case foul v foul see Atkinson v LITTLEWOOD l r Eq Lord chancellor Talbot Eq  can ab p p husband on marriage settle pound per annum pin money in trust for  his wife for her separate use which become in arrear and then the husband by  will give the wife a legacy of pound after which there be a further arrear of  the pinmoney and then the husband die this legacy be great than the debt  decree even in the case of the wife to be a satisfaction of the arrear of  pinmoney due before the make of the will the defendant decease husband in  consideration of a marriage then intend and afterward solemnized and of a  considerable portion bring by the defendant settle pound per annum in trust  for her separate use for pinmoney two year arrear whereof become due and then  the husband make his will wherein express great affection for his wife lie  give her a legacy of pound after the make of the will another year arrear  incur and then the husband die the question be whether the pound legacy be  more than be due for pinmoney shall be deem a satisfaction for the say arrear  peer William first the Lord chancellor admit it to have be the general  practice where there be a debt due from the testator to a three person and the  legacy give to such person be as much or more than the debt to hold such  legacy a satisfaction of the debt and this be establish as a rule  notwithstanding be it a new point he shall hardly have come into it and it  have with great reason be urge in opposition to the maxim that a man ought to  be just before he be bountiful that where there be asset the testator may with  as much reason be construe both just and bountiful salk yet it must be of very  ill consequence to unsettle or alter it because at that rate no counsel will  know how to advice his client second though in some case parole evidence have  be allow in order to show that the testator design to give such legacy  exclusive of the debt yet his lordship say his opinion be not to admit such  evidence for then the witness and not the testator will make the will but see  Wallace v pomfret Ves and the case in the note to Rachfield v careless ante  vol three admit this to have obtain as a general rule it be next to be  consider his lordship say whether a wife ought to be except out of such  general rule now it be true there have be on some occasion and in some  particular case a distinction make in favour of a wife so as to prefer her to  any other legatee as in those of the duchess of Beaufort v the lady Granville  in the house of lord vol and ball v smith vern by the Lord Harcourt where the  wife be executrix and have a express legacy be also hold entitle to the  undisposed surplus yet even with peer William regard to this the court have  vary in their determination however since no precedent have be allege in  favour of the wife as to the point in question he think that the legacy give  to her be great than the debt it ought to be construe a satisfaction of such  debt and that there be no reason to except the wife out of the general rule  but that fourthly the legacy can not be pretend to be a satisfaction of a debt  incur after the date of the mill and which at that time may possible never  become due vide Chaunceys case ante vol Thomas v Bennet ante vol five where  pinmoney be secure to the wife and it appear that the husband notwithstanding  provide the wife with clothes and other necessary this during such time as the  wife be so provide for by the husband will be a bar to any demand for her  arrear of pinmoney see vol Powell v hankey peer William er p peer William de  term S the number three