
    JONATHAN PIPER vs. JOSEPH PIPER, Trustee of JOHN BENNETT.
    An action lies to recover a legacy charged upon land.
    In this case, it appeared from the answer of the trustee, that one Mary Bennett, on the 2d January, 1818, made her will, which contained the following clauses : “ 1 give, be- “ queath and devise to my son, John Bennett., fifty dollars, “ to be paid him by my grandson, Joseph Piper, out of the “ estate I hereinafter give him,” ,
    “ I give, bequeath and devise to my grandson, Joseph “ Piper, all the rest, residue or remainder of my estate which “ I may have at my decease, whether real, personal or mix- “ ed, out of which bequest* he is to pay to my son, John “ Bennett, fifty dollars, as is expressed above.”
    That the said Mary died on the 6th June, 1819 ; that the said will had been duly proved by Samuel Sherhurn, the executor therein named ; that the said Joseph Piper accepted the legacy and devise aforesaid, and was in possession of the said estate by virtue of said will, and that the estate of the said Mary was sufficient to pay all her debts, legacies, and expenses of settling her estate.
   By the court.

The real question in this case is, whether the principal could maintain an action against the trustee to recover the legacy given to the principal in the will of Mary Bennett; for if he could, the trustee is chargeable ; otherwise not. It seems now to be well settled* that an action lies to recover a legacy charged upon lands. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 91.—7 John. 99, Sucker vs. Bucher.—10 ditto 30, Orders vs. Orders.—2 Salk. 415, Ewer vs. Jones.—2 Ld. Ray. 936, S. C.—6 Mod. Rep. 26, S. C.4 Mass. Rep. 634, Tarwell vs. Jacobs.

We are therefore of opinion, that the trustee must be charged.  