
    
      Fresera — Chancellors Mathews and Rctlebce,
    James Stuart, devisee and legatee of Dr. James Carson vs. Wm. Carson, executor of James Carson. Hartly and wife, legatee of Dr. James Carson vs. Wm. Carson, and James Stuart, executors of Dr. James Carson.
    Sept. 1796.
    case cxrv.
    eech.ee book, vol. ii. p. 52.
    Specific legacies to a stepson are exempted from contributing to the payment of debts of the testator: more especially as the legacies tvcjre given In lieu af other claims, which he had on the testator. Legacies to a wife, partly specific and partly general, are exempt from, contributing to the payment of debts; because given in lieu of dower, and acccpicd in lieu of some other claim» on the testator’s catate. The debí» are to be paid out of the residuary personal es¿ talc. If that, is insufficient, thca the debis to bo paid out of the real estate devised to the testator’s daughter, and on her death, under age and ivi,li-on- issue, to the testator’s brothel*.
    
      The hills in these cases w:ere filed to obtain settlements and accounts of the estate of the late Dr. James Carson, who has devised and bequeathed considerable legacies to the complainants.. As the bill filed by James Stuart Ismiglit out the whole case, it is unnecessary to give a full statement of both cases.
    The bill filed by Janies Stuart charged, that complainant's mother was possessed of considerable estates, and intermarried with Dr. James Carson, who thereby acquired the property which she possessed. That during the coverture he acquired in her right considerable property under the will of her deceased brother, Lewis Reeves. No part was ever settled on her. That Dr. Carson being possessed of a large estate, real and personal, made his will on the 22d of August, 1777, which is set forth in the bill, That the executrix and executors thereof qualified in the following order: William Ladson on the Sd October, 1777, Ann Carson (complainant's mother) 1 Ith September, 1773, William Carson, the defendant on the 9th August, 1730, under the board of police, and complainant on the 1st day of March, 1783. That during the war the complainant (then of tender years) Is not informed of the particulars of William Lad-son and Ann Carson’s administration,* but believes they did little, more than keep tbe estate together as well as they could, except selling the lands on Lady’s Island called St. Quiistm’s, which was sold by William Lad-son., and a considerable part of the purchase money paid in depreciated currency. Complainant charges, that some pas t of the purchase, money came to the hands of Use de-defendant. That during the joint lives ol‘ Mr. Ladson and Mrs. Carson, Iks chiefly acted — after his death she acted solely till her death, being about nine months. That upon, or soon after the surrender of Charleston to the British, William Carson took into possession all the real and personal estate, and during the British usurpation {between two and three years) continued to hold, manage, and dispose thereof — sold most of the personal rs-i.tv, consisting of furniture and plate, both in Charleston and on Joint's Island. That lie. also made and sold considerable crops and proceeds of the estate, of all which lie has not rendered proper accounts. That he sold the household furniture, although one half thereof was specifically bequeathed > o Ana Carson, oh whose personal estate, dc-. fendant took out letters of administration,* and be on gin ' to have sold the same (one half) as her property; but he-acted irregularly, making no discrimination between the es“a^es* That he never made or returned any inventory or appraisement of cither estate, by reason whereof com-pl&inant is necessarily in the dark, as well as to the particulars of Mr. Ladson and Mrs. Carson’s administration, ai|d of that of the defendant under the board of police, as 0f the particulars-, value and amount of the estate, and the sales thereof. That though complainant’s said mother was entitled to one third of the negroes, to be elected by her out of the house negroes, she made no such election, owing to the troubles of the times; and no division was made. And complainant contends that the right still remains in her representatives unimpaired. That she died on the 18th May, 1780, leaving her son, the complainant, and her daughter, Eliza Gibbs Carson, her legal representatives, who were entitled to divide Mrs, Carson’s interest between them. That about the time of the evacuation of Charleston, the defendant went to England, and took Miss Carson, then very young, along with him; and returned to this state, with Miss Carson in the year 1790; and she died in the month of July, 1794, under age, intestate and unmarried. By reason whereof and under the act of the legislaure of 19th February, 1791, the complainant is entitled to the whole property of his said half sister, and to the whole property of Mrs. Carson his mother. That in consequence also of the-' death of Miss Carson, “ unmarried and before arriving to the age of 21 years,” the limitation over of the personal estate bequeathed to her by her father the testator, has taken effect, whereby one third of the residue of the personal estate was to go to Mrs.i( Ann Carson, her executors, administrators and assigns forever” — and complainant submits that he is entitled to the same'. By these-various means complainant, as he contends and submits, is entitled to one third of the negroes of the estate, with the right of choosing from amongst the house servants, together with the rents and profits, from the year 1780. Also to one half of the furniture, plate, and kitchen furniture, with interest on the sales thereof. And lastly, one third of the residuary estate bequeathed to Miss Carson, with the rents and profits from the time of her death. Of all which complainant hath given notice to defendant, and requested a discovery and account of the estate, and a settlement, as well of that of Dr. Carson as of Mrs. Carson — And that he Mill discover all papers, documents and vouchers of each estate, which came to his hands after the death of Mr. Ladson and Mrs. Carson, and disclose the particulars of their administration; and that he would co-operate with complainant in hastening the affairs of the estate to a final close — All which he refuses^ and will not agree to have a division made.
    The bill prays that defendant may come to a full account, discovery and settlement of both estates. That complainant may have delivered over to him whatever he is entitled to in his own right, in that of his mother, and in that of his sister, Miss Carson. That the funds which the testator intended for the payment of his debts may be ascertained, and applied thereto. That defendant may be restrained in the mean time from selling the estate.* That complainant may have such further and other relief as the court shall judge proper and equitable.
    To this hill the defendant, William Carson put in the following answer:
    The answer of William Carson, one of the executors of Doctor James Carson, (deceased, defendant to the bill of complaint of Doctor James Stuart) stated, that the defendant denied that the testator, Dr. James Carson obtained a considerable property by his intermarriage with the complainant’s mother, Mrs. Stuart; — . Eut admits, that on the death of her brother, Lewis Beeves, he acquired some beneficiary interest by his will in favor of his sister. Defendant admits that his brother, the testator was possessed of a considerable real and personal estate, and made such last will and testament, as is set forth in the complainant’s bill, whereby he gave to the complainant a far more considerable estate than that which lie acquired by the will of Mr. Reeves, in favor of Mrs. Cai’son. Defendant admits that lie left this state, on political considerations, soon after the death of his brother, the testator, without having’ intermeddled with the estate, and leaving the whole in the possession of the executrix and the executor, Mi*. William Ladson, recommending to them not to sell the plantation on Lady’s-island for less than 30001. sterling, having himself offered ^ gjve that sum for it. That the defendant returned to. this state in the year 1780; and that Mi*. Ladson was the» dead; and Mrs. Carson, the cxecuti*ix soon after died; and Dr. Janies Stuart w*as then under age. That under these circumstances, defendant qualified on the will of his brother, Dr. James Carson, before the officer appointed by the existing powers, to grant probates, whereby he was enabled to protect the property of the estate; and ho con. sidcred the oath as obligatory as if taken under the best, authority. That to the best of his recollection defendant administered on Mrs. Carson’s estate (the widow of Dr, James Carson) and took possession of some paper money, furniture and plate — «old the same to the best advantage, and credited the estate therewith in his accounts. But he denies that he possessed himself of all the papers of Mrs. Carson; but avers that some of the titles of the lands, and lie, believes most of her valuable papers were carried off on her death, and are now, to the best of defendant’s belief in complainant’s possession. Defendant admits that till the close of the year I78¿, he managed the estate of the, testator, of which he kept as accurate an account as the nature and circumstances of the times could admit. That of these transactions and all others respecting Ids brother's estate, subsequent thereto, (down to the month of last) he has rendered an account to the ordinary, and filed a copy with his answer to a bill already filed against him, in this court, to which lie prays leave to refer the court: and prays leave to postpone the exhibiting his subsequent accounts until he can properly arrange them and submit them to the ordinary; after which they may be made part of Ms answer. That defendant about Ilic year 1782. transmitted to complainant an account of ail his transactions respecting the estate, from the death of Mrs. Carson, to the close of the said year. And also from time to time whilst in Europe, this defendant transmitted to complainant the accounts of monies expended on the education of defendant’s niece, and of monies reCeived from the estate of the testator, as remittances. Defendant admits that his niece departed this life at the time mentioned in the bill, under age, and unmarried. That complainant is her brother of the half-blood, and would be entitled to a share of the residue of the personal estate, if such estate be more than sufficient to pay the debts due therefrom, which this defendant does not believe to bo the case. That with regard to the various claims of the complainant, defendant submits them to the decision of the court, confident that it will protect him in Ms rights. Defendant refers to exhibit A. for an account of the negroes, and other personal estate in Ms possession, belonging to the estate. Defendant begs leave to require on his part, that complainant, while he seeks a discovery of accounts from the defendant, will himself Tender an account of all his own transactions, and of those of his agents during the túne that he managed the estate, and also an account of all his mother’s transactions as far as the same ever came to his knowledge. That he Will moreover produce all the titles and papers in his possession and control, belonging to said estate. And that he will set forth the profits which were made by the negroes bequeathed to him by the testator on the event of his arriving at the ago of twenty-one; and which this defendant has been informed and believes were separated and worked apart as distinct property for a considerable time previous to his coming of age. And defendant prays to be dismissed.
    The provisions and dispositions of Dr. James Carson’s will were as follows: He directed all his debts to be paid as soon as might he, after his decease. For which purpose he directed the plantation on St. Qintin’s to be sold; and if it proved insufficient, then the remainder of his debts to be paid oot of the rest of his estate, not specifically devised. The testator bequeathed to bis wife, Ann Carson, his carriage and horses, one half of all his furiu-ture, plate, &c. one third of all his negroes, with a right of electing some of them from among his house servants. Also the use of his town-house, and of his plantation dur-|ng widowhood, in lieu of dower. He directed his step-soil, James ■ Stuart to be educated at his expense until he attained twenty-one years of age. Then he devises to him the plantation on Lady’s Island, Cain Island, and Farrington’s Neck; and he bequeathed to him thirty enumerated negroes, with cattle, sheep, &c. &c. Then followed a clause making void all the above devises to his wife and James Stuart, in case they should set up any claim upon the estate in right of his grandmother or uncle; or for dower or jointui’e; and in that case orders their portions to sink into the residuum of the estate. All the rest and residue of Ms estate, the testator devised and bequeathed to his daughter, Eliza Gibbes Carson, at twenty-one years of age, nr on her day of marriage, which should first happen. But if she died before, he devised all his lands not before specifically bequeathed to his brother, William Carson, and the residue of his personal estate to be divided into three equal parts; one third of which he bequeathed to hiS brother, William Carson; another third to his wife, Mrs. Ann Carson; and the remaining third (in moieties) to William Ladson and Thomas Ladson. St. Quintines was sold, but proved to be insufficient to pay the debts. Miss Eliza Gibbes Carson, having died under age, and unmarried, the limitations over took effect.
    Doctor James Stuart claimed under the will as follows: The lands devised to him by the will; the negroes bequeathed specifically to him; the third part of the testator’s negro slaves bequeathed to Dr Stuart’s mother, Mrs. Carson; with the rents, issues and profits, since her death in the year 1780. Also one half of the furniture and plate, with interest from the time when these were sold. And finally, in right of his half sister, Miss Carson, (under the devise over to his mother) one third of the residue of the personal estate, with rents and profits from the death of Miss Carson. Dr. Stuart contends that none of these several interests- are liable to be affected by the debts of the testator; but that some other portion of the estate should be applied to that purpose.
    Mr. William Carson contended that he had a right to have his lands protected by the personal estate against the payment of debts.
    The complainant, James Hartly, who had married the only daughter of Thomas Ladson, (one of the contingent legatees) claimed the legacy to which his wife’s-father was entitled under the will.
    The principal question in this case being out of what ftmd the debts were to be paid, it was contended by Mr. Ford, Mr. Desaussure and general Pinckney, for the complainant, Dr. Stuart, that the lands and negroes devised and bequeathed to Dr. Stuart, were not bound to contribute to the payment of debts, until all other funds had failed; because they were specific devises; and specific devises are not liable by law to contribute; and because the testator expressly designated St. Quintin’s plantation as the first fund to pay debts; and on failure of that (as had happened) then the rest of Ms estate not specifically devised. Thus the rule of law, and tile-testator’s intention- unite to exempt the property given to Dr. Stuart. It was also contended that the property bequeathed to Mrs. Carson,, the widow was not bound to contribute to the payment of debts* because part of it-was specific, to wit, the carriage, horses, furniture, plate, &c¿ and because it was given her in lieu of dower, which assimilated it to Mrs. Loocock’s case, lately decided by this court; and placed her on the footing of a purchaser. But her case, as well-as Dr. Stuart’s, was stronger, on this ground; for they had claims on Mr. Carson, the, testator’s estate, derived from Mr. Lewis Reeves, the brother of Mrs, Carson, which the testator refers to in Ms will, and requires to be give» up, to entitle them to take under Ms-will. This they have done, and therefore stand emphatically on the footing of purchasers. And this is the stronger with regard to the legacy of negroes bequeathed to Dr. Stuart; the greater part of whom were negroes which had been bequeathed to Mm by his uncle, M'p.
    
      Reeves, which came into the hands of Dr. Carson, on his marrying Dr. Stuart’s mother, and were retained till his death. The debts then remaining unpaid, after the sa^e St. Quintin’s, must be paid out of the residuary estate. That was devised and bequeathed to Miss Carson? and upon the event of her death under age and unmarried, the real estate was devised to.the defendant, William Carson; and the personal estate to be divided jn<;o three equal parts; one third to William Carson, one third to Mrs. Carson, to which Dr. Stuart is entitled, and the remaining third to Mr. William Ladson and Mr. Thomas Ladson. With respect to the third of the personal estate bequeathed to Mrs. Carson, in the event of the death of the testator’s daughter, that ought not to be made to contribute to the payment of the debts; because all that was given to her by the will directly, or by way of i’emainder, was in bar of dower, and as a substitute for her claims on her brother’s estate, she having survived her husband. That the debts therefore ought to be paid out of the real and personal estate devised and bequeathed to Mr. William Carson, and to the two Ladsons, who were volunteers, unless the court should be of opinion that the testator meant that the land devised to William Carson should bear the whole debts, as he expressly directs the residue of his debts should be paid out of the estate not specifically devised. That these words, estate and devise, are technical words which apply to land. And that at all events the land so devised was bound to bear its proportion of the debts, together with W. Carson’s third of the personal estate, and the third bequeathed to the Ladsons; for that seems to have been the intention of the testator, whose bequests in favor of some of the legatees might and would probably be defeated, unless the land was made to bear its proportion of the debts. And that the court would have less difficulty in giving this construction, since the act abolishing the rights of primogeniture had placed lands on the same footing with personal estate. That the old doctrine in favor of heirs could not now be supported: and if it could Mr. William Carson was a mere devisee, and could claim only in that character; for lie was only half brother of Dr. William Carson, and could not be his heir at law. The cases cited for the complainant were from 2 Eq. Cas. abr. 370, 555, (in a note) 556. 1 Atk. 416. 2 Fonbl. 374. 1 Eq. Cas. abr. 298. 2 Yern. 688. 1 P. Wins. 127. 2 Yesey 415, 420. Ambler, 244. 2 Comyns, 208. 1 Eq. Cas. abr. 197. 3 Atk. 525. 2 Atk. 624. 1 P. Wins. 403. 2 P. Wins. 336. 2 Yern. 718. Ambler, 581. Talbot’s cases, 202, and Loo-cock’s case decided in this court.
    Mr. Lee and Mr. Pringle contended for the complainant,
    Hartley, that the defendant, William Carson being only half brother of Dr. James Carson, was not the hseres natus; nor was he luercs factus under the will; for the devise is not of a particular tract of land hut of his lands generally. The act of George II. passed in 1732 made lands liable for payment of debts in this country. And the statute of Win. III. against fraudulent devises made lands liable to specialty debts, the heir being thereby expressly hound. The testator manifestly intended to benefit bis wife and the other legatees under the contingent bequests, as well as his half brother. And where there appears an intention to exonerate the personal estate, or put it on an equal footing with the real, the land must be liable. The cases cited were from 2 Eq. Cas. abr. 497, 493. 2 P. Wins. 664, 233. 1 P. Wins. 730. 2 Atk. 624. 2 Yern. 477. Talbot, 53. 3 P. Wins. 326.
    Mr. Frederick Rutledge and Mr. E. Rutledge for the defendant,
    William Carson, contended that the personal estate was the proper fund for the payment of debts, unless the real estate is expressly charged therewith, or W'ords are used in the will strongly implying such intent. And the statute of George II. makes lands liable only on the failure of personal estate. And that Miss Carson wras entitled to have her maintenance out of that part of the estate given to her mother, one half of which came to her on the death of her mother. The cases cited were 2 P. Wins. 366. IP. Wins. 264. 2 Yesey, 313. 1 Wilson, 82. 1 Brown’s Par. Cases, 132. 1 Bro, O. C. f 54.
   Chancellor Mathews

delivered the decree of the court?

These cases having been heard together must be decreed accordingly.

There are three points for the consideration of the court.

1st. Whether the legacy to Dr. Stuart is liable for the-payment of any pai’t of the debts of the testator?

2d. Whether the legacy to- Mrs. Carson, the wife is-jn iike manner liable ?

3d. Whether the residuary estate, both real and personal, given in the first instance to Eliza G. Carson, ia equally liable for the payment of such debts as the fund; appointed for that purpose was incompetent to discharge? Or whether the personal estate alone is first liable ?

It having been conceded by the defendants counsel on his behalf, that the legacy to Dr. Stuart could not be charged, it is unnecessary for us to comment on the first point.

As to the second point, wé cannot hesitate a moment on the propriety of placing this part of the case on the same footing as that of Mrs. Loocock, in the case of Loocock and Clarkson. Indeed the case before us has a preferable claim to a similar decision; as this legacy is all that is given to the wife, out of a large estate; whereas in the case of Mrs. Loocock, there were several other parts of her husband’s estates given to her by his will> either absolutely or for life, independent of the annuity. And further, in the present case, the legacy to the wife is not only in lieu and satisfaction of dowei’, but of any <c claim by virtue of any deed, or by any other way or means whatever.” It is unnecessary for us to dilate on this point, as we gave our reasons so fully in the case of Loocock and Clarkson, and so recently as the last term. It is sufficient at present to say that the legacy to- Mrs, Carson being in the nature of a fair purchase, cannot be charged with the payment of any part of the debts of the testator. There are however two other questions which arise out of this point, viz. whether on the death of Mrs. Carson intestate, her legacy, never having been reduced into possession, did not then become liable for its propor-xlon of the debts: or, if not liable, whether the share of E. G. Carson, the daughter of the testator, being an un-incumbered part of the estate which came to her, ought not first to be applied towards her maintenance and education ? As to the legacy of Mrs. Carson never having been reduced into possession, we cannot admit this to ■have been the fact; because her being an executrix and residing on the plantation where the negroes were, and ■as the law authorises an executor to take his own legacy, without the formality of a delivery, as in the case of a legatee only, we must consider this as such an actual possession as would vest the legacy in her, and consequently would descend to her representatives, who were her two children, Dr. Stuart and E. G. Carson; and on the death •of the latter intestate, vested wholly in Dr. Stuart, her surviving brother of the half blood. And as to the share ■of E. G. Carson being applied towards her maintenance and education during her life, we can by no means think ■this either a legal or a reasonable demand; because such ■never could have been the intention of the testator, as he left her a very large portion of his estate, the income of which we might fairly presume was more than adequate to those purposes. As the testator then never contemplated this contingency as a possible fund, out óf which his daughter was to receive any part of her support, and as that part of her father’s estate, (except what is given to her uncle) will in consequence of her death go to strangers to her blood; we think it but reasonable that this inconsiderable part of the estate which she had the power of disposing of, ought to go to the person nearest in blood to her; and to whom in all probability she would have given it had she made a will; that is, to her brother, Dr. James Stuart. TVe think therefore it ought not to be charged with the incumbrances which have been contended for.

As to the third point, a doctrine altogether novel, has been attempted to be maintained at the bar. Having taken a view of the consequences which resulted from the feudal tenures in England, the counsel have analogically reasoned, that the abolition of the rights of primogeniture in this country ought to induce this court to direct its da cisions on the same principies which governed the courts in their decisions in that country under similar ciicnm-stances. We cannot think the comparison a well founded one> as there is not that striking analogy which can render it so. For although the courts in that country had in a great degree got rid of the feudal tenures, yet there still remained considerable harriers to protect real estate agajnst the claims of creditors; and it was only in cases where the occupant of the real estate had by deed expressly bound the heir, that the creditor could have any lien on the land; and not even then in many instances, as the personal estate was commonly made the fund for payment of debts, in exoneration of the real estate, although hound by the act of the occupant. Courts of equity first broke through this barrier for the relief of creditors by marshalling assets, thereby subjecting the real estate to the payment of simple contract debts, when the heir had the benefit of the personal estate for the payment of the bond debts. The English courts-have also since the above period examined with a strict eye the wills of persons; and in every case where they could lay hold of such words as could be construed into a strong presumption of the testator’s intention to charge his real estate with payment of debts or legacies, they have earned such intention into effect in all cases where creditors were concerned, who are always favored by a court of equity. In cases where real estates have been expressly charged, they have been made to contribute as a matter of course. Thus it appears to have been a struggle between the courts and the heir at law in that country; the one to bring the real estate within the reach of creditors, and the other to cover it against their claims. The rule there respecting the marshalling of assets has also been made the practice in this country; but with regard to every other matter in the payment of debts, the laws of this state have so expressly charged the real estate with the payment of every species of debt, that the courts of justice have never been driven to the necessity of exercising their ingenuity fo find out words in a will which they Slight construe into a charge on the real estate, for pay-meat of debts. As to the act of this state abolishing the rights of primogeniture, that merely relates to cases ©f intestacy; and consequently has left the laws for ilm administration of the assets of estates just whw e they were. It would therefore be too bold an undertaking for this court to level the laws and practice, of this country, that have heretofore obtained in the mode of payment of debts, to what might be conceived to be tine principle of that law; namely, to place real and personal estates precisely on the same level in all cases. We do not conceive this to have been the spirit of that law. To be sure in cases where the law is silent, or doubtful, we must be governed by principle; but we are not reduced to this dilemma in the case before us; because although the law on which we are now commenting Is silent as to this matter, yet there were and still are existing laws to direct us in our decisions. From the view we have thus taken of the circumstances which have followed from the riddance in a great measure of feudal tenures in England which hound their real estates, and of the laws and practice of this country, we think there is very little if any analogy between them. We shall now return to the will by which our decisions must be governed. The clause directing the payment of the debts of the testator is in these words: I direct my executrix and executors to sell my tract of land on Lady’s Island, containing 1500 acres, known by the name of St. Quintins, for the payment of my just debts and funeral expenses; hut should the said tract of land prove insufficient for the purpose of paying them, the remainder of my debts to be paid out of the rest of my estate not specially devised hereafter.” It has been contended by the counsel on the part of the defendant, that this is such a charge on the testator’s whole estate, real as well as personal, as ought to make them equally liable for payment of such debts, as the fund appropriated for that purpose was inadequate to satisfy. There are many instances in vihich persons in making their wills, do not come up fully to the objects they have in view, which renders the interference of this court necessary to supply those defects. This appears to us to be one of those cases; for by charging his estate generally with payment of his debts, the testator has cai,sed such a clashing in the interests of the legatees of his will, as has rendered it necessary for them to call or this court to say out of what part of his estate his debts are to be paid. This we think will be made sufficiently clear by comparing the last mentioned clause of the will with the clauses which dispose of his estate, real and personal, in the event of the death of his daughter before her arrival at either of the periods limited for her taking the estate intended for her. The material words in the first clause are, the remainder of my debts to be paid out of my estate not specifically devised hereafter.” The words of the clause which are afterwards made use of in the disposition of the real estate are I give, devise and bequeath all my real estate not before specifically devised, to my brother, William Carson, his heirs and assigns for ever.” It appears then to have been the testator’s intention to charge that part of his estate with payment of his debts, which was not afterwards specifically devised; the after devise of all his real estate to his brother, William Carson, is such a specific devise as must exempt it from such a charge; consequently the residue of testator’s debts, must be paid out of such part of his estate, as is not specifically devised. But as the whole of his real estate is specifically devised, the debts must he paid out of such of the personal estate as remains, after assignment of the legacies to Dr. Stuart in his own right and in right of Ms mother and sister; but if such remainder should prove insufficient for the purpose, then the balance must be paid out of the specific devise of the real estate to Williara Carson.

It is therefore decreed that the legacy to Dr. Stuart be forthwith delivered to him. That commissioners he appointed to divide the negroes of the testator’s estate into three equal parts; and that one of those shares he assigned to Dr. Stuart, in right of his mother, and another in right of his sister. That he be allowed at the rate of 10Í. per annum for every working hand which he became entitled to in right of his mother, and the like sum for those he inherited in right of his sister, unto the time of their delivery to him. That he be allowed the amount of the one half of the sales of the plate and the furniture, and the full amount of the sales of the carriages and horses, with interest from the time of the sale until paid. As to the residue of the personal estate which the several claimants might be entitled to after payment of the debts, we will reserve our opinion, until the debts are satisfied, as it has been represented that the whole of this part of the personal estate will be inadequate to that purpose. And as all the parties are actors in these suits, that each do pay his own costs. 
      
       injunction was accordingly granted.
     