil annex bequeathe unto my executor abovenamed and give  several legacy in money and among other pound to the defendant her uncle who  be her heir at law the Lord keeper assist by four of the judge all agree that  a fee pass by the devise and as to the imply trust all conceive there be not  any imply trust for the heir of the surplus for if there be the devisee have  no benefit and to no purpose be the devise of the pound to the heir if she  have intend the surplus to the heir vern Abr Eq can Coningham v Mellish which  be a devise of land to a and his heir and assign for ever in trust to be sell  for payment of all his debt and legacy and make a executor the surplus after  debt and legacy be hold to be no result trust for the heir as it will have be  on a like case on a conveyance execute Lord king Lord chancellor I think here  be no result trust for the benefit of the heir though perhaps the case on this  head be not reconcilable to one another the word heiress on all side be agree  to carry the fee then what be there in the will to draw the estate out of her  it be true a limitation in a conveyance to a man case tempt Talbot and his  heir without declare the use will not pass the use for want of a consideration  but a devise imply a consideration in itself there be no occasion to declare  the use in order to convey the interest of the land and if this be  insufficient yet be to a wife who the husband mention with affection it be  impossible to imagine he intend to give the land away from her and make her a  trustee for his heir and though it be say that this be only a power to sell or  dispose of the real and personal estate yet it be as she think proper either  the one or the other at her election suppose the devise have be to a man and  his heir to pay debt the land will be asset at law and there be no more in  this case only the testator have in this case by make her heiress place the  devisee in the room of the heir and make her absolute owner of the whole  beside the personal and real estate be mix together if there can be a result  trust of the one there must be the same of the other which be never pretend  where the executor have no legacy or be not cut off by some express word and  he say vern and Chan can be full in point and decree for the defendant case  tempt Talbot er p de boundary pasche geo two in curian porter