
    THE EXECUTORS OF SAMUEL S. OLDEN AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, and ANN P. WHITE AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
    Tine testator, by his will, gives to his aunt, Ann P. White, $10,000, to be paid to her as soon as practicable after his decease, or, with interest from that time. He then gives several other money legacies. He then makes specific bequests of furniture and other articles of personal property. He then says that he wishes his bank stock to make a part of his dear aunt’s legacy, as it will give her less trouble in collecting.^ The will then provides thus: “ Item» —After all my just debts are paid, and the expenses of fulfilling this my last will and testament, I give and bequeath all the remainder of my property, both real and personal, to be equally divided among my four cousins (naming them.) Item. — I wish that the house I have lately purchased of C. M. Campbell, valued at $4000, to be part of' my dear aunt’s legacy, and that, in the division of her portion, my Trenton bank be calculated at $40 per 'share, and my Easton bank at $30 per share.” And, by a codicil to his said will, he gave to his aunt, Ann P. White, in fee simple, a lot of woodland (describing it), containing fifteen acres, and all the plate in his house, and some other articles of personal property; and also gave by the codicil, three other money legacies, one of $200, one of $50, and one of $75—
    
      Held, that the lands devised in the residuary clause of the will were not chargeable, in aid of the personal estate, with the payment of the legacies, but that the personal estate being insufficient to pay the legacies, they must abate.
    This case is reported in 3 Green’s Chan. 343. The cause was argued in this court by
    
      W. Halsted and P. D. Vroom, for the appellants, and R. S. Field and W. L. Dayton, for the respondents.
    Cases cited by the appellants, in addition to the cases cited by the counsel for the defendants below — 1 P. Wms. 294; 10 Gill & John. 143; 8 Conn. Rep. 1; Story’s Com. on Const. of U. S., § 207; 1 Story’s Eq., § 565; 1 P. Wms. 729; 8 Cond. Eng. Ch. Rep. 167; 1 Ves., Sr., 111; Toll. on Exec. 301; 1 Roper on Leg. 149; 2 Smith’s Chan. 283; 1 King's Rep. 273; 1 Coxe’s Chan. 180; 2 Ves., Sr., 52; Seaton’s Forms 74; 1 Dess. 500, 513; Pow. on Dev. 667; 2 Didkens 507; 1 Sch. & Lef. 238.
    Cases cited by the counsel for the respondents — 2 Vern. 228; 1 Ves., Sr., 499; 4 Mad. Chan. 102; 1 Ves., Jr., 436, 444; Prec. in Ch. 430, 397; 2 Dickens 507; 1 Roper on Leg. 451, 643; 1 Ves., Sr., 495; 4 Vin. Ab. 460, pl. 180; 3 Atk. 352; 4 Russ. 376; 3 Cond. Eng. Ch. Rep. 714; 11 Ibid. 227; 14 Ibid. 696, 708; 1 Ibid. 604; 3 Binney 525; 6 Ibid. 395; 3 Ves., Jr., 738; 9 Law Lib. 108; 1 Story’s Eq., § 569; 2 Ibid. § 1144; Jeremy’s Eq. 162, 539; Ambl. 128; 1 P. Wms. 403; 8 Ves. 397; 3 Paige 405; Seaton’s Forms 75.
   Chief Justice Hornblower

gave an opinion in favor of affirming the decree of the Chancellor.

Justice Carpenter, and Judges Porter and Spencer concurred.

Justice Neviits gave an opinion in favor of reversing the decree of the Chancellor.

Justice Whitehead, Judges Robertson, Speer, and Schenck, and the President, concurred with Judgé Neviits.

Decree below reversed.

Cited in Dey v. Dey’s Ad., 4 C. E. Gr. 137.  