case partridge versus partridge a devise pound capital SouthSea stock to b at  the time of make his will he have pound such stock and after by sale reduce it  to pound which he after increase to pound and die between the make his will  and his death the act take place which change three four of the capital  SouthSea stock into annuity the legacy be not take away or impair by the sale  nor by the act of parliament the testator by his will devise pound capital  SouthSea stock to his wife for life for her sole use and benefit with power to  dispose of the same to such of her child as she shall think fit at the time of  make his will he be possess of pound SouthSea stock he afterward reduce such  stock to pound but after that purchase as much as case tempt Talbot er p make  up the to be pound and afterward die in July in June next before his death  case tempt Talbot the act take place for change three four of the capital  SouthSea stock into annuity the question make upon this case be first whether  the testator sell pound part of his pound SouthSea stock after the make his  will shall not be consider as a ademption of the legacy if not second if the  act for turn SouthSea stock into annuity shall not be so consider in the  argument of this case the case of Ashton and Ashton ante p will S c the  testator there intend to give only what he be possess of and it be of great  weight in that resolution that a trust be declare to sell and dispose of the  stock for it can not be suppose that the testator intend his executor shall  buy stock and immediate sell the same again and buy land with the money be  cite where the testator devise pound SouthSea stock to jc and at the time of  his death and will be possess of only pound SouthSea stock upon which a bill  be bring against the executor to have it make up pound but the master of the  bolls and after he the Lord chancellor on appeal be of opinion the deficiency  shall not be supply upon this principle that as general for the distinction  between a specific and general legacy vide Hinton v pink p will and the case  collect by Mr Cox in note Pugse v Snaplin atk attorneygeneral v Parkin Agnbl  Rep ashburner v macguire bro Charles Rep legatee have no lie on what be iven  to specific legatee so a specific legatee shall have no lie on the general  fund of the testator but if any loss happen to what be specifical give to he  he must bear the burden thereof himself Lord chancellor all case of ademption  of legacy arise from a suppose alteration of the intention of the testator so  hambling v Lister Ambl Rep and if the sell out the stock be a evidence to  presume a alteration of such intention sure his buy in again be as strong a  evidence of his intention that the legatee shall have it again it be not the  particular stock he be possess of that he give but the devise be only describe  the nature of the thing he give of which he have sufficient to answer such  legacy at the time of his death if the testator after such legacy sell out  part and die such sale will afterward be look upon as a ademption pro tanto if  he devise so much particular stock and at the time of such devise have not any  such stock a be a direction to the executor to procure so much for the legatee  it will be very hard in the case at bar to consider the sell as a ademption  because he may sell out for some particular purpose and as soon as that  purpose be answer lie may buy in again as case tempt Talbot to the second  point after such devise the legislature think proper to make a law to change  three four of the stock into annuity and the four to remain as it stand before  so that the testator when he die be possess of pound annuity and pound stock  and it will be extreme hard to say that this alteration of the stock by  parliament shall work a ademption so Bronsdon v winter Ambl Rep S p when it  can be presume the testator intent be particular ask or that he concur or  agree to such law in any other manner than what every other person be suppose  to do beg lib b fol if a obligee be to devise a legacy of pound secure by bind  from a b and he shall afterward compel a b by due course of law Oh pay it he  this will be a ademption of the legacy but it be never think if a b shall pay  in the money voluntary the distinction between a voluntary and compulsory  payment have in some case be allow as in crockat v crockat p will rider v  wager ibidem Orme v smith Eq Cas Abr pl in the above case of partridge v  partridge and before Lord Hardwicke in Lawson v stitch atk but in the earl of  thomond v the earl of Suffolk p will ford v Fleming p will Ashton v Ashton p  will the distinction be not approve of so in Drinkwater v falconer Ves  hambling v Lister Ambl Rep a compulsory payment be consider not to be in  itself sufficient evidence of a intention in the testator to adeem Lord Camden  again in the attorneygeneral v Parkin Ambl Rep hold the distinction not to  exist and his opinion be afterward adopt by Lord Thurlow in ashburner v  macguire bro Rep it will be a ademption because the obligee be bind to receive  it case tempt Talbot er p