case Willing v baine see re green estate draw S Lord chancellor king keb Eq  can ab pl pl one give a legacy of pound apiece to his child Payable at and if  any of they die before then the legacy give to he so die to go over to the  survive child one of the child die in the life of the testator though this  legacy lapse as to the legatee die under yet it be well give over to the  survive child a by his will devise pound apiece to his child Payable at their  respective age of twentyone and if any of they die before their age of  twentyone then the legacy give to the person so die to go to the survive child  he devise the residue of his personal estate to a b and c be three of his  child and have make they executor die one of the child die in the testator  lifetime and after the testator death one of the executor and residuary  legatee die upon this two question arise first whether the legacy of the child  that die in the life of the testator shall go to the survive child or shall be  a lapse legacy and sink into the surplus second whether when one of peer  William the executor and residuary legatee die his share of the residuum  belong to his executor or to the survive residuary legatee as to the first it  be object to be the constant rule that if the legatee die in the life of the  testator this legacy lapse which take in the present case for here the child  the legatee die in the lifetime of the testator that it be true there be a  devise over of the legacy in case any of the child shall die before their age  of twentyone but such clause can not take place in the present case because  there can be no legacy unless the legatee survive the testator the will not  speak till then wherefore this must only be intend where the legatee survive  the testator so that the legacy vest in he and then he die before his age of  twentyone on the other side it be say and resolve by the court that the rule  be true that where the legatee die in the life of the testator his legacy  lapse I e it lapse as to the legatee so die but that in this case the legacy  be well give over to the survive child for which vern miller v warren be cite  where there be a devise of a legacy of pound to a Payable at his age of  twentyone and if a die before then to b on a s die in the lifetime of the  testator though this be never a legacy with respect to a but lapse as to he by  his die in the life of the testator still it be hold to be well devise over so  in the case in vern of Ledsome v Hickman in like manner if land be devise to a  and if a shall die peer William before twentyone then to b on a s die in the  life of the testator and before twentyone this will be a good devise over of  the land to b vide Perkins v Micklethwaite ante vol with respect to the second  point it be contend that it be the case of a legacy and mere out of a personal  estate the construction of the spiritual court ought to prevail now that do  not allow of survivorship but take care that the benefit of the devise shall  be equal as be intend by the testator which intention seem here to have be in  part comply with by the executor have divide among themselves what have be  already receive and sir Thomas Jones bastard v Stukley also Chan case Cox v  quantock be cite for this purpose but it be hold by though court that there  may be a joint legacy as well as a joint grant and that as the executorship  survive there be the same reason why the devise of the residuum shall do so  too that the case in Chan case be mention in the book to have be  dissatisfactory to the bar and to have be reverse on a rehear and the case  cite afterward in the same book from roll Abr be plain against law that a will  come into westminsterhall to be construe ought to be determine accord to the  rule of the commonlaw wherefore it be peer William er p decree that the  survive devisees of the residuum shall have the benefit of such surplus except  as to what have be receive and divide in the case of Ledsome v Hickman which  be much the same with the principal case accord to our author report of it the  Lord Cowper both on the demurrer and afterward on the hear of the cause be  clear of opinion that the devise do not take effect to the two survive  daughter as a remainder or a devise over but as a original devise on the  contingency of one of the devisees die within age and that agreeable to what  Lord king declare in the above report case of Willing v baine this will have  be good have it be in the case of a devise of land see the case of Webster v  Webster vol but more particular that of Cray v Willis vol and sir Joseph  jekyll argument on this point the master be to certify what part of the  testator personal estate be divide to Ann bayne the decease executor and the  other residuary legatee in the lifetime of the say Ann bayne and her executor  be to retain what be allot to her on such division and if the other three  residuary legatee have not or do not retain their proportion thereof then they  be to be make equal with the say Ann bayne out of the say residuary estate  before the same be further dividedand the remainder be to be equal divide  among the three survive residuary legatee Reg lib b fol