clark v guise July sir Thomas clarke master of the roll for Lord chancellor a  testator recite the amount of a debt he owe a accord to his own computation of  it direct such amount to be pay out of his real and personal estate and  bequeathe a annuity to a for life out of his real and personal estate such  creditor may enjoy the annuity and be at liberty to dispute the testator  calculation of the debt see milner v milner Ves sen so likewise if a testator  direct payment of any large certain sum mention to be due from he than be the  fact the whole sum will be decree Whitfield v clement Meriv Rep see also  Barret v Beckford Ves sen and supplement p supplement the plaintiff Margaret  clark serve as housekeeper to Richard Guise and his partner during the course  of which he contract a debt to her and also for money for the purchase of  furniture and money lend in he make a will devise among several other legacy  pound per and to the plaintiff during life out of his real and personal estate  to be pay punctual every year and then go on whereas I be indebt to her in the  sum of pound she have my obligation for pound S d memorandum pay her pound to  let dr Blagrave have and at diverse time have pay her pound I make the balance  I be indebt to her in the full sum of pound ordain this to be pay out of my  real and personal estate the bill be bring to be pay her whole debt the  testator have miscalculated it and also to have her annuity under the will for  defendant the general rule in noise v mordant for be insist upon the plaintiff  resort to her legacy she must wave the demand against the testator estate and  take computation make by he in his will so in Jenkins v Jenkins see this case  state from a ms report in the supplement p where a father recite by his will  that he as executor of David Lewis be oblige to pay his son several sum  particular and several payment have be make some of which be Allowable other  not he liquidates it to a sum certain and give the son several legacy on a  bill by the son it be decree at the roll that he be entitle both to the legacy  for which his father be debtor to he and also to the legacy under his father  will Lord Talbot vary that decree say the plaintiff must make his election  must submit to the adjustment of his debt otherwise the person vesey senior  prejudice by his resort to his debt must have the benefit give to he under the  will sir Thomas clarke the question be whether the plaintiff be to be conclude  by the description or account as it be call liquidate by the testator in his  will and be oblige to make her election the general rule rely on for defendant  which have obtain since noise v mordant be clear that where a man do by will  more than he have strict a right to do and give a bounty to the person to who  prejudice that be do the person prejudice by one part shall not insist upon  his right and at the same time upon the bounty by the will the same thing be  attempt in Lord some time but do not prevail as appear from Laurence v  Laurence but since noise v mordant for it must be look upon as settle that  claim in one part of the will by the intent of the testator they shall not  contradict another part to examine whether the general rule be applicable to  this what be the intent of the testator it be not to make a composition of a  debt he owe the plaintiff nor to give part in lieu of the whole of it but to  pay her the whole debt beside the pound annuity suppose the vesey senior er p  testator have not then be so particular but recite in general that whereas he  have give her pound per and and whereas he be indebt to her pound he order her  to be pay that pound out of his real and personal estate the testator  misrecital will not preclude her from say more be due to her it fall within  the case of milner v milner Ves sen where the court rectify the miscomputation  of the testator see the intent be that the daughter shall have pound in the  whole and though the testator mistake the particular to make up that sum it be  error a showing as it be call in another law vide in Clemment v Whitfield  Meriv and note that case be much strong than this for that be a mistake in a  bounty intend by the will and it be a contest with the person who have the  honour of the family beside the present case will have be much more favourable  for the defendant if there have be a connection between the quantum of the  bounty and of the debt but the testator have leave they unconnected give the  pound per and independent or unconnected with the other and therefore free  from that circumstance which have arise in other case of this kind where that  rule have be insist on it be not a state regular account nor can it have that  consequence or effect but at random a kind of lump the sum pay her therefore  the testator can not think himself that he take it in a accurate way as appear  from his follow word I make c his material design be to pay the whole debt the  bounty be unconnected with the debt in Jenkins v Jenkins the court go on this  that the testator know what he owe make a composition with his sen but it be  say what service will it be to take that account in his will if that be not  his intent it may be of service before the master as a vesey senior check on  the plaintiff and to prevent a unreasonable demand nothing then that will be  do in this case tend to weaken that reasonable and establish rule from which  this be distinguishable the testator not intend that any particular sum shall  come out of his estate any otherwise than as such sum amount to the whole of  the debt nor do this prejudice the residuary legatee for the residue be give  after payment of debt it be consequent uncertain and they can say they sustain  prejudice if this debt turn out large so that the rule be safe and the intent  of testator be preserve this way and no otherwise see the declaration of the  court and decree supplement p Reg lib a fol