BERRISTE versus BERRISTE Hillary term will William Berriste be possess of a  great personal estate and be likewise seize of a real estate have two child  William and mile Berriste and the father by his will appoint that his executor  shall see his child educate they be both infant and he give they a allowance  not exceed pound ayear for the old and pound ayear for the young until they  come of age and soon after die Thomas Berriste the brother of the testator  afterward agree with the executor to diet and educate the child of his brother  William at a low rate and thereupon they be place with he and continue there  three year and then Thomasdied Nelson after who death mary Berriste his widow  and executrix exhibit a bill against the executor of William Berriste wherein  she pray a allowance of pound for the three year diet and school c of the say  infant the defendant by their answer confess the allegation in the bill but  far say that Thomas Berriste the complainant late husband and who executrix  she now be be in his lifetime indebt to William Berriste his brother and who  executor they be in pound upon simple contract which be not yet pay and which  they say ought now to be discompted by the say complainant mary his executrix  and that they ought not to allow her so much as the will appoint for the  education of the child because her testator have agree to diet and bring they  up at a low rate all which be prove in the Cause the court decree and say that  the executrix shall be allow what the father have allot for the maintenance of  his child if there have not be a agreement prove that her testator will  educate they at a low rate and then the surplus shall go and be for the  benefit of the infant and that the executrix ought to discompt Nelson the  pound although it be a debt upon simple contract owe by her late husband the  testator and the payment or discompt thereof shall be no devastavit in her if  there shall happen to be any debt or bind owe by her husband which shall  afterward be put in suit against her because the discompt be make for the  necessary support of the infant and that if it shall be otherwise construe at  law videlicet that it be a devastavit this court will protect her against  judgement recover there upon such construction