case Jeffreys versus Jeffreys Trinity term Geo a by his will bequeathe to his  two daughter and and Elizabeth S capital stock in the bank of England and  pound sterling capital stock in the English east India company to be equal  divide between they after make his will he sell S of the bank stock the court  hold that the testator have the stock at the time he make his will he mean to  give that very individual stock and the sale of part afterward be a ademption  pro tanto vide purse v Snaplin ante atk vol and the note to that case the  question in this cause arise upon the will of one James Jeffreys date the that  of June in which be the follow clause imprimis to my two daughter now in  danzig and Louisa Jeffreys and Elizabeth Jeffreys I give and bequeathe two  thousand seven hundred and two pound three shilling capital stock in the bank  of England and two thousand pound sterling capital stock in the English east  India company to be equal divide between they at the time of make his will he  have pound S bank stock and pound east India stock but before his death sell  seven hundred and two pound three shilling of the bank stock so that the  testator at the time of his death have only pound bank stock and pound east  India stock the bill be bring by the daughter and legatee against the widow  and executrix of the testator who be a second wife of the testator and by who  he have leave other child and devise to they the whole residue of his personal  estate charge that the testator have receive pound and upward of theirmothers  estate and that what he have devise to they be the whole provision make by he  for the plaintiff and pray that they may be decree to have the benefit of this  devise and that the executrix may be direct to purchase out of the other asset  which be very considerable enough to make up the deficiency in the bank stock  of the seven hundred and two pound three shilling against this that defendant  the executrix insist that the sale of this stock by the testator in his  lifetime be a ademption of the devise pro tanto and by her answer set forth  that the plaintiff have very large portion leave to they by their grandmother  one mrs Colmer with who the plaintiff live at danzig that the testator their  father have be at atkins great expense in bring the plaintiff from danzig and  in a cause in this court for recovery of what be so leave to they and upon the  hear of that cause it be among other thing refer to a master to state what be  fit to be allow for the plaintiff maintenance for the time pass and to come  and that the master by his report allow a sum of upward of pound for the  further expense and the maintenance of though plaintiff but when the cause  come on again upon the master report it be refer back to the master to state  whether the father be not in circumstance to maintain his child and in what  manner the master have compute the allowance but nothing further be do in that  cause and now the defendant insist to have this money deduct from the  plaintiff legacy master of the roll fortescue here be two question make in  this cause the first be whether the sale of the seven hundred and two pound  three shilling bank stock be or be not to be consider as a ademption pro tanto  of the plaintiff legacy second whether the defendant be entitle to have the  allowance make to her which she have claim by her answer and to have the same  deduct out of the legacy with regard to the first it have be say by the  plaintiff counsel that this be not a individual specific devise of what stock  the testator have at the time of make his will but a general devise to be make  good by the executor there be no doubt but in specific devise this distinction  have be take that where a man devise such a quantity of corn so Abney v miller  ante vol or number of sheep general this be not to be consider as the corn or  sheep which he then have but a devise of quantity only but I think there be a  difference between a devise of stock and of corn or sheep corn or sheep be in  their nature perishable but when a man buy stock he buy it to have continuance  as long as he life and therefore when he devise a quantity atkins er p of corn  or sheep though he have such quantity at the time of make the will yet he can  from the nature of the thing be take to intend that the individual quantity of  corn or sheep shall go to his legatee but where he devise any quantity of  stock which in its nature be durable and may continue in the same state to the  time of his death if he have the stock at the time he can but be take to  intend that very individual stock atkins and if so the sale of it be undoubted  a ademption pro tanto and this be very strong in the present case in respect  that the stock devise and the stock which he then have agree exact even in the  odd money consider then how far the case that have be cite come up to this  case the first case be Ashton versus Ashton case in Lord Talbot time which be  before his lordship in and I believe it be right state in the book but that  case differ from the present there pound Southsea stock be devise when the  testator have but pound and yet hold that it be a specific individual devise  of the stock and that no more shall pass than what the testator leave and it  be say by Lord Talbot if in that case the testator have actual have as much as  he devise but before his death have sell a part it have be a ademption pro  tanto as to the testator sell the stock at five different time in the present  case it seem to make no difference for he may every time intend to diminish  the legacy for so much as he sell the next case be that of partridge versus  partridge can tempt Talb S c which be before Lord Talbot in there the testator  devise pound Southsea stock at the time of make the will he have pound stock  which he reduce afterward to pound and then purchase pound more then come the  act of parliament which change threefourths of the stock into annuity and soon  after the testator die and what have so happen at the make of the will be  determine to occasion no ademption of the legacy and the devise be hold to be  descriptive only of the nature of the thing which he intend to give and the  act of parliament be take most clear not to affect the legacy but this case  differ from the present and if his buy in can be say to restore the legacy as  it be say it do it imply that his sell out be a ademption and in that case the  devise be not of the particular stock that the testator have which make it  different from this case as to purse versus Snaplin ante atk vol S c if the  pound stock give to one of the devisees be a specific individual devise there  be no stock for the other devisee and then as to he it be a devise of stock  where the testator have none and be as a direction to the executor to procure  it for the legatee in Brunsden versus winter Amb S c the testator have more  stock than be devise and the nay that bill be receive in a course of payment  but here the testator sell the stock and as to the atkins navy bill I take it  to be a constant rule that if a man have a debt owe and devise it and it be  pay in voluntary the legacy continue vide Lawson v stitch ante vol and the  case cite in the note as to the allowance claim by the defendant I think they  ought not to be allow in such case the usage of a court be to refer it to a  master to see if the father be not in circumstance to maintain his child and  it be certain the duty of a father to do it if he can and wherever maintenance  be allow it be always to be pay to the father out of the child estate and be  never know to be deduct out of a legacy leave by the father to his child  beside I can now take upon I to anticipate the order in the other cause or to  determine now what be not make a question there I must therefore decree the  two sum of pound bank stock which be all the bank stock testator have leave  and the pound east India stock to be transfer for the benefit of the plaintiff  clear of all deduction note that so much of the say bank stock and east India  stock as remain be transfer to trustee in trust for the plaintiff and that the  dividend which have accrue since the testator decease be pay in like manner  Reg lib a fol note in the argue of this case at the bar Swinb fol edit and  roof be cite for the plaintiff and the case of Brunsden versus winter Amb  which be also cite for the plaintiff be a devise to this effect I devise the  sum of pound capital Southsea stock in the Southsea company to a b and c d my  trustee and also two navy bill which Southsea stock and navy bill I direct  shall be apply in the same manner as my real estate c which be devise upon  several trust for the benefit of the defendant Mr winter child the testator  atkins er p at the time of make his will have pound Southsea stock afterward  the testator sell out pound and then come the act for annihilate c and the  question be whether the devise of the stock be a specific individual legacy  out of the particular stock that the testator have at the time of make the  will and so the sale a ademption or whether it be to be take as a general  legacy of so much stock which the executor ought to provide out of the residue  of the testator asset and the master of the roll hold it to be a general  legacy to be make good by the executor it be hear at the roll the that of  February before Mr Verney upon the question as to the allowance Mr solicitor  general cite the case of the bank of England and morris that come first before  Lord Talbot and afterward go up into the house of lord in which case it be  first hold by Lord Talbot atkins that where a father be indebt to his child  and die that his executor shall not be permit to deduct any thing from the  debt in respect of maintenance of the child by the father in his lifetime  though insist on by creditor and although this part of the decree be reverse  in the house of lord yet it be only in favour of creditor and not to be carry  further for the defendant be cite Godolphin Orph leg this decree be affirm by  Lord Hardwicke the saint of April Reg lib a fol