
    Mary Jackson against Samuel Robinson surviving ex’r. of Elizabeth Vanderspiegel.
    S. C. 2 Dall. 142.
    The words “goods or moveables” in a will, may include bonds, unless there is something in the context of the whole will to restrain the construction.
    HlflT for a legacy. Defendant pleaded non asstmipsit and non solvit and issue. The plaintiff rested bis claim on the following words in the will: “I “give and bequeath to Mary Jackson, the wife of William “Jackson, all my wearing apparel, household and kitchen ‘ ‘ furniture, plate, linen, books, and every kind of moveables 1 ‘ whatsoever. ’ ’
    The testatrix had also devised 50/. to the Wicacoe Lutheran Church, 150I. to the Lutheran Church near Philadelphia, iool. to Robert Hopkins, and 50I. to each of his children. Then followed the legacy to the plaintiff. She then directed 200k to be put out at interest for the benefit of a black girl who was born in the family, and who was to be taught to read, &c. She likewise bequeathed several other pecuniary legacies, and devised the rest and residue of her estate to William Jackson (husband of the plaintiff,) Andrew Jackson (their son,) and Samuel Robinson, and appointed the said William Jackson and Samuel Robinson her executors. She died possessed of personal property consisting chiefly of bonds, amounting to 2000I. and upwards, leaving no real estate.
    In the will as originally drawn, the wearing apparel only was devised to the plaintiff, but the other words, “household ‘ ‘ and kitchen furniture, plate, linen, books, and every kind “of moveables whatsoever,” were afterwards added by the scriviner, at the desire of the testatrix, and a memorandum made of this addition by the witnesses before subscription.
    The plaintiff had received from the executor the wearing apparel, furniture, &c. and the sole question was, whether under the general devise of ‘ ‘ every kind of moveables whatsoever,” the plaintiff was entitled to the obligations of which the testatrix died possessed.
    Mr. Rawle for the plaintiff contended,
    that a specific legacy will obtain against a pecuniary one; and to shew that under the words “goods or moveables,” dioses in action are included, *and will therefore pass by will, cited 12 Co. r*-iAo 1 b. 1 Atky. 171, 172, 177, 180. 4 Mod. 156. 1 Vez. A 369. 8 Co. 33 b. 1 Wms. 267. In some instances the locality of the moveables is considered as in 1 Vez.- 273. Brown’s Cha. Rep. 127.
    Messrs. Sergeant and Tilghmau for the defendant
    did not deny, that a specific legatee would take place of a pecuniary one, but insisted, that by the words of the bequest to the plaintiff, the obligations could not pass; for under such construction, all the other legacies in the will would be destroyed, and the testatrix’s intentions be effectually frustrated. Besides, she appoints the husband and son of the plaintiff as two of her residuary legatees. How can this bequest take effect, or the black girl be taught to read and write out of the fund intended for her benefit, if the plaintiff can sustain her claim to the outstanding bonds? It must be obvious, that the term “moveables” must be confined to things of the same nature as those before described.
   Per Cur.

This appears to us a very plain case. The words “goods or moveables” may include bonds, unless there is something in the context of the whole will to restrain or qualify the construction. But in the present case, the affixing of such a sense to the words, would evidently defeat the whole intention of the testatrix. It would be taking away all from the other legatees and give it to one only; it would prevent any residuum which the testatrix had in contemplation; besides, from the face of the will, it appears that she originally designed to the plaintiff her wearing apparel only. She afterwards added the other words, which, if the whole will is to be taken together, and every clause thereof is to take effect, must necessarily be supposed to extend to moveables only, in the common and usual acceptation of the term. Eet there be a verdict for the defendant, but if the plaintiff’s counsel are dissatisfied they may move for a new trial.

Verdict pro def.

(Vid. Will. Jones 225. Barnard. Cha. Rep. 259, that under a devise of “goods,” bonds or money will not pass.)  