case clark versus jewel July a legacy that ought to be deem a satisfaction  must take place immediate at the testator death for a debt be due then the  legacy must be so too and not be Payable in this case till a month after the  court hold it to be no satisfaction see Nicholls v Judson ante vol Edward  Godfrey by his will give a legacy of two thousand pound to trustee in trust to  pay the interest thereof to his wife for life and after her death the benefit  of the principal   his son note Edward Godfrey at and also devise all his  freehold estate to his son with remainder over to testator daughter and their  heir in case his son shall die under age without issue but if he die before  twentyone then he give it over to his daughter and make James jewel and two  more person executor the son attain twentyone and become entitle to the two  thousand pound the direction in the will be that the executor shall carry on  the testator trade of a brewer and in compliance with this they suffer the two  thousand pound as well as the rest of the testator estate to continue in the  trade the son after he have attain his age of twentyone still carry on the  trade on the foot of the same stock which be leave by his father the son  afterward make his will without any reference at all to his father and give a  legacy of ten thousand pound upon different trust from what his father have  atkins er p do of the two atkins thousand pound for after the interest of the  ten thousand pound to his mother for life he give the principal to his sister  jewel child and charge it upon all his real and personal estate and to be pay  to trustee in a month after his death then follow a specific devise of a farm  of thirty pound ayear to river Dickinson and then another legacy of ten  thousand pound to his sister Brownings child and then a legacy of five  thousand pound c and then the rest and residue of all his estate real and  personal after payment of debt and legacy among the child of his sister jewel  and Browning the son soon after die the plaintiff as devisee of the mother  insist both on the interest of the pound as well as of the pound and have  bring his bill for that purpose Lord chancellor the first question be whether  the interest of the pound give by the will of the son be to go in satisfaction  of the interest of the pound leave by the will of the father second whether  the plaintiff be entitle to a priority of satisfaction and payment before the  other legatee under the will of Godfrey the son and this divide itself into  two more question one as to the real and another as to the personal estate as  to the principal question whether it ought to be deem a satisfaction in this  court accord to the rule with regard to legacy be a satisfaction of debt I be  of opinion with the plaintiff and that it ought not to be herd a satisfaction  it be true there be many case which have carry the doctrine of satisfaction a  great way in late case the court have say this doctrine have be carry too far  for legacy natural imply a bounty and therefore though the court of late have  not altogether disavow this doctrine of satisfaction yet they have be very  inclinable to lie ld of any circumstance to distinguish the latter from former  case the consequence of the son carry on the trade with his father stock be  that the pound be a debt due upon his father estate in his hand or more direct  and proper a demand upon his father executor there be no pretence to say that  the principal of the pound can be a satisfaction of the principal sum of pound  to the mother nor be there any thing in the will that declare this to be a  satisfaction of the interest of the pound atkins but the point of time it be  say be so trifle it be only a month that no regard shall be pay to it but that  ugh a small one yet it be a circumstance that the plaintiff have a right to  lie hold of to take this out of the case that have be deem a satisfaction for  accord to the rule of this court a legacy that ought to be deem a satisfaction  must take place immediate after the death of the testator for the debt whether  of a principal sum or for interest be due at the death of the testator and  therefore the legacy must be so too what I have say hitherto confine to the  satisfaction of debt for I agree the case of satisfaction of portion have go  further for where both the provision move from the father to the same person  and for the same purpose this court which always lean against encumber estate  twice over will overlook little circumstance of time as to the payment of the  two sum to child if it appear to be a double portion and a double provision  for young child see Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol and the case there cite in the  note but that have never be the rule with regard to debt where the fund for  payment be appoint by different person the interest of the pound be part of  the provision and livelihood of the mother and a debt upon the estate of  Godfrey the father in the hand of his son now she may have live till within a  day of the time which be to be the commencement of the payment of the interest  of the pound to her and yet not have be entitle to it and therefore can not be  a satisfaction for there be no case to make a legacy a satisfaction of a debt  where the legacy be not due at the time of the testator death but be make  contingent and to take place at a future day spinks v robin ante Vol I send  for a case from the register which I think like this in substance though it do  not run quatuor foot and that be the case of Crompton v sale Eq Cas Abr before  Lord chancellor king p W S c atkins er p there be not and therefore this case  in the reason of it come very strong up to the present for whether the neglect  the legacy be a month only or a long time it make no manner of difference  atkins where the court decree a legacy to be a satisfaction of a debt the  court give interest always from the death of the testator but in this case  there be something further still and that be a bind give by Joseph jewel to  mrs Godfrey the mother for the pound date the that of February recite that  Catherine Godfrey in pursuance of the power give her by her husband do empower  the survive executor to lend and advance the say principal sum of pound to  Joseph jewel he secure to her the interest of the pound during her life note  Joseph fuel who be one of e Godfrey the son executor by his answer say that he  be indebt to e Godfrey the son in pound and that after his decease and upon  the request of river Dickinson one of e Godfrey the father executor he enter  into a bind condition for the payment of pound which be to be in satisfaction  of the aforesaid pound the interest whereof be to be pay to the say Catharine  Godfrey the widow during her life and which he have from time to time pay her  accord it be true the act of executor can alter the right of party but it show  they understand it to be no satisfaction of the pound this question will never  have be start have it do be for the deficiency of asset another circumstance  be the decree in July on the will of the son there be no imagination that the  legacy of the pound be intend as a satisfaction for the pound or the interest  of it for if so it will have be mention in the decree as to the manner of take  the account but instead of that there be a general direction only to take a  account of the debt of the son c therefore I be of opinion that the pound must  be consider as a debt and the legacy of the interest of pound be no  satisfaction of the interest of the pound the second question be as to the  preference and first with respect to the personal estate all the subsequent  question be upon the foot of marshal asset but I shall lie these out of the  case for I be of opinion this legacy of pound be not entitle to any preference  for where legacy be give to person of the same degree of relationship the  court will not strain to prefer one legatee to another but will let the  general rule of equality take place unless there be something insuperable in  the will that do not justify the court in do it by the son will the real and  personal estate be charge with the payment of this pound to his sister jewel  child atkins as to the point of time I lie it out of the case for there never  be a rule in this court that appoint a legacy to be pay at a different time  will give a preference to that legatee but where there be a deficiency of  asset all the legatee must abate in proportion the testator charge his  personal as well as his real estate be say no more than what the law say for  if it have not be express charge by the testator the court will have direct it  to have be first apply and therefore no argument of preference can be draw  from thence I do hereby charge my estate both real and personal with the  payment of pound c item all the rest and residue which shall remain after  payment of my debt and legacy I give to the trustee upon the trust therein  after mention it be say this be a prior charge suppose the testator have first  apply these word to the pound then repeat they again to the legacy of pound c  what will this have do why all the legacy will have be equal a charge on the  real and personal estate and not one more than the other therefore I be of  opinion as a man can speak all his word at once and as it be no matter how the  clause be place in a will it be no more than a general charge of all his  legacy upon the real and personal estate at the beginning the testator have  take care to charge all his estate with the payment of his debt atkins er p  this will have be sufficient to charge the realestate if the personal estate  be deficient there be therefore no ground to say that this other shall have  the priority of the this be such a construction as a court of equity will  incline to come into because it be make a equality between the legatee as to  the loss which have happen who be upon the same foot of relation to the  testator this be my opinion as to the residue the next question will be as to  Mr chutes client river Dickinson to who the testator have specifical devise a  farm of thirty pound ayear atkins as to the case he put that suppose a man  devise all his real estate to a and afterward a particular farm to b this will  be a exception out of the generality to a I admit it but it be otherwise where  there be a charge by a testator upon all his estate for payment of debt for  there the devisee must take select to that charge and if the residue be not  sufficient to answer the debt note his lordship reserve the consideration in  what manner and proportion the plaintiff S shall receive satisfaction out of  the land devise to river Dickinson the estate devise to river Dickinson must  in the next place be apply for that purpose his lordship decree the defendant  to pay the interest of the two thousand pound to the plaintiff note that the  interest of the pound be not a satisfaction of the interest of the pound but  that the arrear of the interest of the pound ought to be consider as a debt  and the interest of the say sum of pound ought to be consider as a legacy  under the will of the say b Godfrey the son Reg lib a fol