
    Stoddard Hubbell, Petitioner, &c. versus Calvin Hubbell et al.
    
    Lands specifically devised are not liable to be sold for the purpose of paying specific legacies.
    Whether in case of a deficiency of assets, the devisees are liable equally with the legatees to contribute, qtuere.
    
    The petitioner, as executor of Calvin Hubbell, deceased, represents that the real estate of the- testator was appraised at $ 1938 ; that the amount of the personal estate, including the proceeds of a part of the real estate specifically appropriated to the payment of debts, is $ 4059 ; that the amount of ,the executor’s account for funeral charges, debts, and expenses of administration, is $2616 ; that the amount of specific legacies of personal estate is $ 1514 ; that the amount of debts now due is $ /l~9 ; and that it is necessary to sell real estate to the amo-"t $ 540 for the payment of debts and incidental .’haiges. The prayer of the petition is for leave to sell real esfate to that amount, for that purpose.
    
      The real estate not applied to the payment ol debts, was devised specifically to certain persons named in the will.
    
      Dewey and Briggs, for the petitioner.
    
      C. Hubbell, ppo se.
    
   Wilde J.

afterward drew up the opinion of ihe Court. The question submitted on this petition is, whether lands specifically devised can be sold for the purpose of paying specific legacies. The personal estate and lands appropriated to the payment of debts, not being sufficient for this purpose, after the payment of debts and the expenses of administration, the question is not affected by the rule laid down in the case of Hays et al. v. Jackson et al. 6 Mass. R. 151, for marshalling assets ; and there seems to be no authority or reason for holding that lands specifically devised are liable to be sold for the payment of specific legacies. The most that the legatees can claim is, that they should be put on an equal footing with the devisees : and that the latter, in case of a deficiency of assets, should be held to contribute. But as to this we give no opinion, as the facts stated in the petition do not raise this question.

Petition dismissed.  