
    Taveau and Wife v. The Executors of John Ball.
    The testator, apaHS cuiar fund to of his'chiidren their6 mother to whom he sion6 house6"" during her widowhood, and as the children ormarried the principaiofthe to them. The andivasdeprí-ved of the ’court refus-6 ed to allow her an adai-tionai summer annum for the board of the two children, although some of the witnesses thought it but reasonable, the children having a large estate, and the wife then having house rent to pay.
    This case came before the Court on a petition of Mr Mrs Taveau, setting forth substantially, that John Ball, Sen. departed this life on the 29th day of October, Anno Domini 1817, leaving his widow, at present Mrs Taveau, and eight children, having previously made and executed his last will and testament, dated 22d May 1816, wherein he nominated and appointed his sons John Ball, Jun. and Isaac Ball, and his nephew John Bryan, , , , , ~ l executors, the two former ot whom had alone qualified an<^ assumed upon themselves the execution of his said will. That in and by the said will, the testator, John Ball, Sen. made a liberal provision for his widow, to be enj°ye(l by her during widowhood, and that in conse-quence of the intermarriage of the petitioners, she has been deprived of a very considerable part of the provi-s¡on an(j especially of the mansion house. That the tes-r . tator also made, in and by the said will, large and liberal devises and bequests to his children respectively; and moreover provided a common fund for the maintenance of his said children by the following clause, viz. “ It is my will that the dividends on my Bank stock and the quarterly payments of my Six per cent, stock, which I at present hold, shall be applied in payment for the board of my children by my present wife whilst they remain with their mother; the principal of which shall be kept together for that express purpose, whilst they are all minors and unmarried; and' as they severally arrive at age, or are married, their shares of the principal to be allotted, assigned and transferred to them respectively.” That the amount of each child’s proportion of the dividend and interest aforesaid was, on an average of years, about $250 per annum; and that in consequence of the death of one of the children and the marriage of another, and the absence of the remaining sons of the testator, who had been sent to the north by the executors for their education, only three of the children were now residing with the petitioners. That in consequence of these circumstances, the petitioners had been deprived of the shares of the allowance of the said children so dead, absent and married as aforesaid, which in the aggregate was, formerly, sufficient for their common boarding and lodging ; and that they found it now more difficult to support the children remaining with them, out of their shares, than it was to support them all out of the aggregate sum of their allowances. And they therefore prayed that the same ma^be referred to the Commissioner, to report what additional allowance should be made by the executors for the maintenance of he said children.
    1825.
    
      Charleston.
    
    Whereupon the petition was referred to the Commissioner to report thereon under an order of Court, and upon the reference before him it appeared, by the testimony of Mrs Stafford and Mr E. S. Courtney, that $250 per annum was sufficient; as they themselves had famished children of the same age with board at that priC(3) an(] that the rate of board had diminished. Major Laval and Mr James Mathews, who, from having families, were regarded as competent to estimate domestic expenses, stated as their opinion, that $400 for each would be reasonable and not extravagant. It also appeared by the statement of the executor, that the proportion of the estate of the testator to which Mrs Taveau was entitled, excluding what she had lost by her marriage, amounted to about ‡30,000, and that the annual income of each child’s share of said estate was $2,500. It also appeared that the board of the children had been abundant, comfortable and elegant. The Commissioner (Elliot) upon the foregoing testimony reported, that, “ However much disposed to increase the appropriation, from the liberal manner in which Mrs Taveau has fulfilled her part, yet the solemn testament of Mr Ball must be complied with, unless opposed by urgent circumstances. That strong case of necessity which would induce the Court to alter and amend a will does not appear to have been established. I therefore cannot recommend that the prayer of the applicants be granted.” To this report the following exceptions were filed.
    1st. That the Commissioner had erred in his construction of the will, which clearly intended Mrs Taveau to have the income from the stock to provide, only for the board of the children, and that upon the loss of the large provision made her in the will, and especially of the mansion house, she was entitled to an additional allowance, on account of her being obliged to pay house rent.
    2dly. That according to the testimony, the allowance per annum that ought to be allowed, to cover board and lodging, should be at least $400, the average upon the testimony of all the witnesses being $325.
    9 Nov. 1S24.
    James, Chancellor.
    The will in this case directs that the principal of the Bank and Six per cent, stock shall be kept, together for the express purpose of paying the board of the children of the testator’s last wife. By this clause it appears, that this was the only fund intended by the testator for that purpose. Good judges of the price of boarding think it enough, and I am not inclined to extend the allowance further than the will permits me to go. Therefore the report is confirmed. Each party to pay their own costs.
    29 March 1825,
    29 March 1825‘
    From this decree there was an appeal, on the grounds taken in the exceptions.
    Grimke, for the complainants.
    The will only provides for boarding the children. The widow had a house during widowhood, and upon losing thát an allowance must be made for lodging the children or, in other words, for house rent. The, will only provides for board, not for lodging.
    
      J. E. Holmes, for the executors.
    The .will was explicit and must control the question. Board and lodging are the same thing.
   Cuma, per

Nott, J.

The Court concur in opinion with the Chancellor in this case, and his decree is therefore affirmed.

.Decree affirmed.  