case cray versus Willis refer to Edward v champion de g m g at the roll mos Eq  can ab pl Eq can ab pl pl pl a make two executor b and c appoint they  residuary legatee b die the whole shall survive to c a bequeathe the surplus  of his personal estate to b and c make they executor and die upon the death of  b the question be whether this be a matter legatory and suable in the  spiritual court where survivorship will not be allow the survivor shall be  liable to account with the representative of the decease executor and after  time take to consider of the case his honour dow give his opinion master of  the roll a right of survivorship be as good as a right by descent neither be  there any thing unreasonable or unequal in the law of jointtenancy each have a  equal chance to survive vide Barker v Giles ante staple v Maurice bro p c bro  p c and ed and the duration of all life be uncertain if either party have a  ill opinion of his own life he may sever the jointtenancy by a deed grant over  a moiety in trust for himself so that survivorship can be no hardship where  either side may at pleasure prevent it it be plain that at law in case of a  grant of a term for year to two the thing grant must survive if the  jointtenancy be not sever peer William the hard case of a jointtenancy and  which be think so to be in the peer William er p house of lord be that of  Wilkinson versus spearman cite in cook versus cook vern where one devise land  to his two daughter and the heir of their body one of they die leave issue and  the survivor claim the whole they have be jointtenants for life with several  inheritance the lord be inclinable to give a moiety to the issue of the  daughter who die first but the judge inform their lordship that the law be  settle in this point they will not alter it a right of survivorship be much  more reasonable than a right by occupancy and yet this latter as unreasonable  as it be prevail until the statute of fraud take it away but put the case of a  trust instead of a legal estate or suppose land be grant for year to a in  trust for b and c b die and his executor get a moiety of the term assign to  they by the trustee yet a court of equity will help the survive jointtenant to  that moiety against the executor of he who die first vern Aston versus  Smallman now this be pretty near the present case which be that of a trust  since every executor after debt pay be a trustee for the legacy but it be  object that in case of a legacy give to two it shall not survive because a  legacy be recoverable in the spiritual court where the rule of the civil law  take place which rule be against survivorship resp I do not see that a court  of equity shall even in case of a legacy judge accord to the civil law but  ought ratherto pursue the commonlaw which be the general law of peer William  the land for all legatee be volunteer and ought to stand or fall by the rule  of the commonlaw and that this court do in other case determine the right of  legacy accord to the rule of the common and not of the civil law be plain from  a common case as suppose I devise to my daughter pound on condition that she  marry with her mother consent with a devise over in case she do not marry with  such consent if the daughter do marry without her mother consent a court of  equity determine the devise over and the condition to be good though the civil  law say they be both void for by that law maritagium debet be book see the  precede case and if a court of equity be to determine accord to the rule of  the commonlaw in the case of one legacy why not in other beside in case of a  legacy or term for year give to two if the executor assent to the legacy and  one of the legatee die the legacy then will be admit to survive because by the  consent of the executor the legacy be become a legal property and consequent  determinable accord to the rule of the commonlaw now it be not very reasonable  that when the debt be all pay as they be in this case the executor delay to  give their consent to do what in equity they ought nay what they be  compellable to do videlicet to consent to a legacy shall defer the vest a  legal right in a three person but if this be so here be a imply assent if I  devise a term for year to my executor who enter general he may prima fancy  take as a legatee this be more for his advantage though it be otherwise where  I devise a term to my executor for life only with remainder to I S because if  the term be vest in the remainder man it can not be divest out of peer William  he again and so may make a devastavit I roll Abr cro Elizabeth pannel versus  Fenn and though the present case be of a devise of a surplus and it must be  admit that until debt c be pay it can be know what the surplus be yet here  where all the debt and legacy be pay it may well be know what it be and so  there may be a assent to this legacy far if these two joint residuary legatee  shall be take as tenant in common then if one of they have die in the life of  the testator one moiety of the personal estate will have go to the next of kin  to the testator accord to the statute of distribution which will hardly be  admit Bagwell v dry ante vol page v page ante as to authority though there may  be some scatter one against survivorship in case of a legacys be bequeathe to  two yet the last and most considerable authority be in vern lady shore versus  Billingsley the same case report in Jones Thomas where it be adjudge before  the delegate and decree by Lord keeper north which decree be also affirm by  Lord jefferies that where a surplus of a personal estate be devise to a and b  this be a joint devise and shall survive and that it be the same as if a and b  have be make joint executor and a have possess a moiety of the good and die in  which case the survivor shall have all and there it be say that the case of  Cox versus quantock which in I Chan case be at first decree to the  dissatisfaction of the bar be reverse upon a rehear and agreeable peer William  er p thereto videlicet that there shall be a survivorship be decree in Chan  case where a devise of a surplus be to executor and the Lord chancellor say it  will survive upon the death of either his lordship in that case make use of  this exprestion the judge will have light so see also Jones Thomas bastard  versus Stukele where a devise peer William be of the surplus to two upon which  the executor consent and then one die this consent of the executor turn the  right of the legatee into a legal property which therefore shall survive  accord I think the survivor must in the present case take the whole Reg lib a  fol by which this point seem now full settle in favour of survivorship vide  Webster v Webster ante Willing v baine post vol Perkins v Bainton bro c c  Jolliffe v east bro c c Balwyn v Johnson bro c c Campbell v Campbell bro c c  Morley v bird Stuart v Bruce Ves Jackson v Jackson Ves Ves crook v de Vandes  Ves swain v Burton Ves Gant v Laurence wight the report in Moseley state the  gift of the residue to have be to the testatrixs son Samuel and her daughter  Hannah their executor and administrator for ever but these latter word do not  appear in Reg lib