case davis versus gardener Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl a will say in the  beginning after testator debt and legacy pay and then the will give several  legacy and portion to the testator daughter and then say that after legacy pay  the surplus of the personal estate shall go to the son after which follow a  devise of land to the son but if he die without issue in the life of any of  the daughter then to the daughter there be out of the personal estate a  sufficiency to pay great part though not all of the legacy in such case the  deficiency be not Chargeable upon the land Mr gardener of pishobury in  Hertfordshire make his will wherein he begin thus as to my worldly estate I  dispose of the same as follow after my peer William debt and legacy peer  William er p pay then he give several legacy after which he bequeathe pound  apiece to his five daughter Payable at twentyone or marriage if with consent  of his executor and then follow these word after all my legacy pay I give the  residue of my personal estate to my son have one only son then he devise his  feesimple land to his son and his heir and if his son shall die without issue  in the lifetime of any of his daughter he devise his real estate to his  daughter to who he order interest to be pay at pound per cent by his executor  for their portion until the same shall become due and appoint his son and one  Serle executor the personal estate be not sufficient to pay all the portion  but be enough to pay much the great part of they upon which it be object that  the real estate ought to be charge therewith because by the word of the will  his debt and legacy be to be pay and the devise to the son of the land in fee  follow afterward that portion for child ought to be favour and if the word  will bear a construction whereby these portion may be charge on the land as  they will well do in the present case they ought to be take in that sense Lord  chancellor as plain word be necessary to disinherit a heir so word equal plain  be requisite to charge the estate of a heir for a charge so far as the value  of it amount be pro tanto a disinherit peer William in the present case as to  the expression after my debt and legacy pay I dispose of the same as follow c  the word legacy be there improper in regard the disposition in the word that  immediate follow be of several legacy so that it say after my legacy be all  pay I will then that my legacy shall be pay which be absurd the testator in  say by his will that after all his legacy pay the residue of his personal  estate shall go to his son show that he have no apprehension but that there  will be a surplus of his personal estate and consequent can not think of  charge his land with his legacy or that there will be the least occasion for  it and though every one prima fancy be suppose to know what be himself be  worth that presumption will not hold in the present case it appear that the  testator be therein mistake I admit the portion may be charge on the real  estate have the devise of the land be to the son in fee absolute for without  such construction the devise will have be void and the son will have take the  land by descent so that the will must in such case have signify nothing as to  the land unless it be to operate so as to charge the land with the legacy and  to intimate that the heir be not to take until after the legacy pay but here  the will devise the land to the son and his heir and if the son die without  issue in the lifetime of any of the daughter then to the daughter so that the  son be not name in the will only for the benefit of the daughter and it be no  more than if the testator have say I give my land to my daughter and their  heir if my son die without issue live the daughter or any of they peer William  it be also material that the interest of the daughter portion be order to be  pay by the executor without mention the heir beside here be not such a  deficiency of the personal asset as to leave the daughter destitute for which  reason the court decree the real estate not liable Reg lib a fol note if in  the precede case there have be a want of asset for the payment of the testator  debt it seem the land will have be charge therewith by virtue of the word  after my debt and legacy pay I give c so if the testator have owe a debt for  which his real and leasehold estate be mortgage equity will in this lease have  charge all this debt on the real estate in order to have enlarge the fund for  the payment of the legacy as well as debt vide oneal v mead ante vol rider v  wager post but although the court may have express itself more strong in the  case of creditor than of legatee it seem that no rule of construction have be  adopt in the one case which do not apply to the other and that the real estate  have be charge with legacy by word not strong than those make use of in the  present case vide Clowdsley v Pelham I vern Alcock v sparhawk vern Bowdler v  smith pre Charles Harris v Ingledew post vol Legh v earl of Warrington bro p c  and Edward bro p c Hatton v nchol can tempt Tal lypet v carter ves earl of  Godolphin v penneck ves peer William er p Thomas v Britnell ves see also  Kightley v Kightley Ves jun William v city Ves Shallcross v finden Ves Keeling  v brown Ves Austen v Halsey Ves bridge v Phillips Ves Bootle v Blundell mere  bench v boil mad peer William de term S michaelis