case Sibley versus cook October see in re clay clay v clay l I Ch a h give  several legacy and declare that if any of the person shall die before the same  become due that they shall not be deem lapse legacy and then say to and the  wife of Richard Wensley and to her executor or administrator I give pound she  die in the testatrixs lifetime and her husband administer to her Lord  Hardwicke hold it not to be a lapse legacy and decree it to the husband a bill  be bring by the executor of and Hume in order to have the direction of the  court as to the payment of the residuum of her estate she inter alian devise  in the word follow I give and devise the several legacy and sum follow which I  will shall be pay to the several person hereinafter name and that if any of  those person shall die before the same become due and Payable I will that they  c or any of they shall not be deem lapse legacy then she particularize the  several legatee and say to and the wife of Richard Wensley and to her executor  or administrator I give the sum of fifty pound Ann Wensley die in the lifetime  of the testatrix and h r husband administer to her atkins a collateral  question arise in this cause whether this be a lapse legacy Mr solicitor  general counsel for the husband cite Darrell versus Molesworth vern as a case  in point there diverse legacy be give by a will and it be direct by the will  that if any legatee die before his legacy be Payable it shall go to his  brother and sister a legatee die in the lifetime of the testator it be adjudge  it be no lapse legacy but shall go to his sister Lord chancellor I be of  opinion this be not a lapse legacy if a man devise a real estate to I S and  his heir and signify or indicate his intention that if I S die before he it  shall not be a lapse legacy yet unless he have nominate another legatee the  heir at law be not exclude notwithstanding the testator declaration so in the  devise of a personal legacy to a though the testator shall show a intention  that the legacy shall not lapse in case a die before he yet this be not  sufficient to exclude the next of kin vide Elliot v Duvenport p W but here in  case and Wensley die before the testatrix she express provide against the  lapse for she say if any of these person die before the same become due or  Payable I will that they or any of they shall not be deem lapse legacy and  subsequent to this devise to and and to her executor and administrator pound  so that in case of her death before the testatrix other person be name to take  bridge v abbot bro Charles Rep which distinguish it from the case I put before  and in Darrell versus Molesworth the court lie a stress upon the word be  Payable which be very much the same with the present become due or Payable and  upon the authority of this case Lord Hardwicke decree the legacy to the  husband Reg lib b fol atkins er p