Barwell v parker July see Blair v Bromley l I Ch Ph ex part Chippendale de g m  g interest under a trust term by deed to pay debt and legacy hold that  simplecontract debt do not carry interest so likewise as to a will contra  however if by any deed in the nature of a specialty from whence a intention  can be infer as it the debt be annex by way of schedule scrivener c receive  money and give a note to place it out at interest be bind to do so and be not  discharge from pay interest for it unless his employer accept the security and  interest balance of a account state by such scrivener c will carry interest  see Raphael v boehm Ves and Ves as to various point on interest see in duke of  Bedford v coke Ves sen Bickham v cross post and earl of bath v earl of Bedford  Ves sen with supplement and supplement Simon Barwell have by deed create a  trustterm for payment of his debt and legacy after his decease out of his real  estate the plaintiff demand interest for their simplecontract debt though the  court in general do not decree interest for they car v lady Burlington will be  cite that where a trustterm be raise for debt simplecontract become as debt  due by mortgage and shall carry interest and Maxwell v Wettenhall will where  the same be hold when the land be devise for payment of debt vesey senior Lora  chancellor there be no colour for this demand upon this trustterm  notwithstanding the authority cite for if a man by will create a trust out of  real estate for payment of debt and legacy in aid of personal estate there be  no case in which the court have say that shall make simplecontract debt carry  interest it will be most mischievous and will make people afraid to do that  lest they shall bring a great burden on their estate by change the nature and  the constant course of decree in this court show the contrary this trustterm  be not create by will but deed but it be of the same nature as be usual by  will be to raise money to pay legacy also so far as his personal estate shall  not extend to satisfy and no far that will not have the effect to turn  simplecontract debt so far into the nature of specialtydebts as to carry  interest if indeed a man in his life create a trust for payment of debt annex  a schedule of some debt and create a trustterm for the payment be that be in  the nature of a specialty that will make these though simplecontract debt  carry interest this be a very different case as to car v lady Burlington it be  not particular state in saint p William for the clause that no debt shall have  a preference as there state be not all on which Lord Harcourt probable go what  Lord Harcourt there say as to the two fund be contrary as to the usual course  wherever two fund be create for creditor next as to what he say at the latter  end for which the case be cite what he go on do not appear but probable on  that clause for payment of debt in proportion the particular word of which be  not state the decree in the register book in this case from p W be contrary to  the declaration in the text of the report see Mr Cox note p W the clause may  be so pen as to show a intent in testator to put simplecontract debt on the  same foot as specialty as to carry the interest and to put they on equality  but there be not such word in this deed be only a general trust just as if do  by will and still a power of revocation and not intend to alter the nature of  they next a question be make whether Barwell shall be charge with interest of  money put into his hand to be place out Lord chancellor where a attorney in  the country or moneyscrivener take vesey senior er p money of his client or  customer into his hand and give a note to place it out at interest he be bind  to do so if he place it out on security and the client c accept the security  and accept the interest thereon from the time that be a discharge of the  person receive the money from answer the interest any far but if he do not  place it out or if he do and do not deliver over the security and declare the  trust for his client he be answerable for it himself and must answer the  interest the court will indeed allow he a reasonable time for place it out  before he shall be vesey senior charge therewith but he shall not keep it in  his hand for ever without place it out accord to the intent therefore as to  what S Barwell have place out at interest and the security accept of and agree  to he must not be charge but his representative must answer interest from the  end of three month for other sum the security for which be not agree to next  Lord chancellor hold that the balance of a state account shall carry interest  no interest allow on a account in India not settle by the party but at a  distance of time and with great difficulty by a three person brown brown wms  Blackst will a surety not entitle to interest on payment make by he bell v  free will can Ch that it will do so between merchant account of which several  instance but the account have be state long ago and no claim make of a  allowance for trouble there shall be none now for it must be take as evidence  that the person though administrator do not think himself entitle to any as  none be then demand Reg lib a fol