
    A. D. M’Dougald, Administrator of John King, v. James King, Robert Williamson, and Others.
    The testator by his will directed that his estate should.be kept together,.. al)<^ manag'e(b for the benefit of his family who should live with his wife, until his youngest son arrived at the age of eighteen years, and then distributed among his wife and children ; but, subsequent to the date of his will, he made advancements to two others of his children. The parties advanced consenting to bring in their respective advancements, as in case of intestacy, held, that they were chargeable with interest thereon, from the time when the estate became distributable, and not from the death of the testator.
    The law on the subject of advancements applies only to cases of intestacy : but where the children of a testator have been 'advanced by him, after making his will, it may be made a question, whether such advancements are not to be taken in satisfaction of legacies to the children advanced; and if they agree to bring in their advancements, as in cases of intestacy, they are chargeable with interest by a fair analogy to the law on the subject of advancements.
    Before De Saussure, Chancellor, at Cheraw, February, 1830.
    John King, (he complainant’s testator, by his» will, directed, that his estate should be kept together, and managed, for the benefit of his family who should live with his wife, until his youngest son, Noel King, should arrive at the age of eighteen years, and then be distributed among hi's wife, and éhildren, in certain proportions. Subsequently to the date of his will, he made advancements to his son, James King, to the value of seven hundred and fifty-five dollars; and to his son-in-law, Robert Williamson, to the value of three hundred dollars : and died in July, 1818, leaving his will unaltered. Noel King attained the age of eighteen years in 1826 ; and administration, with the will annexed, having been committed to the complainant; this bill was filed to settle the estate.
    The defendants, James King, and Robert Williamson, having consented to bring in their advancements, as in cases of intestacy, it was referred to the commissioner to ascertain the value of the estate, and to state the accounts of the several legatees ; and in stating the account he charged James King, and Robert Williamson, with interest on their respective advancements, from, the death of the testator. This charge was excepted to by these defendants, but the exception was overruled by the Chancellor, and the report confirmed by his decree.
    The defendants appealed, on the ground, that they were liable ■only for the principal of their several advancements, and not for interest ;■ and they moved that the decree might be reformed according to the exception.
    1 Raust, 28.
    Ervin, for the motion.
    M’Iver, contra.
    
   Harper, J.

The law on the subject of advancements, applies only to cases of intestacy: the question of satisfaction of a legacy may arise when there is a will. But we understand that the legatees, who have been advanced, in this qase, consent to bring in, and account for their advancements, in analogy to the case of distribution under an intestacy. We have doubted, whether we ought to take cognizance of the point thus made. 'As the bringing in of the advancements depended on the consent and agreement of the parties, it was for them to prescribe the terms of their consent, and they ought to have made the agreement complete. As it is easy, however, to reach the justice of the case, we shall proceed to give an opinion.

In cases-of intestacy, under the act of 1791, advancements are to be estimated as of the time of the intestate’s death. The distributees, who have been advanced, are regarded as having received so much on account of their distributive shares, at the time of the death ; and when a settlement is to be made, at a subsequent period, with the other distributees, who have received nothing, it is fair and equal that interest should be estimated on the amounts received by the advanced distributees, from the time when they are supposed to have received them. They have had the use of these amounts in the mean time. An intestate’s estate is distributable as of the time of his death ; and we may suppose the statute to be founded on an equity of this sort. ' The children who remain in the family of the father are supported by him. Advancements are made to those who leave his family, for the purpose of their support. Up to the time of the death, advantages are equal; both have received a support from the father's estate, and the advancements are estimated as having been made when the estate became distributable.

By the will in question, the testator’s estate was distributable when his son, Noel King, should arrive at the age of eighteen years; and, in the mean time the use of it, was given to such of his family as should continue to reside with his wife. This was equivalent to the use of the advancements by those of the children, who did not constitute a part of the wife’s family. By natural equity, and fair analogy to the case of intestacy, I think the advancements ought to have been estimated as of the time, when the estate was distributa- * ble ; that is, when Noel King arrived at the age of eighteen years: an^ ^at interest ought to have been calculated only from that time, And it is ordered and decreed, that the decree of the Chancellor be moclifxeii accordingly.

O’Neall, J., concurred.

Johnson, J., absent from indisposition.

Decree modified.  