barret v Beckford July satisfaction testator be under a obligation to pa a  annuity to m p bequeathe the residue of his estate for the benefit of his  mother and m p for life this be not to be consider in satisfaction of the  annuity limitation over after legitimate heir too remote unless capable of be  confine to the period of the party death see Ves sen and supplement p Ves sen  and supplement p I Barret be by the will of James pope to who he be executor  and residuary legatee r l and see supplement p to pay pound per and to his  aunt Margaret pope devise the residue of his estate to his mother and his aunt  Margaret for life Ves sen brown Ves sen vern pre Ch wms legacy to a child not  a satisfaction of a bind to the same child the bind be Payable before the  legacy brown the value of a beneficial lease grant to a natural son not a  satisfaction pro tanto of a legacy to the son in the father will they not be  the same noble birth brown on a bill by the mother the question be whether  this moiety of the residue for life be not a satisfaction of that annuity for  plaintiff this be a satisfaction be more than the pound annuity a person by  virtue of his estate be debtor for a annuity charge by name of residue all his  estate therewith suppose he give her pound per and out of the estate of pope  that will be specifical do it and it be do in effect though not in word but  consider it as a debt due from executor receive asset which he be bind to pay  suppose he have give security or a bind for the payment personal of pound per  and and give his residuary estate during life that will lave the same effect  as if he give a annuity to the value out of the residue but it be out of  another fund and can it be say to be less a debt from he whether he himself  give a bind for it or by receive asset make himself debtor for it a sum of  money to a wife have be hold a satisfaction for arrear of pinmoney though only  recoverable in this court lee v daranda Feb ante vesey senior and door v Geary  June ante be applicable nor can he intend so great a disproportion between his  aunt and mother as will be unless this be admit a satisfaction the intent be  to make they entire equal and they seem jointtenants and a survivorship for  their life for defendant No intent be show that what be give shall go in  satisfaction of any thing defendant be entitle to under her husband will  therefore it have be argue from the nature of the case wherever satisfaction  be decree it must run on allfours and in many case the court have doubt  whether if it come original before they they will have go so far it be beg the  question to say he intend they equal share for it be soon in the residue after  discharge the burden though the residue may in the event be more than  sufficient to pay the annuity it be a uncertain and precarious benefit in the  case cite what the executor do be part of the performance of the contract and  the performance be out of that fund out of with he be bind to make  satisfaction but where the former will make a fund liable and the latter take  no notice thereof but a moiety of the whole estate there be no instance of  that be a satisfaction in construe legacy a satisfaction the court consider it  as a debt move from himself as a satisfaction for the testator covenant but  never where he be oblige to pay by reason of asset in his hand where vesey  senior er p the debt be not due from himself upon the several point in this  case see supplement p Lord chancellor I be of opinion this legacyof a moiety  of the residue of his personal estate be not a satisfaction for the annuity No  case be cite of a decision in this court of a satisfaction carry to that  extent which indeed in this court have go a great way and in some instance  have be a little regret but that have be on another head where a legacy have  be presume a satisfaction for a debt by the same testator the objection to  which have be that where one say he give a legacy which be suppose voluntary  it be pretty hard to say he mean to pay a debt instead of that but this be  clear of that objection for on the head of presume satisfaction for a portion  to child the court have go a great way where one be dispose of a estate among  his child and his family and be oblige to give a portion by marriage  settlement and have give a like or great sum by will the court lean against  double portion or provision tend to bring a great burden on the heir of the  family but this be not of that kind the case cite be not like this in the  reason of the thing in lee v daranda if the administrator pay the residuary  part which amount to more it be actual a payment and performance so the court  hold in vesey senior Blandy v Widmore I p wms where the covenant be to leave  and in whatever way leave it be a performance so be door v Geary there be some  kind of uncertainty in case of presume satisfaction in this court and it may  be difficult to reconcile every one of they but Duffield v smith for be  applicable there be a difference of opinion and the lord be against the  satisfaction which determination go a great way in this Ves sen vern brown it  be a general rule of satisfaction that the thing to be consider as a  satisfaction shall be exact of the same nature and equal certain here it be  not of the same nature vide for also couch v Stratton Ves the first be a clear  annuity of pound the will a moiety of the residue of the personal estate  whether more or less which though probable it will be more than sufficient et  it be uncertain from accident if he live long after the will it be say that in  this way the provision for the aunt be great than that for the mother which be  unnatural that will not be as move from he but believe he intend it he owe  every thing to this uncle supplement p and he certain then intend to be  bountiful l to make a addition and show a respect to his aunt then no  authority be to restrain it or that the provision by the husband shall be  deduct out of that bounty mean by the nephew next a doubt be make on the will  of James pope whether a limitation over be too remote and also uncertain he  have devise his full and whole estate bankstock c to his nephew I Barret and  his legitimate heir if he die without legitimate heir then to the family of  the pope his relation vide Ves sen Lord chancellor the proper construction of  legitimate heir be heir of his body lawful beget for if to he and his heir  lawful beget that will be heir of his body and then the contingent limitation  over will be too remote and void accord to the case of Lord beauclerk unless  there be something to confine it to the time of his death Reg lib a foe Ves  sen where portion be charge on a estate which go to the old son additional  portion on condition shall Le like law make after other and shall repeal the  former per Lord Thurlow brown in atk it be hold that in the case of portion as  both move from the same person the court will overlook any little encumbrance  as difference of the time of payment and consider one as a satisfaction for  the other which rule be recognize by Ashhurst justice in brown and accord to  which he decree that a provision by will be in part satisfaction of a portion  by settlement