case brown versus Selwin contra distinguish in re Applebee Ch a devise the  residue of his real and personal estate not before devise to his two executor  c as tenant in common c one of they be indebt by bind to the testator this  bind debt be not release but shall be divide between they and no parole  evidence shall be admit that the testator intend to release it to the obligor  and have give instruction for that purpose to a attorney who draw his will  John brown on the d of June make his will and thereby bequeathe to the  plaintiff a legacy of pound and all his plate to the defendant he give all his  leasehold message and after several other legacy and bequest as well as devise  some freehold and cop hold land he devise as follow and as for the rest  residue and remainder of my estate whether real or personal whereof I be seize  or possess or which I be any way entitle to which I have not herein and hereby  devise give c I give and bequeathe the same and every part thereof and all my  right title and interest therein and thereto unto such my executor or executor  herein after name as shall duly take on he or they the execution of this my  will accord to the true intent and meaning thereof his or their heir executor  administrator and assign as tenant in common and not as jointtenants and  afterward appoint the plaintiff and defendant his executor and case tempt  Talbot soon after die and the plaintiff and defendant prove the will the  defendant be at the time of the testator death indebt to the testator in pound  principal money beside interest and for secure thereof have give a bind to the  testator date the that of June in pound penalty the bill be bring that the  defendant may account with the plaintiff for the testator residuary estate and  pay he a moiety of the say pound and interest and the cross bill be to have  the bind deliver to be cancel Reg lib a fol it appear by the answer of the  defendant in the original cause and by the proof in both cause that the  testator design to give this money to the defendant and give case tempt Talbot  er p one viner the attorney concern in draw the will instruction in write  accord but viner refuse to make mention of it in the will insist that the bind  will be extinguish and release of course by Mr selwin be appoint executor but  the testator appear dissatisfy with viner opinion a case be state for counsel  opinion who confirm what viner say in confidence of which the testator sign  and publish his will with full persuasion that the bind will be extinguish and  this appear clear to be the intention of the testator Lord chancellor the  question be whether pound which be due to the testator from Mr Selwin shall  pass to Mr Selwin by his be make executor or whether it pass by the devise of  the residue to the two executor the write instruction for draw the will direct  the pound all to Mr Selwin the attorney who be to draw the will say it be the  testator intention it shall go so but that he apprehend that make the obligor  executor be a extinguishment of the debt hinder it from be particular mention  it be never doubt but a debt due from a executor to a testator shall be asset  in the executor hand to pay debt Plowd Wankford v Wankford salk roll Abr black  Com Carey v Goodinge bro Charles Rep in which the appointment of a debtor  executor to who a legacy be at the same time give be determine to be no  release of the debt and the executor hold to be a trustee as to the residue  for the next of kin for case tempt Talbot if the testator have express give it  away even that can not have screen it from debt so the testator may give a  legacy out of a debt due to he as in the case in Yelv flood v Bumsey which  authority be right the imply gift by make the debtor executor may be control  by a express gift or by a devise of all his debt it have be question whether  such a debt be asset to pay legacy in general vide Phillips v Phillips Chanc  Cas also Chan Cas but that not be the present case it be not necessary to be  determine I be at present incline to think it may but shall not bind myself by  give my opinion till the case happen if this be consider upon the will without  the parole evidence it will appear clear from the general word of devise the  residue I e all his real and personal estate which he have not thereby before  give to the residuary legatee that this debt which at that time be part of the  personal estate fall within the description the testator be entitle to this  debt when he make his will and at the time of his death he have not before  dispose of it nor have he appoint Mr Selwin executor a devise of the residue  after payment of debt and legacy plain comprehend this debt and the only doubt  be with regard to Mr viner evidence who write the will I private think that it  be intend the pound shall go to Mr Selwin private I think so but I be not at  liberty by private opinion to make a construction against the plain word of a  will nun of the case where parole evidence have be admit have go so far as the  present case the far they go be to rebut a equity or result trust the parole  evidence in those case tend to support the intention of the testator  consistent with the write will and do not contradict the express word of the  will as in the present case it be better to suffer a particular mischief than  a general inconvenience and so reverse the decree and order Mr Selwin to  account with the plaintiff brown for the say pound but no cost this be upon a  appeal from the roll case tempt Talbot this cause the that of march come  before the house of lord upon a appeal and the Lord chancellor decree be  affirm and the lord will not allow the parole evidence to be read nor even the  respondent answer as to these matter bro PC and Edward bro PC case tempt  Talbot er p as in doxy v doxy vern Littlebury v Backley ibidem cite bachelor v  Searle vern petit v smith p will lady Granville v duchess of Beaufort p will  heron v Newton Mod gale v cross vin Abr pl Rachfield v careless p will lady  Osborne villiers Eq Cas Abr Hallabar v mallabar ante Brasbridge v Woodroffe  atk Ulrich v Litchfield atk Blinkhorne v Feast Ves lake v lake will Ambl Rep S  c Lowfield v Stoneham Str earl of inchiquin v obrien burn ecclesiastical law  Kelly v paulet bro Charles Rep cite but notwithstanding in some case extreme  dark and doubtful such evidence have be receive to assist the judgement of the  court as in fane v fane vern Hodgeson v Hodgeson vern Oldham v Lichford ibidem  Cuthbert v peacock ibidem Pendleton v grant ibidem stride v Russell ibidem  Harris v bishop of Lincoln p will Rosewell v Bennet atk Goodinge v Goodinge  Ves Hampshire v pierce Ves fonnereau v Poyntz bro Charles Rep so Lord  Hardwicke in atk be report to say he be of opinion that in the case of brown  and Selwyn the parole evidence ought to have be receive and that Lord Talbot  reject it with no small degree of reluctance though the house of lord affirm  his decree deem the admission of the evidence to lb of the most mischievous  consequence but Lord Hardwicke afterward in Ulrich v Litchfield atk lie down  the rule of court both of law and equity in the admission of parole evidence  in the case of will to be only saint to ascertain the person where there be  two of the same name or where there have teen a mistake in the Christian or  surname and this upon absolute necessity to prevent the will from be render  void as in Cheyneys case   dly to rebut a presumption raise in favour of the  next of kin against the legal title of the executor to the residue of his  testator effect though for this latter purpose his lordship afterward in  Blinkhorne v Feast Ves express some doubt of the propriety of admit such  evidence however the above case of brown and Selwyn seem to have full  establish the rule that no parole evidence to supply or contradict the word of  a will or to explain the intention of the testator be admissible where the  word use be unambiguous and Intelligible so Stratton v pain bro PC errington v  Broughton bro PC chamberlain v chamberlain Freem coley Robinson salk Maybank v  brook bro Charles Rep but if it be doubtful out of what fund a legacy give by  a testator be to arise or where there be a ambiguity with respect to the  subject to which the word of the will though clear in themselves be to be  apply it shall seem parole evidence be admissible to explain and remove the  doubt fonnereau v Poyntz bro Charles Rep see Cas t Talb