case Elliott versus davenport Lord keeper vern Eq can Abr pl Eq can Abr pl a  devise to b pound which he owe he provide he shall thereout pay several sum to  his child the rest he free give he and direct his executor to deliver up the  security and not to claim any part of the debt but to give such release as b  his executor c shall require b die in the life of a decree this be a lapse  legacy sir William Elliott be indebt unto whether davenport in pound by  recognizance and afterward whether davenport by her will give and bequeathe  unto sir William Elliot his executor administrator and assign the sum of pound  which he owe her together with all interest due for the same provide that he  the say sir William Elliott shall pay out of the say pound the several legacy  therein after mention to his peer William child amount to about pound and the  residue of the say pound she give to the say sir William Elliott his executor  administrator and assign and by her say will desire and appoint her executor  not by any mean to claim or meddle with the say pound but that they shall free  deliver up the security for the same into the hand of the say sir William  Elliott his executor administrator and assign and seal and execute unto the  say sir William Elliott c all such reasonable release and discharge and  acknowledge satisfaction for the say pound for the safety of sir William  Elliott c as the say sir William Elliott r shall think fit sir William Elliott  die in the lifetime of the testatrix after which the testatrix die and William  Elliott the heir of sir William bring this bill against the executor of mrs  davenport in order to be discharge of this recognizance upon which the  question be concern so much of the pound as be to remain to sir William after  payment of the legacy to his child whether that be not a lapse legacy by  reason of the death of sir William before the testatrix saint it be agree by  the court and likewise by the counsel on both side that where one give a  legacy to a man his executor administrator and assign if in such case the  legatee die in the life of the testator though the executor be name yet the  legacy be lose for the word executor administrator and assign be void be but  surplusage et expulsion out the dawn c and they be by supposition of law name  peer William er p only to take in succession and by way of representation as a  heir represent the ancestor in case of a inheritance and to this purpose peer  William Brett and Rigdens case be cite Plowd where land be devise to a man and  his heir and the devisee die in the life of the testator it be hold that the  devise be void and the heir can not take consequent if the question here have  depend upon this clause only the legacy have be lose dly it be hold that a  will may be so pen as that though the legatee die in the life of the testator  yet his executor shall have the legacy but then it ought to appear in the will  plain and by direct word that this be the testator intention and though a will  can not as be allow enure as a release even suppose it to be seal and deliver  for want of its take effect in the testator lifetime yet provide it be express  to be the intention of the party that this debt shall be discharge the will  will operate accord vide Eden v smyth Ves Aston v pie ib n b beef v Bremer Ves  izon v butler price and therefore Lord keeper say that if this question have  depend only upon the latter clause videlicet that this security shall be  deliver up to sir William Elliott his executor administrator or assign in such  case it will be plain a absolute discharge of the debt though the testatrix  bad survive the legatee so that the question be reduce to this whether the  latter clause be to be take as distinct from or independent of the former  clause in which case the legacy will subsist or whether it ought to be look  upon as ancillary to and dependent upon it sure if the legacy take effect then  and then only the executor in consequence of it be to release and his lordship  decree that this latter clause be peer William dependent upon the former and  therefore that the legacy be a lapse legacy upon the former clause the latter  do not prevent it that what make such construction appear the more reasonable  be that the like claw in much the same word be add to the other legacy give by  the same will which can not operate by way of release or extinguishment and  though it may be the intent of the testatrix that the executor of the legatee  shall have the benefit of the legacy as probable this be always the intent  where a legacy be give to a man his executor c yet the law be otherwise such  intent must not prevail send vide Silbey v cook atk for which reason a will  that design to prevent the lapse of a legacy by the death of the legatee in  the life of the testator ought to be special pen note the master of the roll  who hear this cause the day before but adjourn it over for the Lord keeper  determination before who it have be in part first hear be of another opinion  Lord keeper also say it be a doubtful case to this purpose see more particular  the case of Goodright v wright post vide also Hutton v Simpson vern Hodgson v  Ambrose Doug Warner v white Doug note S c east note d vent post sir Barnham  rider v sir Charles wager Vol h Reg lib a foe his lordship declare that the  last clause in the will whereby it be direct that the security shall be  deliver up to the say William Elliott his executor administrator or assign and  that no use shall be make thereof be only in aid of the first clause in the  will by which alone the sum be to be take as a lapse legacy a appeal be bring  from this decree to the house of lord but before bear the party agree vide  sibthorp v Moxon atk which Lord Hardwicke distinguish from Elliot v davenport  see also stone v Evans atk Toplis v baker Cox Maybank v brook bro c c  Hutcheson v Hammond bro c g bridge v Abbott bro c c Wilmot v Woodhouse bro g c  Maitland v Adair Ves Corbin v French Ves tidwell v Ariel mad Vaux v Henderson  James W peer William er p peer William de term paschae