case Jeffs versus wood all e contra Eq can ab pl pl stoppage no payment at law  nor in equity unless under special circumstance and in case of mutual demand  where the balance only be the debt Robert Jeffs the plaintiff father and  testator have a nephew the defendant wood receive he when a infant on his  father death in oh his the say Jeffs family peer William er p and provide he  with clothes and send he to school after which he take he apprentice in the  trade of a wine cooper and as to all expense of clothes learning andboard keep  a account in his book but after he become a apprentice then the board be omit  in the account peer William then Jeffs the father by his will give pound to  the defendant his nephew and make his son the plaintiff Jeffs his executor and  residuary legatee and die the plaintiff Jeffs the son give the defendant wood  credit for wine and entrust he to receive money so that the defendant wood  become further indebt to the plaintiff on the defendant wood sue the plaintiff  Jeffs the executor in the spiritual court for this pound legacy the plaintiff  Jeffs bring his bill first against wood and he become a bankrupt against the  assignee under the commission to have a allowance make he out of the legacy  for the money which the bankrupt the legatee owe to the testator and likewise  to the plaintiff Jeffs and on the other hand the assignee bring their cross  bill against Jeffs for the legacy master of the roll it be true stoppage be no  payment at law nor be it of itself a payment in equity but then a very slender  agreement for discount or allow the one debt out of the other will make it a  payment because this prevent circuitry of the action and multiplicity of suit  which be not favour in law much less in equity but it may be a doubt whether a  insolvent person may in equity recover against his debtor to who he at the  same time owe a great sum though I own it be against conscience that a shall  be demand a debt against b to who heis indebt in a large sum and will avoid  pay it peer William however it seem that the least evidence of a agreement for  a stoppage will do vide vern vern prece in Chan and in these case equity will  take hold of a very slight thing to do both party right and it be still more  reasonable that where the matter of the mutual demand be concern the same  thing there the court shall interpose and make the balance only Payable now in  the principal case the defendant the legatee demand be in respect of the  testator asset without which the executor be not liable and it be very just  and equitable for the executor to say that the defendant the legatee have so  much of the asset already in his own hand and consequent be satisfy pro tanto  and forasmuch as it be probable the spiritual court will not allow of this  discount therefore the suit here be very proper in order to have such a  allowance so that if the legatee himself have bring the bill for his legacy it  have be very proper for the executor to have insist that the legatee owe so  much to the testator and have already so much in his hand of the testator  asset be consequent pay so far in the present case the assignee of the  commission of bankruptcy against the defendant will bring their bill for the  legacy and stand in the place of the legatee can be in no better case and  therefore as the legatee have he bring his bill for the legacy may have be  tell by the executor that have so much of the asset in his hand he be  consequent pay so much of his legacy sure the same thing may now be insist  upon against the assignee who stand in the place of and represent the legatee  peer William then it be object that this demand of the defendant wood or of  the assignee be not a debt but a legacy and a matter demandable in the  spiritual court where it be sue for till such suit be stop by injunction and  that the statute of bankrupt mention only debt due from and to the bankrupt  but to this it be answer and resolve that a legacy due from a executor who  admit asset as in the present case be in equity a debt due from such executor  and a equitable demand be a debt within the statute of bankrupt dly as to the  money or good lend or deliver to the defendant wood by the plaintiff the  executor this be hold by the court to be in part of payment and that itmust  necessary be so take otherwise the plaintiff will have credit the defendant  wood therewith and by the same reason that if the legatee have sue in equity  the executor may have say and insist that the plaintiff have receive so much  of the legacy by money and good and that the defendant be ready to pay the  rest so the assignee claim the legacy can not be in a better condition than  the legatee himself thly the court take notice that it be not material that  the defendant be a infant when the clothes and education be provide for he by  his uncle for a infant may become indebt for these as well as a person of full  age for money lend and peer William er p the testator have keep a account as  between debtor and creditor of all these charge full show t hey be not intend  as gift but loan peer William thly that there can be no pretence to say  because the testator give a legacy of pound to the defendant wood therefore  this be a argument or evidence that the testator intend to remit the former  debt but if a man give a legacy to his creditor to the amount of his debt this  have be construe a payment or satisfaction of the debt because a man must be  suppose to be just before he be bountiful notwithstanding this general  doctrine yet where the testator have leave wherewithal and show his intention  so to be he have be construe to be both just and bountiful vide salk Cuthbert  v peacock and vol Chaunceys case decree a account and let the plaintiff pay  only the surplus after have deduct what be due from the legatee as well to  himself as to the testator but no cost on either side rank v Barnard mad  though now by the statute g c S g c S g c S mutual debt may be set off against  each other at law yet the power which court of equity exercise before the  statute be not take away by they and relief maybe have in equity under  particular circumstance where t attire of the debt will not admit of their be  set off against each other at law ex part quinten Ves James v Kynnier Ves ex  part Stephens ill Ves ex part twogood ib ex part hanson Ves Ves rise Bradley v  millar rise Addis v knight mere Vulliamy v noble mere ex part Ross buck the  stat g c S above cite relate to setoff in case of bankruptcy as to which see  now the saint g c S