32.

to be by them received and paid to him every six months during his life; and after the death of the testator his agents abroad paid to G. C. for three successive years the same yearly sum as his brother had been in the habit of allowing him, which payments amounted in all to 10507.; and G. C. then died, but the annuity had not been purchased in consequence of his not having been able to return to England: the Master of the Rolls, on a bill filed by his executor, thought that G. C. must be considered as having elected to take the 30007.; that interest must be computed on the legacy, and the 1050l. be considered as so much received by him on account of principal and interest.a And here perhaps we may notice a case in which a man, having borrowed 2007. of A., granted an annuity of 201. to A., provided that if the borrower at any time repaid the 2007. then the annuity to cease; and A. bequeathed the annuity to C., and the heirs of his body subject to the proviso: C. was held entitled to the 2007. when it was some years afterwards repaid.

Bill in from The question what interest a legatee is intended to take in his legacy, must often depend upon the particular wording of each will. Where a man left a legacy to his son, but gave the executors a power at their discretion to restrain it to a life interest, with a bequest over in such case; and the executors renounced; the son was decreed to take the absolute interest. And where a man directed his trustees to advance and pay any money they should think fit, not exceeding in the whole 3000l., for the advance

a

b
Palmer v. Craufurd, 2 Wils.
C. C. 79. 3 Swanst. 482.

Wyard v. Worse, 1 Ch. Rep. 129.

C

Keates v. Burton, 14 Ves. 434.

ment of the plaintiff in any business, art, or profession, or in any civil or military employment; and the trustees laid out 10007. in a commission in the army for the plaintiff, which he afterwards sold: the bequest was construed as a gift of 30007. in all events to the plaintiff, either by advancement or in money." While on the other hand in a case in which a woman gave the residue of her estate in trust for her nephew and his heirs, and that the trustees should pay him yearly the interest during his life, with power for them, if they should see it would be for his benefit, to advance him any part of the principal, with a bequest over if no part should have been advanced: Sir W. Grant observed, the executors might in the exercise of a sound discretion give the property to the nephew; but it was impossible for the Court to say it was an absolute property in him. And where there was a bequest to A. of 2007. per annum for the use of herself and children, which annuity to be paid out of the testator's general effects till it was convenient to the executors to invest 5000l. in the funds in lieu thereof for her and their use, and to the longest liver of her and her children, subject to an equal division of the interest while more than one of them alive: it was held to be an annuity, and not an absolute legacy,

Where a man bequeathed certain leasehold houses in trust for the separate use of A. during the term independent of her husband; and other houses for the separate use of B. for life, and afterwards to her children, and if no children then to sink into the

a

Cope v. Wilmot, Ambl. 704.
Robinson v. Cleator, 15 Ves. 526;

and see Lewis v. Lewis, 1 Cox, 162.

Innes v. Mitchell, 6 Ves. 464, 9 id. 212.

residue; and then gave the residue of his estate and effects in trust for A. and B. to be paid and applied "in like manner" for their use and benefit: they were decreed entitled to the absolute interest of the residue; for the words "in like manner" only meant for their separate use, and not for the same interest." But where a testator gave the residue of his estate in trust to pay the interest to and among his nephews and nieces for their lives, the share of any one dying to go to the children, and if no children the share of the one so dying to go among the survivors "in manner aforesaid:" it was held that the share of a nephew, who died without issue, went to the survivors for their lives only.

Badham & hee Where the directions of a will were, that a fund 1 Rufor by. 631. might be lodged with J. B. so as to raise 487. per ann. for the support of A.'s children to be paid them from time to time as their necessities required: the Lord Chancellor said he thought it probable the testator might mean this allowance to take place only during the minority of the children; but that upon the words he had made use of, it was impossible to restrain it to any thing short of a life interest.c

352.

Uny Frank In another case in which a man bequeathed the residue of his estate equally among his wife, his son, and his daughters, subject nevertheless as to the shares of his daughters in trust for and during their lives for their separate use, and after their decease the shares to which they were respectively entitled for life as aforesaid to their children; and two of the

daughters died without children: it was held they took an absolute interest in their shares; for the purpose of the testator was an equal participation of his estate among his wife and children; his daughters were all married at the date of his will, and two of them had no children; he could therefore hardly be imagined not to have contemplated the chance of their dying without any, and intestacy was not to be imputed to him, if the event was one that could not have escaped his notice, and the words were sufficient to extend to it.a

In a devise of a house, and of the goods and furniture in it to the testator's wife for life, and after her decease, to his son R. and his heirs, except the pictures, which the testator gave to his sons J. and E.: it was at first held that the pictures passed to the wife for life; but on a rehearing it was decreed otherwise, and that the exception was an original devise of the pictures to J. and E. But where a vesend n man bequeathed all his personal estate to his wife Sunny in for life, and then went on, Item, I give A. and B. 10007. apiece if they attain twenty-one, if not then," &c.; "Item, I give to B. after my wife's death all my household goods," &c.; and all the residue of his estate the testator gave, after the death of his wife, to J. S. it was ultimately decreed, that these legacies of 10007. each were not payable till after the death of the wife.

66

In a devise from a husband to his wife of the use of all household goods, furniture, plate, &c., the Lord Chancellor said, the wife might use the goods

279.

Whittell. Dudin, 2 Jac. & W.

Gayre v. Gayre, 2 Ver. 538. Raithby's ed.

Young v. Burdett, 3 Bro. P. C. 45. 9 Mod. 93. 8 Vin. Ab. 284; and see Harper . Lee, Mos. 3.

".

12.8.

in her own or any other person's house, alone, or promiscuously with other goods, or might let them out to hire.*

SECTION V.

Of Satisfaction.

b

Ir has long been an established rule, notwithstand4. ng two early decisions to the contrary, that where a kehr Lewis testator at the time of making his will is indebted to 3316, ha another, and bequeaths to his creditor a pecuniary rhill. 19t . legacy of equal or greater amount than the debt; the legatee shall not claim both; but the bequest shall

1

be considered a satisfaction of the debt; upon the presumption that a man must be intended just before he is bountiful; and that his intent is to pay a debt, and not to give a legacy. Hence a bequest by a husband has been held a satisfaction of arrears of pin-money due to his wife at the time of making his will; or of a bond or covenant that his executors should pay her a sum of money or an annuity after his death; and a legacy by a father a satisfaction of a portion due to a child by settlement, or by the custom of London.o

a

d

Marshall v. Blew, 2 Atk. 217; and see Fearne C. R. 407.

Cuthbert v. Peacock, 2 Ver. 593. 1 Salk. 155. Cranmer's Ca. 2 Salk. 508.

Pr. Ch. 394. Gilb. Eq. R. 89. 2 P.W.132. 3 id. 354. 3 Atk. 68. Mos. 8. Reech v. Kennegal, 1 Ves. 123. d Fowler v. Fowler, 3 P. W. 353. Brown v. Dawson, 2 Ver. 498. Pr. Ch. 240. Graham v. Graham, 1 Ves. 263. Corus v. Farmer, 2 Eq.

Ab. 34. Wathen r. Smith, 4 Mad. 325.

Bloys v. Bloys, 2 Freem. 46. 2 Vent. 347. 2 Ch. Rep. 162. Copley v. Copley, 1 P. W. 146. Ackworth v. Ackworth, 1 Bro. 307. N. D. Somerset . Duchess of Somerset, 1 Bro. 309. N. Moulson v. Moulson, 1 Bro. 82. Hinchcliffe v. Hinchcliffe, 3 Ves. 516.

Nicholls". Nicholls, Bac. Ab. Leg. D.