case hutchinson and another against vinncent where a executor have no specific  legacy devise to he he shall have the residuum of the personal estate after  debt and legacy pay S c Eq ab the plaintiff have a brother who as it be  suggest in the bill die seize of a real estate and possess of a personal  estate of great value and by his last will and testament devise several legacy  to particular legatee and make the defendant Vincent executor and die against  who the plaintiff and his sister exhibit this bill to have the real estate and  their distributive share of the personal estate or of the residuary part  thereof after debt and legacy pay the defendant by his answer set forth that  the testator by his last will devise a legacy of fifty pound to his brother  the now plaintiff but leave nothing to the other plaintiff his sister and that  he make the defendant executor but leave no specific legacy to he so he insist  that he as executor be entitle to the residue of the personal estate of which  the testator die possess and deny that he be seize of any real estate or if he  be the defendant disclaim all manner of right to it those who argue for the  plaintiff insist that though the defendant be make sole executor by this will  which after a long contest be now establish yet as this case be circumstance  the defendant ought not to have the whole personal estate but shall be presume  as a trustee for the next of kin of the testator unless it can be show that it  be his intent his executor shall have the whole now by this will it stand  indifferent whether the testator intend the benefit shall be either for the  defendant who be his executor or for his next of kin but it be in proof that  he very often express a great regard for his brother and his child therefore  it can be presume be intend his estate for a stranger it be argue for the  defendant that nothing appear upon the face of this will to induce the court  to intend the modern report defendant to be a trustee for the next of kin  therefore the presumption must be that he intend the estate for the defendant  and though there be few case in point yet the reason which govern some other  case of the like nature may likewise govern this but there be no case to prove  that a executor be a trustee bare by be appoint executor and it may be some  reason to induce the court to decree in favour of the defendant when it shall  be modern report er p consider what vast expense he have already sustain in  the contest of this will for first the plaintiff contest it in doctorscommon  and after sentence there for the will he appeal to the delegate where that  sentence be affirm then he indict several of the witness for perjury who prove  the will and they be all acquit there be no colourable proof against they so  that have be defeat at law and in the spiritual court he now make his last  attempt in chancery the court a executor have certain the whole and entire  right to the testator personal estate both in law and in equity unless upon  the face of the will it appear by some indication that the testator intend to  the contrary as by give he a specific legacy for by such a devise it appear  that be intend he no more and this be lie down as a rule when jefferies be  chancellor and with good reason and have be a stand rule in the court ever  since with some little variation and exception from the circumstance of case  to exclude the executor but the executor in the present case have no specific  legacy devise to he it do not appear but that the testator intend the whole  personal estate to he a see Rashfeild v careless ante heron v Newton ante note  to Mr Cox Peer will that edit p where the case on this subject be collect and  the case of Clennel v Lewthwaite vezey jun a therefore this bill be dismiss  but without cost upon condition the plaintiff shall not trouble the defendant  with any far demand