case wingfield against newton legacy when lapse or Payable Ferdinando  Wingfield by his will date the thirtyfirst of march make Joseph Wingfield his  executor and give to Robert Newton a legacy of one thousand pound to be put  out at interest until he shall attain his age of twentyone and in case of his  decease before the time then the one thousand pound to go to Margaret his  daughter but if Robert live to attain the age of twentyone then five hundred  pound part of the one thousand pound to go to Margaret and to be pay her when  Robert shall arrive at that age Margaret die before that time the question  upon this part of the devise be whether Margaret die in the lifetime of Robert  and before be attain his age of twentyone though he attain it afterward this  shall be say to be a lapse legacy or transmissible to the administrator of  Margaret Hardwicke Lord chancellor I be of opinion that this be not a lapse  legacy but transmissible to her administrator indeed the general rule by the  civil law be that where a legacy be give after a time to come which be  uncertain there by the death of the legatee before the time of payment the  legacy be lapse as in Swinb c it be there also say not to be material whether  in such bequest the uncertainty be join to the substance of the legacy or to  the execution of it but that in either case the legacy be extinct but that  doctrine have be long ago overrule in this court by Lord Nottingham in Ventr  Anonymous a devise of one hundred pound be to I S at the age of twentyone year  modern report and if I S die under that age then to a and b or the survivor a  and b both die in the lifetime of I S and then I S die under twentyone year  and it be decree that the administrator of b who outlive a shall have the one  hundred pound notwithstanding the legatee die before the contingency happen so  in Pinbury v Elkin a vern Prec in Chan a devise of all his estate to his wife  but in case she die without issue by the testator then eighty pound to I d I d  die in the lifetime of the wife and then the wife die without issue the legacy  decree to the administrator of I d and modern report er p the like point in  the case of king v wither b case t t b and in Corbett v from all which case it  appear and be also my opinion that a contingent interest be transmissable to  executor or administrator in equity as much as a bare possibility be at law  though it be not assignable the only distinction be whether the contingency  depend upon such a event as if a legacy be give to b upon the marriage of I S  and I S die without marry here his death before marriage have put a end to the  legacy because it be now impossible that the contingency of the marriage shall  ever take place but so long as I S be alive the event of his marriage upon  which the legacy depend may happen and so the contingent interest in the  legacy will remain unextinct whether the legatee live or not so in the  principal case the contingency of Robert attain to the age of twentyone have  happen the legacy must charge the asset of the testator and it be not material  whether Margaret die before or after Robert attain his age of twentyone  another question in this cause be as to a sum of one thousand three hundred  pound pay out of the testator SouthSea annuity after the make his will and  before his death by way of annihilation under the statute of Geo c it not  appear what be become of it whether this be to be consider as a ademption pro  tanto out of the several legacy charge thereupon or whether this ought to be  make good to the legatee out of the asset in the hand of the executor as to  this question the case be thus the testator have a great quantity of SouthSea  bank and India stock and devise as follow item I give and devise to my  daughter Margaret Newton her heir and assign my rentcharge of twentyfive pound  ayear and all my money good chattel note bind security and personal estate  except all such money or security for money as I have in bank stock India  stock SouthSea stock and SouthSea annuity which I charge with the payment of  my debt legacy and funeral and the surplus I give to trustee for my daughter  afterward on the twentysixth of January by a codicil recite that he have  change his mind in some thing and confirm it as to the rest he give to his  daughter Margaret the five part of the surplus of the SouthSea and other stock  and modern report annuity to be at her own disposal and upon her death then to  the survive daughter between the make of the will and this codicil the  thirteen hundred pound be pay off as to this part of the case I be of opinion  that this be not to be consider as a ademption of any part of the legacy but  that the deficiency ought to be make good to the legatee out of the asset of  the testator it have be insist for the plaintiff that the SouthSea stock  charge with the payment of the testator legacy be a specific legacy of stock  position quo tempore gift and as such will not admit of any satisfaction in  value but must be extinguish as to so much which have be pay off but I deny it  to be a specific legacy and if not such a legacy the Act of parliament be no  ademption of it it be plain a general bequest of SouthSea stock whether more  or less which the testator have at the time of his death for though to some  purpose a will must be take to speak from the time of its make yet that rule  hold only as to particular thing or individual and not as to all personal  legacy in general but construction must be make upon the whole will and the  testator intent be to be consider whether it be to extend the description of  the thing devise to the time of his death or to confine it to the time of  execute his will in the present case it appear that this be not a substantive  independent legacy of SouthSea stock but it be a legacy give by way of  exception out of the general precedent legacy of the whole personal estate and  there be no doubt but this general legacy of his personal estate relate to  such personal estate as he have at the time of his death and whatever money  good c he acquire after the make his will certain pass by such will thin the  legacy which follow by way of exception must be construe in the same manner  for as it be a maxim that exception let regulan in grammatical case non To  take out so it be no less true that the rule serve likewise to explain the  exception and in whatever manner the rule itself be to be take in the same  manner shall the exception derive out of the rule be take to apply that to the  present case as the general bequest relate to all the personal estate which  the testator shall have at the time of his decease so likewise must the modern  report er p legacy which be by way of exception out of the general charge  relate to the testator whole personal estate which he have at the time of his  decease and can be confine to the specific SouthSea stock subsist at the time  of make the will much stress have be lie on the manner of word this devise and  it be observable that the testator devise all such money not as be shall have  but as he have in the SouthSea c stock and therefore this be a description in  the present tense can be construe to relate to any other personal estate than  that particular sort which he have at the time of his will but I think this  too strict a construction of a will and not warrant by the plain sense and  meaning appear upon the face of it the distinction in general of word and  tense be not so exact observe in English as in other language especial Latin  so in particular the present tense among we be very uncertain in its  signification it be often use with we to denote a kind modern report of future  present tense or something relative to the present which shall hereafter exist  and in this sense I take it the testator have use it upon this occasion as he  do likewise in another part of his will where he give a charity to the poor of  the parish of a have no such relief as there be mention which word have must  plain relate to the time when his intend charity be to take effect that be at  the time of his death nor can it admit of any other construction it be plain  that if the testator instead of sell out have purchase any more stock after  the make of his will those will have pass by the description in the will and  there be the same reason here why the bequest shall relate here to such  SouthSea stock as he have at the time of his death but there be another matter  which still further clear this point and that be the codicil which be make  after the thirteen hundred pound be pay off and confirm the will in every  particular not express alter thereby so that by this the testator intent be  manifest beyond all doubt as to the case cite of ademptions of legacy out of  equity case abridge they be not applicable to the case in question for as to  the case of ford v Fleming which be July before Lord king a Eq Abr stram Peer  wms a that be a bequest of a particular specific sum for if it have be a  general bequest it will have be otherwise the case of Harding v smith before  sir Joseph Jekyll that November be likewise a specific bequest for it be of  all money due upon a mortgage of a certain farm name in the will and the rule  be general and well know quod id that which is fixed be quod that which is  fixed To give back to be able the case of purse v Snaplin b atk b which be  also before sir Joseph Jekyll and reverse by myself be a legacy of a specific  sum of five thousand pound specify in the will by the name of stock but that  case turn upon this consideration that stock be legacy in word of quantity  only so partridge v partridge c Eq Abr in notorious facts case tempt Talb c be  a particular quantity and Brunsden v winter be a devise of specific stock and  navy bill