case cruse et all v barley and banson Digby v Legard see note refer to tailor  v tailor de g m g sir Joseph Jekyll master of the roll Eq can ab pl one have  two son a and b and three daughter and devise his land to be sell to pay his  debt and as to the money arise by sale after debt pay he give pound thereout  to his old son a at twentyone the residue to his four young child equal a the  old die before twentyone this pound shall go to the heir of the testator  William banson seize in fee of some freehold and also of some cop hold land  which he have surrender to the use of his will and be very much indebt by  mortgage bind and simple contract and have a wife and five child videlicet  Christopher Erith Elizabeth mary and Cecil by will date the that of January  devise all his freehold and copyhold land to the defendant barley and his heir  in trust to sell the same for the best price he can get and in peer William  the first place to pay off all encumbrance upon the premise and also all his  just debt he devise also his personal estate to the same trustee in trust to  sell to the best advantage and after the testator debt pay to apply the money  arise by sale of the personal estate and also the money to be produce by sale  of the real estate among his five child in manner thereinafter mention  videlicet to the testator old son Christopher banson pound which the testator  give he at his age of twentyone all the rest and residue thereof to and among  his four young child Erith Elizabeth mary and Cecil share and share alike at  their respective age of twentyone or day of marriage which shall first happen  and if any of his four young child shall die before such age or marriage his  or her share to go to the survivor the testator give a express legacy to the  say defendant peer William barley who he also leave sole executor and die  barley the executor renounce and the widow of the testator take out  administration with the will annex Christopher banson die under twentyone  without have be ever marry the debt of the testator be considerable and the  estate small and the bill be bring by the creditor against Cecil the only  survive son and heir at law of the testator to prove the will in equity and to  have a decree for sale of the estate hereupon the only question be what shall  become of the pound give by the will to Christopher at his age of twentyone it  be admit on all side and also by the court that this pound do never vest in  Christopher it be by the will give to he at his age of twentyone and not  Payable at his age of twentyone vide vent Cloberys case Swinb off exec cap p  lev dyer b salk so that the age be annex to the gift and not to the time of  payment vide duke of chandos v Talbot ante Vol consequent it be not a interest  transmissible to the executor or administrator of the say Christopher but then  the master of the roll incline to think that it will not go to the young child  because only the residue of the money arise by sale be give to they which seem  to have exclude the pound legacy so that his present opinion be that this  pound belong to the heir against which it be object first that by this will  all be make personal estate and no real estate leave to descend and therefore  in the bequeathe part it be say that as to the money to be produce by the sale  c the testator dispose thereof in manner thereinafter mention videlicet pound  to his old son peer William Christopher at his age of twentyone it be true  where a estate be devise to be sell to pay debt if there be a surplus it shall  go to the testator heir at law forasmuch as when the debt be pay the trust be  satisfy and the motive of the testator for sale of the estate at a end and the  heir if he please on lie down the money for the debt may take the estate  himself so that in all those case there be a result trust for the heir but in  the principal case the surplus of the money arise by sale of the land and also  of the personal estate be by express word give to the young child who in this  respect be the hredes fact and the pound shall rather fall into the residuum  and belong to all the young child as hredes fact than to the only survive son  second for that if Christopher the old son and legatee of this pound have die  in the life of the testator peer William er p there can have be no doubt but  that this have be a lapse legacy and will have fall into the residuum now in  the present case in regard Christopher the legatee die before his age of  twentyone and consequent before the legacy ever vest in he it be as if it have  be a lapse legacy and within the same reason three because if this pound shall  belong and descend to the heir it will in case he shall die before the receipt  of the money descend to his heir which will give the money a descendible  quality like land the master of the roll order precedent to be look into say  he will consider of it and at length declare his opinion that the pound shall  be construe as land and descend to the heir for that it be the same as if so  much land as be of the value of pound be not direct to be sell but suffer to  descend wherefore the register be direct to enter the decree accord Reg lib a  fol the several case on this subject seem to depend upon this question whether  the testator mean to give to the produce of the real estate the quality of  personalty to all intent or only so far as respect the particular purpose of  the will for unless the testator have sufficient declare his intention not  only that the realty shall be convert into personalty for the purpose of the  will but further that the produce of the real estate shall be take as  personalty whether such purpose take effect or not so much of the real estate  or the produce thereof as be not effectual dispose of by the will at the time  of the testator death whether from the silence or the inefficacy of the will  itself or from subsequent lapse will result to the heir Randall v Bookey pre  Charles Emblyn v freeman pre Charles cruse v barley sup Stonehouse v Evelyn  post Arnold v chapman ves Digby v Legard before Lord Bathurst Trin term where  e b devise her real and personal estate to trustee in trust to sell to pay  debt and legacy and to pay the residue to five person to be equal divide  between they share and share alike one of the residuary legatee diedin the  lifetime of the testatrix the court at the hear and afterward upon a rehear  hold that this vas a result trust as to the share in the real estate of the  residuary legatee who die in the testatrixs lifetime for the benefit of the  heir at law Reg lib a fol and fol Akeroid v Smithson before Lord Thurlow march  that Christopher Holdsworth by will give several pecuniary legacy and then  devise all his real and personal estate to trustee in trust to sell the same  and to convert the same and every part thereof into ready money and out of the  produce to pay his debt and the abovementioned legacy and to pay the surplus  if any unto the say several legatee in proportion to their respective legacy  two of the legatee die in the lifetime of the testator Lord chancellor approve  of the case of Digby v Legard and declare that the share in the real estate of  the two residuary legatee who die in the testator lifetime result to the heir  at law Reg lib a fol and bro c c S c Robinson v tailor bro c c Spink v Lewis  bro c c Yates v Compton ante vol city v Parker Ves I Ripley v Waterworth Ves  William v coade Ves Ashby v palmer mere smith v Claxton mad walker v main I  and W Jones v Mitchell S and S Tregonwell v Sydenham dow the only case which  appear inconsistent with these decision be that of Ogle v cook cite bro c c  but in Collins v Wakeman Ves I the Lord chancellor say with reference to the  case of Ogle v cook that he have have the register book examine and it do not  stand in contradiction to the other case in the case of mallabar v mallabar  can tempt Tal and Durour v motteux ves the question be between the heir at law  and the residuary legatee of the personal estate and not the next of kin and  in those case the court be of opinion that upon the construction of the will  the real estate be convert into personalty for all the purpose of the will  include the residuary bequest kennel v Abbott Ves Sheddon v Goodrich Ves brown  v big Ves Ripley v Waterworth ub sup Wilson v major Ves wright v wright Ves  Kellett v Kellett ba and be smith v Claxton ub sup Jones v Mitchell ub sup  these case consequent do not decide the question which will have arise if  there have be no residuary disposition or if such residuary disposition have  be confine to what be personalty at the testator death but notwithstanding  that such interest result to the heir as be a part of the produce of the real  estate undisposed of it may yet be personal estate of the heir and pass as  such by a residuary bequest Hewitt v wright bro c c wright v wright ub sup  Ashby v peer William er p palmer ub sup smith v Claxton ub sup another branch  of case be those in which the question have arise between the real and  personal representative of devisees under will of the nature above mention  vide Scudamour v Scudamour pre Charles Flanagan v Flanagan cite bro c c  Fletcher v ashburner bro c c see Edward v Warwick ante vol peer William de  term S hilarii