case coppin versus coppin a young brother beyond sea have contract to buy a  real estate of his elder brother make his will charge his estate with great  legacy but the will be attest only by two witness afterward the testator die  without issue leave his elder brother executor and heir the heir may retain  out of the asset the whole purchasemoney though entitle again to the land as  heir Francis coppin the young brother of the defendant John coppin have be  unsuccessful in the former part of his life and contract several debt and fail  in the world and compound his debt at S in the pound by the assistance of his  elder brother the defendant John coppin at length get a interest in the  eastindia company who employ he as one of their supercargos to Persia where  have gain a very considerable personal estate he write to his elder brother to  find out a purchase for he upon which the defendant his elder brother propose  to sell he a estate of his own in Emberton in buck for pound and the say  Francis   in to enter upon the premise as at peer William Michaelmas which  proposal by several subsequent letter be accept by Francis coppin afterward  Francis coppin make his will whereby he give several considerable legacy and  then come the follow word videlicet whatsoever shall remain in money land and  good I give the same to my brother John coppin who thereout be to pay what I  owe to my creditor at Aleppo who have be so kind as to compound my debt with I  at S in the pound and they to be pay without interest after which he make the  say defendant John coppin his executor and residuary legatee but the will have  but two witness and be make beyond sea in the say Francis Coppins return from  Persia the purchase before agree upon be in the lifetime of the testator  Francis execute and the defendant John coppin the vendor give a receipt for  the pound purchasemoney upon the back of the purchasedeed but he swear that at  that time nor any time afterward he receive no part of the purchasemoney other  than such sum as appear on the account set forth by he and this seem admit by  the letter of the testator Francis coppin who die beyond sea in his return  from Persia without wife or issue and leave the defendant John coppin his  elder brother and heir and now three bill be bring one by the legatee for the  recovery of their legacy of which the executor the defendant John have pay  about a moiety the say legatee suggest that this purchase be make by the  defendant John coppin for his brother in which the defendant as be object act  both as vendor and vendee and the deed of purchase peer William have continue  in his hand to the time of the say testator death be a fraudulent purchase as  against the legatee the second bill be bring by the compound creditor upon a  suggestion that their demand be original debt and what the testator think in  his conscience he be still oblige to pay they continue to be debt in a  conscientious view though in law release and therefore be superior in their  nature to legacy for which reason they pray that these may have the preference  in payment insist further it be not material that those debt be in law release  if the testator think they peer William er p debt in conscience and will not  take the advantage of the release make to he by his say creditor which he be  not bind to do the three bill be prefer by John coppin the heir and executor  allege that he have pay the legatee more than the asset will extend to pay  mere upon a misrepresentation of the value of the testator personal estate  which have suffer unexpected loss and therefore insist that if he through  importunity or kindness to several of the legatee that be his relation have  make payment legacy beyond the asset such overpayments shall be refund as to  the first point which be the chief and of the great value it be urge that  admit the word in the will of Francis coppin to have be sufficient to charge  the land with the legacy yet there be but two witness thereto the will as to  the land must be void and it make no difference that the will be make beyond  sea the same be of land in England peer William which if they pass by will  must pass by such a will and so circumstance and attest as the lamb S of  England require especial it be by a Englishman bear in England who must be  presume to know the law of his own country or if he do not ignorance law non  excuse that as to the purchase it appear by mutual letter betwixt the testator  Francis coppin and the defendant John coppin that it be a complete one that  the first proposal come from the testator Francis coppin that the time from  which the purchaser be to receive the rend and the sum to be pay be both  settle and the purchase full agree to and accept by the testator Francis that  the tenant have notice of their have a new landlord that the defendant John  coppin be apply to by other to sell the estate to they have refuse declare he  have sell it to another and though the defendant John coppin do continue after  this sale to receive the rend as former yet that appear by one of Francis  coppin the testator letter to have be do at the request of the say Francis the  testator who desire the defendant to continue the management of this estate as  before until his return from beyond sea on the other hand as to the receipt  endorse for the purchasemoney and upon which Lord chancellor lie some stress  this be represent to be a hard case where the defendant be take advantage of  the will not be execute accord to the statute by three witness that as the  deed of purchase be all along in his power and custody and produce by the  defendant himself it be hope the court will presume that all the purchasemoney  have be pay pursuant to the say defendant own receipt and the rather for that  the defendant have examine no witness to prove that at the time of give the  peer William receipt no money be pay and what make this still the hard be that  the defendant the elder brother claim the land discharge of the legacy as heir  to his brother and though he have the land yet he also claim to be pay for it  by the testator and consequent demand so much of the purchasemoney as be yet  unpay which be pretend to be much the great part as a debt which will prevent  there be asset for the payment of their legacy and consequent for the fulfil  of his brother will but at length it appear by the testator Francis Coppins  own letter as well as by the positive oath of the defendant John coppin that  the purchasemoney be not pay and there be no pretence of any proof of payment  when the deed be execute or at any time before and the defendant offer to  submit this to a examination Lord chancellor pass over this point say that  since the law give the defendant this land by descent as the testator heir at  law the court can not take it from he nor subject the land to any other charge  than those which the testator by his will have effectual charge it with and  which in this case be nothing the will be attest but by two witness that the  only matter which make the difficulty in this case be that here happen to be  one and the same person both heir and executor of the testator and likewise  vendor of the land but this must be consider in the same light as if there be  several person cum two jura in One mask concur with be ac si make real in to  visit and then take it that they have be several one the heir the other  executor and the peer William defendant John coppin a three person neither  heir nor executor but vendor the person who be heir will have a plain title to  the land purchase the person that be executor must out of the testator  personal asset have pay the residue of the purchasemoney to the defendant John  coppin the vendor who will have as plain a title to receive it under these  circumstance every thing have be so plain as to have admit of no dispute and  in justice and reason it ought to make no difference the fact be clear peer  William er p that the same person happen to be the vendor and afterward the  heir and executor of the vendee as to the second point the court think that  the compound creditor have once release their debt which be thereby become  extinct they be out of the case as creditor and must now claim as voluntary  legatee and can have no other title than to legacy in such manner as give by  the will that the testator may easy and by express word have give they the  preference if he have so intend but it will be dangerous to make a  construction beyond the word of the will that be to make a new will for the  testator that if one give a legacy to a charity it be not to be prefer to  other legacy unless express so direct by the will ante attorneygeneral v robin  and vol master v master as to the last point videlicet the defendant John  Coppins cross bill b which he pray to be repay the legacy which through  misrepresentation he have pay see Orr v Kaimes ves his lordship take notice  that there do not appear to have be any fraud or misrepresentation make use of  by the legatee to who these payment have be make and there be much more reason  peer William to think that the defendant John coppin the executor be cognizant  of and inform concern the testator circumstance than the legatee therefore he  will order no refund and it be a hard case No cost on either side but the  argument on the part of the legatee accord to the report of this case in Sel  can in Charles be that although the will can not charge the land yet that a  vendor have a equitable lie thereon for the purchasemoney remain unpay on  which head vide chapman v tanner vern pollexfen v more atk walker v Preswick  ves Fowel v Heelis cite bro c c S c Amb dick Tardiff v Scrughan cite bro c c  Blackburne v Gregson bro c c S c Cox and if so this case come within the  common rule of marshal asset in favour of a legatee who legacy be not charge  on the real estate this argument which do not appear to have be consider by  the Lord chancellor in the present case raise the principal question in  pollexfen v more Nairn v prowse Ves Elliot v Edward b p Hugh v Kearney Sch l  Mackreth v simmons Ves Cowell v Simpson Ves grant v mill v b ex part Loaring  rise ex part peak mad sander v Leslie ba be ex part park g I winter v Lord  anson S S see Austen v Halsey Ves trim v bayne Ves Mackreth v simmons Ves  Headley v redhead coop and Mr Sugdens remark on those case coppin v coppin and  pollexfen v more Sugd vendor chap sect