case aston v ashton see page v young lr Eq on a appeal from the decree at the  roll Lord chancellor Talbot can tempt Tal Eq can ab pl one devise the sum of  pound Southsea stock to I S and the testator have but pound no more than the  pound shall pass and the rest of the testator personal estate not be oblige to  make it up pound but it may be otherwise if the testator have no stock at all  the case be thus the testator have no more than pound Southsea annuity stock  but by his will bequeathe the sum of pound Southsea annuity stock to trustee  in trust to sell and invest in land to be settle on his nephew the plaintiff  for life remainder over and until the purchase shall be make the nephew to  have the interest or dividend of the Southsea annuity stock for his life the  question be whether the rest of the testator personal peer William estate  which be very considerable shall be liable to make it up pound or whether no  more pass by the will than the stock which the testator be possess of at the  time of make his will and at his death the master of the roll have decree that  no more pass by the will than the pound Southsea annuity stock which the  testator be possess of and now the cause come on before the Lord chancellor  upon a appeal it be argue for the plaintiff that the deficiency ought to be  make up out of the rest of the testator personal estate for that here be plain  a mistake in she testator who intend the full legacy of pound that this be a  specific legacy which in law be favour and allow a preference before other  that if the testator have at that time no stock at all the whole legacy must  have be make good out of the rest of the personal peer William er p estate and  there seem to be still more reason to supply the small deficiency and it be  compare by Mr fazakerly to the case in Leon of a man devise his land in such a  place where he happen to have no land but have tithe and it be hold that the  tithe shall pass but the Lord chancellor affirm the decree at the roll observe  first that though specific legacy have in some respect the advantage of those  that be pecuniary so as to be pay in toto and not in average on a deficiency  of asset yet in other respect they be distinguish to their disadvantage from  pecuniary legacy see vol Hinton v pink as suppose they shall have be lose or  alien by the testator in his lifetime they must then fail in toto peer William  second that where one devise a debt due to he after which the debtor uncalled  upon pay in the debt to the testator in his lifetime this will certain be no  ademption of the legacy here be no act do by the testator himself but by the  debtor who may oblige the other to receive his money and that so indeed the  think it will be where the testator himself shall call for the debt see this  may be do from a apprehension of such debt be in danger and with a design to  secure it and be personal estate and not diminish by remain in the testator  coffer instead of the hand of the debtor it may well pass b the will vide earl  of thomond v earl of Suffolk ante vol rider v wager ante vol but that three in  the principal case it do not appear the testator ever have more than the pound  Southsea annuity stock and regular speak without some plain word manifest a  intention to that purpose no property shall ass but what the testator be  himself possess of that it be more natural to suppose a man intend to give  what he have than what he have not that in the case cite from Leonard report  the tithe be hold to pass as these be issue out of the land and be part of the  profit thereof but principal because the testator have no land there the whole  must otherwise have be reject see day v trig vol and so possible in the  principal case have the testator when he make his will c have no stock at all  the whole may have be to be make good out of the rest of the personal estate  whereas the stock he be then possess of do in some measure satisfy the will  Reg lib a fol fol et vide Hinton v pink ante vol partridge v partridge can  tempt Talb purse v Snaplin atk Jeffreys v Jeffreys atk Avelin v ware ves  sleech v Thorington Ves Drinkwater v falconer ves bishop of Peterborough v  mortlock bro g c ashburner v macguire bro c c S in Wilson v Brownsmith Ves the  master of the roll say the principal case have be overrule but in simmons v  vallance bro c c it be uphold upon the direction to the trustee to sell the  stock and invest the proceed in land and see Mann v Copeland mad