atkins case Northey versus Northey November at law a legacy do not vest in the  legatee till the executor assent but in equity he will be decree to deliver  the specific legacy be consider here as a bare trustee a bill be bring by mrs  Northey the widow of the late Mr Northey against the executor of the husband  to have her paraphernalia part of which be present by the husband and the  other part give by her own relation but the husband in his lifetime have take  they into his own possession give some of they to different person as specific  legacy by his will and the rest he have direct to be sell by his executor Lord  chancellor the widow may have bring her action of trover for these specific  thing as the executor have not assent to the legacy for at law a legacy do not  vest in the legatee till the executor assent sir Thomas Abney v miller post  Flanders v clarke post vol bank of England v Moffat bro Charles Rep but then  legatee may come against a executor in this court and he will be decree to  deliver the specific legacy accord to the will for this court consider he as  no more than a bare trustee for legatee it have be object that the specific  legatee be infant and be not before the court and I be of opinion the specific  legatee ought to have be bring before the court and unless the plaintiff will  waive the part that be devise to they the cause must stand over to make proper  party on December the that this cause come on again to be hear Reg lib b fol  the plaintiff the wife of the late Mr Northey in his lifetime be possess of  several jewel part of they buy with her own money and part with her husband  and prove in the cause that she wear they but six week before his death and  subsequent to any will or codicil of the late Mr Northey who have give part of  the jewel by will to his brother and make he executor the bill be bring by the  widow as to those jewel only which be give to the brother as executor and now  waive any right she may claim to the rest of the jewel as paraphernalia which  be leave by the will to her child the will have give the plaintiff the jewel  for her life provide she make a inventory of they and enter into a security to  double the value for refund in case of a second marriage atkins but by a  codicil in August the testator revoke this part of his will and give the  residue exclusive of the part to the child to his brother the executor Mr  Chute of counsel for the defendant the executor insist that it be mere a legal  question and ought to be determine at law by a action of trover as the  plaintiff be under no imbecility which can entitle her to come into this court  and with regard to the general question urge these thing first that the  testator have absolute dispose of the jewel second and the most material be  the plaintiff have not that kind of property in these thing as paraphernalia  upon which she can ground such a claim before the case of Tiping v tip wms in  Lord macclesfield time he say it be very far from be a point clear settle in  the case of Lord Hastings and sir Archibald Douglas cro car and I roll the  court be equal divide it appear likewise in the cause that the wife be not  with her husband at the time of his death and that the jewel be keep under  lock and key and that she be permit only to wear they sometime at his pleasure  and there ought to be such a special property in the wife as constant  possession and custody in the lifetime of the husband to support her claim as  paraphernalia atkins er p that the defendant the executor find they lock up in  the husband bureau at the time of his death that after make the will there be  evidence indeed that she wear the jewel but this be only a bare permission of  the husband and not absolute in her power Lord chancellor there be some case  both in law and equity so plain that they will not admit of any dispute the  late case have go so far in the point of paraphernalia that they have consider  a wife in the mature of a creditor and as have a lie upon real estate see  Snelson v corbel post vol atkins though the jewel here be worth pound at least  yet the value make no alteration in this court there be several case where  there have be debt stand out against the husband and yet the wife have be  admit as a creditor to the value of the paraphernalia even upon trust estate  create for payment of debt the be in the custody of the husband will make no  alteration for the possession of the husband be the possession of the wife and  so v ice line as she wear they for the ornament of her person whenever she be  dress the testator have take upon he to dispose of the paraphernalia which he  have no power to do I direct the estate of the husband to pay the cost and  decree for the wife accord to the prayer of the bill see Probert v Morgan ante  vol