case mary young widow and other appellant William Burdett and other respondent  that march Mews dig xv a by will give all his personal estate to his wife for  life and then give to his grandchild t and f pound apiece if they attain or  shall be marry hold that these legacy be not Payable till after the wife death  but that the legatee be entitle to have security for the payment of they at  that time a attest copy of a entry in the book of the chamberlain of London  that a be admit to the freedom of the city be not sufficient after his death  to prove he to have be a freeman without prove the identity of his person  decree of Lord chancellor Macclesfield reverse the report in Eq ab can and vin  can go to the point of give security only in which they be accurate but in Eq  ab can and vin can the effect of the Lord chancellor decree be state from Mod  but no notice be take of its reversal in the house of lord the statement in  vin can include a point total irrelevant and not notice in the case before the  house of lord a executor be in equity consider as a trustee for the legatee be  the true ground of equitable jurisdiction in this case see I p wms Ch can Ch  Rep and of late the court of chancery will immediate on the come in of a  defendant answer order so much as he admit to have in his hand of the testator  property to be pay into the bank bro c r Mod viner vol p can c can Eq can ab  can can Thomas Sutton by his will date the d of April devise to the appellant  mary his then wife all his real estate in the county of Suffolk with the  Chequer inn in the parish of brown saint Andrew Holborn for her natural life  and after her death to trustee in trust to be apply to charitable use subject  to the payment of two annuity of pound and pound per and to a sister and  nephew of the testator and as brown er p to his personal estate he bequeathe  the same in the word follow videlicet item I give and bequeathe unto my say  love wife all my personal estate of what nature or kind the same be to her  sole use during her natural life item I give and bequeathe unto my grandson  Thomas Robert and to my granddaughter Frances Robert child of my soninlaw Mr  George Robert late of goodman field gentle the sum of pound apiece if they  attain the acre of or shall be marry but in case they die before that age then  I give the same to my say trustee to be apply to the like use as the estate  herein before devise to they be direct item I give and bequeathe unto my say  granddaughter Frances Robert after my wife decease all my household good plate  and linen whatsoever all the residue of my estate of what nature or kind  soever not hereby by I dispose of I give and bequeathe unto my nephew John  Sutton after the death of my wife on the that of November the testator make a  codicil to his will ratify and confirm all the devise and bequest thereby give  to his wife and revoke all the devise and bequest therein contain relate to  charity and dispose of his land and tenement after the death of his wife in  another manner and make his wife mary sole executrix of his say will and soon  after die without issue the appellant mary prove her say husband will and  codicil and some time afterward intermarry with Bartholomew young the  respondent Frances Robert have attain her age of and be marry to the  respondent William Burdett they exhibit their bill in chancery in Michaelmas  term against the appellant mary and her say husband Bartholomew young and the  say John Sutton to have a account of the personal estate of the testator which  they charge amount to pound and upward and likewise of the household good  plate and linen and to be pay the legacy of pound and interest from the time  of their intermarriage or of the respondent Frances attain her say age of or  in case the respondent be not entitle to the say pound till after the death of  the appellant mary then that the appellant mary and her say husband may be  oblige to give security for payment thereof and for the delivery of the say  household good plate and linen after the appellant mary death the appellant  mary and her say husband by their answer to this bill and a schedule thereto  set out the testator personal estate whereby it appear not to exceed pound  over and above debt legacy and funeral expense and they insist that the  respondent be not entitle to the pound till after the death brown of the  appellant mary and how far they may be entitle to the same even then they  submit to the court in regard they have then late discover that the say Thomas  Sutton be a freeman of the city of London and as such have no more to dispose  of than a moiety of his personal estate and that the appellant mary his widow  be entitle by the custom of London to the other moiety thereof as also to her  paraphernalia and widow chamber and the say Bartholomew young also set forth  that say Thomas Robert the respondent frances brother on his attain his age of  be satisfy he have no title to his pound legacy at least till after the  appellant mary decease have make he the say Bartholomew young a allowance for  the immediate payment thereof and that before he have notice of the say Thomas  sutton be a freeman of London and on a presumption that he have power to  dispose of his personal estate by will the say Bartholomew young about the  that of June have give security to pay the respondent her pound legacy when  the same shall become Payable by the will issue be join in the cause the  appellant mary and her say husband Bartholomew procure a attest copy out of  the chamberlain of London book for enter the name of person make free of the  say city of a entry bear date the that of January to prove the freedom of the  say Thomas Sutton of the city of London on the d of November the cause come on  to be hear at Westminster before Mr baron price in the absence of the Lord  chancellor at which time the appellant mary produce and read the attest copy  of the say entry to prove the freedom of the say Thomas Sutton but Mr baron  price be of opinion that the say entry be not a sufficient evidence to prove  the say Thomas Sutton to have be a freeman of the city of London without prove  at the same time the identity of the person and that the say Thomas Sutton the  testator be the same Thomas Sutton who be brown er p mean and intend by the  say entry and therefore make no decree in relation thereto but as to the other  matter declare that the respondent be not entitle to have the respondent  frances legacy pay till after the death of the appellant mary but that the  respondent be in the mean time entitle to have security for the payment  thereof upon her death and be also immediate entitle to have a appraisement  and account of the plate linen and household good and to have security that  the same shall be forthcoming after the death of the appellant mary and  therefore decree that it shall be refer to the master to see if the say legacy  of pound be well secure or not and if he shall find that the same be  sufficient secure then the say Bartholomew young and the appellant mary be to  give such further or other security as the master shall approve of for payment  of the say pound after the death of the appellant mary and that the say  Bartholomew and the appellant mary be to give security to be allow brown of by  the master for delivery of the plate linen and household good to the  respondent after the death of the appellant mary and it be further order that  the respondent shall have their cost of suit out of the testator estate to be  tax by the master the say Bartholomew young and the appellant mary conceive  themselves aggrieve by this decree in regard as they be advice the say entry  in the chamberlain of London book be sufficient evidence to prove the freedom  of the say Thomas Sutton and that the respondent ought not to have have their  cost out of the estate they prefer their petition of appeal from the decree to  the Lord chancellor in these particular the respondent also prefer their  petition of appeal from the decree allege that they conceive themselves  aggrieve thereby in regard the pound legacy become Payable to the respondent  Frances on her attain her age of and ought to have be decree to her with  interest for the same from that time and not to wait for the same till the  death of the appellant mary the cause be hear before the Lord chancellor  Macclesfield on these two petition of appeal upon the that of April when his  lordship be please to declare that the respondent ought to be pay the say  legacy of pound with interest for the same from the time the respondent  Frances attain her age of year and do therefore order that the say decree  shall be vary accord and that it shall be refer to the master to compute  interest for the say pound legacy from the time the respondent Frances attain  her age of and with that variation the former decree be to stand before any  report be make by the master Bartholomew young die have first make his will  and appoint the appellant Arthur young executor thereof by who the suit be  duly revive soon afterward the present appeal be bring and on behalf of the  appellant it be contend c Wearg t Lutwyche that the entry in the chamberlain  of London book be a sufficient evidence to prove the freedom of the testator  Thomas Sutton and as there be no dispute concern the identity of the person  mean and intend by that entry the same ought not to have be make a question by  the court or at least it be a sufficient foundation for the court to have  direct a issue to try whether the say Thomas Sutton be a freeman of London or  not in which case any defect in point of proof may have be supply as to the  circumstance of the identity or the same may have be direct to be inquire into  by the master that the legacy of pound give by the testator will to the  respondent Frances be not Payable till after the death of the appellant mary  not only because all the personal estate be give to mary for her life by the  express word of the will and which can not be answer if this legacy be to be  pay in her lifetime but also because the legacy be not direct to be pay when  Frances marry or come brown of age but upon that contingency be to be pay on  mary death it may be object that the testator have by a separate bequest give  the respondent Frances after the appellant mary decease all his household good  plate and linen whatsoever but to this it be answer that these specific legacy  be give absolute not upon the contingency of frances marry or come of age and  in that the difference between those legacy and the legacy of pound consist  not that the one be to be satisfy after the death of the widow and the other  in her lifetime but that the one be certain to be satisfy after her death the  other upon a contingency brown er p only it may also be object that by the  will there be legacy of pound for mourning two guinea for preach the testator  funeral sermon and pound to be lie out in his funeral and for a gravestone and  that though no time be limit by the will for the payment of these sum yet it  can never be suppose the testator intend they to wait till his wife death and  the legacy of pound to the respondent Frances stand upon the same reason but  to this it be say that these legacy for mourning etcetera fall all under the  consideration of funeral expense which in their own nature be to be pay  immediate and be a debt upon the personal estate and the declare the use to  which they be to be apply be to be construe as the appoint they to be direct  pay but that the case of these be great different from the pound legacy which  be a considerable part of the estate take off in a great measure from the  benefit of that provision which be make for the wife without any apparent  intention of the testator so to do no conclusion can therefore be draw from  these funeral legacy to assist the force construction which the respondent  will put upon the testator intention in relation to the pound legacy beside  the real estate devise to the appellant mary for her life be recover from her  for want of a power in the testator to devise it so that her only provision  from he be out of his personal estate to this it be answer p York c Talbot on  the other side that the appellant mary and her late husband by their answer  insist that the testator Thomas Sutton be a freeman of London and that the  appellant mary be entitle as his widow to a moiety of his personal estate  together with her paraphernalia and widow chamber wherefore as that matter be  put in issue and examine into before the hear it be incumbent on the appellant  mary to have prove it before the hear and she have no reason to expect to be  indulge by the court with a liberty of make further proof of it after the hear  and especial in support of a claim set up in opposition to the will of her  husband by which she be liberal provide for that it plain appear to be the  true intent and meaning of the testator from the whole frame of his will that  the legracy of pound shall be pay to the respondent Frances upon her attain or  marriage no other time of payment be mention for in every case where he intend  brown that the payment of legacy shall be postpone till after the death of his  wife as in the bequest to the respondent Frances of his household good plate  and linen he give the same in express term after the appellant mary death and  therefore it be hope that the Lord chancellor decree and so much of the former  decree as remain thereby unaltered will be affirm and the appeal dismiss with  cost but after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that such  part of the decree of Mr baron price as order the respondent their cost of  suit out of the testator estate shall be reverse but that the say decree as to  all other part thereof shall be affirm and it be further order and adjudge  that so much of the decree of the Lord chancellor as vary from the say decree  of Mr baron price or the direction of the house shall be reverse jour vol p