ambler case Backwell against child follow in re Russell Russell v Chell Ch d  one partner by will give oneninth of onetwelfth of the profit reserve to he to  his partner he afterward on the expiration of the partnership renew it with  the same partner give they a great interest than they have under the former  article hold they be entitle to oneninth of the testator interest in the  partnership at his death and that the renewal of the article be not a  ademption nor revocation of the devise lib Reg a fol b Lincoln inn hall saint  Feb the late Samuel child and Barnaby and William Backwell be partner in the  bank business under article date in in the proportion after mention Samuel  child by his will that June after give several legacy devise as follow item  all the rest and residue of my personal estate of what nature or kind soever  the same be I give to my dear wife in trust to manage and dispose of to the  best advantage for the benefit of all my child who shall be live at the time  of my death and to be divide and pay to each of they in the proportion follow  twothirds to the old and onethird to the two young child Payable at twentyone  and if either child die before such his proportion which shall be due then to  go to the survivor item whereas l have by article of agreement and partnership  between myself and my say two nephew reserve to myself nine in twelve part of  the profit arise and hereafter to arise by bank at my house at temple bar  London I do pursuant to the power reserve to myself thereby dispose of such  nine part in manner follow videlicet oneninth to my nephew Barnaby and William  Backwell to their own separate use over and above the share reserve to they by  the say article of partnership and that share I give they in compensation for  the extraordinary trouble they shall be at in carry on the say bank business  for the benefit of my wife and child he also give oneninth to his wife  threeninths to his old son and fourninths to his two young son after make the  above will the article of expire and a year afterward child enter into fresh  article with the Backwells by which the business be divide ambler er p into  twentyfour part or share fourteen of which be declare to be the property of  child seven of Barnaby Backwell and three of William Backwell and by those  article as in the former there be a power reserve to Samuel child or such  person as he ambler shall appoint of dissolve the article at any time on give  notice child die on that October without have alter his will one of the young  son be also dead and there be two son survive after argument at bar Lord  chancellor Hardwicke take time to consider of the case and on Monday the rd of  march deliver his opinion to the effect follow in the article of there be a  provision in case any of the partner die during the continuance of the  partnership under those article or any future article their share to go to  their executor there be at the same time secret or what be call side article  enter into by they three consideration saint what be the thing give which be  the most material question of all d whether the legacy or gift of the thing so  give have suffer a ademption either by satisfy or accelerate the payment or by  revocation rd if not then what be the share which plaintiff be entitle to as  to saint it be insist on part of plaintiff that it be oneninth of the  partnership take it in general in whatever state it be at the death of child  on the part of defendant that the interest under those article be go the  legacy be go too that take it to be a legacy of quantity yet it be say not to  be such as may be supply as of corn but that it be a individual thing I do not  agree to any of these distinction I admit it to be a specific legacy but not a  individual I think it be a specific legacy of quantity bequeathe out of a  certain body and if the body be subsist at the death of the testator the  legacy shall be pay out of it it be say to be like a novation of a debt which  do not destroy the legacy of the debt ambler question be this body subsist at  the death of child I think it be in both set of article provision be make for  what shall be do during the continuance of that or any future partnership on  the death of any of the partner they consider it not as depend mere during the  article but as a continue scheme and it be observable that no new sidearticles  be enter into when they enter into new article this case differ from the case  cite out of wms where it be take for grant that a renew lease for year will  pass under a general devise of all his land c or under a residuary clause the  partnership be not to be consider as at the time of make the will but variable  and ambulatory where a person in trade make provision out of his share for his  family and afterward renew the partnership by which perhaps his interest be  vary yet it be not a revocation if it be it will occasion great confusion be  of opinion he intend oneninth of what shall be his share in the partnership at  his death d question here be no ground to say there be a ademption the  Backwells be to be consider as purchaser of the additional share or interest  under the last article by the contract itself a strong case be put where one  give pound south sea stock and by will give oneninth to a he afterward sell  oneninth to the legatee that be not a satisfaction of the legacy if he have  give it in his lifetime it will have be a satisfaction so will a gift have be  in this case what weigh with I material be if I shall decree the legacy to the  Backwells to be revoke I must determine the whole disposition of his in the  partnership to be so too that will make great confusion in the family of child  there will then be a end of mrs child power over the partnership the word be I  give all the power to which I have the say article if can not be the testator  intention d question the whole of child interest at his death which be  fourteen twenty four must be divide into nine part and the plaintiff be  entitle to one see attorneygeneral v Parkin post rider v wager p W and the  case collect in the note there see friar v morris Ves Gillaume v Adderley Ves  Barker v Rayner mad dingwell v askew Cox Ellis v walker ante the bill be file  by William Backwell in his own right and as executor to ambler er p his late  brother Barnaby the decree declare the plaintiff entitle to part of the  onequarter/24th part of the testator in the aid partnership over and above  such share and proportion as plaintiff and his late brother be entitle to by  virtue of the say article of September and that from the time of the death of  the testator to the death of Barnaby the profit of that share ought to be  equal divide between the plaintiff in his own right and the say Barnaby and  that from his death the whole of the profit of the that share survive to the  plaintiff No cost on either side