case Tunstall against Brachen in chancery that may devise of land to his  sister pay pound a year to his wife for life and several legacy within twelve  month after the death of his wife several of the legatee die in the lifetime  of the wife and hold their representative be entitle f lib Reg a foe a S c bro  in note hark ms from de grey ms doctor archer by will give land to m b his  sister in fee pay per annum to his wife for her life and also several legacy  to several of testator nephew and cousin within twelve month after the death  of his wife several of the legatee die in the lifetime of the wife Q if the  legacy to they lapse or be transmissible to their representative on the side  of the plaintiff to prove they be transmissible wear cite king v wither can  tempt Talb Shackleston v Shackleston ambler Wingfield v Newton barn that  February Lowther v conden atk Sherman v Collins atk that February on the other  side be insist the general rule of legacy Payable out of land at a future day  if the legatee do not live till the day it sink into the inheritance that the  day of payment be not postpone for the sake of the estate if they be not to  lapse they will devour almost the whole estate or at best the testator sister  will have less for herself than any one of the nephew and niece that the  legacy amount to pound and the gross income of the estate be pound a year  Thattestator ambler er p leave a considerable personal estate and be cite the  duke of chandos v Talbot p wms and hall v terry atk which last case be say to  be exact in point Lord Hardwicke chancellor it may be difficult to reconcile  all the case cite many of which turn upon nice circumstance I can help think  if the court shall determine the legacy to sink into the inheritance it will  be contrary to the intention of the testator and be go much further than the  court have ever go he have at the time a young wife two sister who will have  be his coheir one of they be live the other dead it be his intention to  provide for his wife and child if he have any if not for both branch of his  family there be a material clause in the will provide that in case my wife  shall at my death have a child or child who shall live to twenty one then I  revoke the devise and bequest except the annuity to my wife and give all my  say land c to such child or child his her or their heir note in hark ms the  follow passage be add here it afford a presumption for the intention to  provide for both the branch of his family if he have no child and therefore  the estate be give to the person entitle charge with equal benefit to the  family of the decease in what event have he declare the legacy shall cease if  his wife shall be ensient two question saint of equity d of law saint whether  the legacy as give in this form of word be into the inheritance by the death  ambler of the legatee in the note in the hark ms this part of the judgement be  give as follow the rule arise from portion but though it be now general the  court have exercise a great liberty in consider question of portion than other  because the provision for child fall more under the jurisdiction and these be  for particular purpose and with a view that be single and particular but  legacy must be take from the intention of the testator and pen of the will in  construe which the court have lie hold on many circumstance of indication of  intention but that rule be attend with a good many exception it take its rise  from portion as Paulett v Paulett vern S c Ch Rep by subsequent extension of  the rule court have go further and carry it to legacy give not by way of  portion but give by a stranger and charge on the land in certain event yet  notwithstanding a more liberal discretion have be use in case of such legacy  not give b way of portion and which can not be so from the nature of the thing  and they court have sift into all the circumstance of the case to find out the  real intention in Bruin v Bruin Prec Ch the portion be not want and therefore  sink into the inheritance because the court will not suffer they to be raise  for a different purpose than that for which they be give king v wither be a  very strong case and Lord Talbot do not govern himself by there be two  contingency but go on more solid ground that be the intention Lowther v conden  have be mention on both side but I think not applicable to either there be two  particularity in that case saint it be give to the daughter her executor and  administrator dly the testator have express direct that the pound give to the  other daughter shall go to the survivor and not sink into the inheritance  Hodgson v Rawdon cite and much rely on for plaintiff there be two ground I h  live a month after the mother but do not live till the time which be twelve  month and therefore not due till the last period d there be no right of entry  at law hall v terry cite for defendant great weight in that case be lie on the  pen of the will there be no express gift but only a direction to pay at  twentyone Even a personal legacy in such case will not be vest till twentyone  though have it be give express it will have vest before and twenty one will  have be only the time of payment ambler Bradley v Powell before Lord Talbot I  shall not have be of the same opinion it be a very hard determination from  hence I infer the uncertainty of lie down general rule it be probable ambler  er p the testator in this case think the amount of the legacy be little more  than a moiety of the value of the estate the objection in hall v terry as to  its be only a direction to pay and not a gift do not hold here d question  there be a remedy at law for these legacy accord to wellock v Hammond cro  Elizabeth and cite in Barastons case   b a copyholder in fee of land in  boroughenglish devise to his old son pay his daughter and other son pound each  within two year after his death and surrender to the use of his will the old  son enter and do not pay the money and hold it be not a condition but a  limitation of which the young son as heir at law in borough English may take  advantage that be a limitation unto the old until he make default in payment  objection there be several legatee in this case and it be impossible to  ascertain their share nor can they join in ejectment but wedlock v Hammond be  a answer to that objection there be several legatee in that case so in the  present case it be a conditional limitation to m b until default of payment of  the legacy and then her estate determine one moiety of which will then be in  her as heir at law and the other in the son of the other sister who be dead as  coheir and for which he may maintain a ejectment decree legacy to be raise  with interest from the end of one year after the death of the widow with  respect to legacy charge upon land the general rule be that where they be make  Payable at a future day if the legatee die before the time they shall sink  into the land hall v terry atk Proure v Abingdon ib van v clark ib Richardson  v green atk Harrison v Naylor bro S c Cox duke of chandos v Talbot p wms and  the case collect and arrange in the note there BLit the present case come  within the exception to the general rule establish by many case namely that  where the time of payment of the legacy be postpone for the convenience of the  estate and not in respect of the person there the legacy vest upon the death  of the testator king v weather can tempt Talb Hodgson v Rawson Ves roebuck v  dean bro c g Wadley v north Ves brown v Biggs Ves rayley v bishop Ves powis v  Burdett ib Bernard v Montague mere hallifax v Wilson Ves walker v main I W see  embry v Martin post smith v partridge post see also Sherman v Collins atk and  case in note by Mr sander there Ves can tempt Talb see embry v Martin post and  note the testator by his will after notice that he have no issue declare that  if he shall die without issue then he give to his sister Marian Brachen and  her heir for ever all his land and tenement in Cumberland on the follow  condition videlicet she or they pay out of the same one annuity or annual  rentcharge of pound to Eliza his wife clear of all deduction pursuant to the  settlement make on his marriage and also pay within twelve month after the  decease of his say wife the several legacy therein mention amount to pound to  his nephew and niece name they all which legacy he charge to be pay out of the  say devise premise as aforesaid provide that if in case his wife shall be  privement ensient and bear one or more child or child and that such child or  child shall attain the age of twentyone year or be marry then he revoke the  devise beforementioned except the say annuity or rentcharge to his say wife  and give all the say land and tenement unto such child or child his her or  their heir and assign for ever and he will that his say wife shall hold and  enjoy over and above the say annuity all his dwell house of oxenham aforesaid  for her life if she shall think fit and in case of failure of issue then he  give his tenement or live in Kardal park to his say sister Marian Brachen  during the life of his say wife and after her decease then he save the same to  the mayor and two senior alderman vicar and schoolmaster of Kirby Kendal for  certain charitable purpose and he appoint Eliza his wife sole executrix of his  say will to who he give all the residue of his personal estate after the his  pay debt and legacy not otherwise provide for and funeral expense and also pay  ambler er p certain other legacy the decree declare that the representative of  the legatee who have die in the lifetime of the wife be entitle to the legacy  with interest at per cent from the end of one year from the death of the widow  and direct the estate to be sell and the purchaser money apply in the first  place to the payment of the legacy the surplus to be hand over to the heir of  Marian Brachen