
    GOUDY v. GOUDY AND OTHERS.
    Conveyance by parents for their support — lien on the land — the heir takes it so encumbered5.
    Where a son takes a conveyance of his father’s land under an agreement to support his father and mother, the advances for support are the purchase of the land.
    And if the son die leaving a child and widow, and the widow continue the advances for the support to save her dower and the child’s interest, and the child dies and the property goes to his uncles, they take it subject to such advances and the future support of the parents.
    If there be a case in proof for relief, but the proper case is not made in the bill, the court will allow an amendment even after hearing.
    Chancery. In May, 1808, R. Goudy deeded sixty-nine acres of land to his son Joseph, in consideration of certain covenants by the son, to provide for the wants of his father and mother for a stipulated time. These covenants were complied with until 1816, when Joseph died, leaving the complainant his widow, and an infant son his only child. The effects of the deceased came to the hands of the complainant, who in order to secure the property for her son, and her own dower in it, continued for five years longer to comply with the covenants of her husband, and to support the father and mother. The father then died, and the complainant complied with the covenants as to the mother, for five years longer, and advanced during that time $>216 70, under the contract. The son of Joseph died without issue, and the land descended to the defendants, his uncles, who claim to hold it discharged of these payments. The complainant claims to assert her advances as a lien upon the land.
    
      C. Pease, for the complainant.
    
      R. Stone, contra.
   Lane, J.

The covenants to support the grantor and his wife, were the consideration agreed to be paid by Joseph for the land, and as between the parties could be enforced as a lien upon the land. The covenants however, were to be performed by the payment of money, or provision. What was due at the death of Joseph were chargeable upon the assets to be administered. The land descended to the child charged with the payment by him of the sums to become due. At his death, it descended to the defendants, subject to the charge for arrears either upon the child’s other effects or upon the land. If thei'efore, the complainant paid money,, of the effects of the child or his father Joseph, for arrears, it was so far equitable and right; but if she paid out of her own funds, it seems to us she should be permitted to charge it on the land. The personal assets of an intestate do not pass by descent to heirs — they pass to the representatives of the personalty, and the heirs take from them, as distributees. The case made does not disclose the facts essential to a decree. Nor could we, without the pleadings are amended, settle the whole matter between the parties. The cause, howevei, may go to a master, to state an account of the personal effects of Joseph and the son — the payments under the covenants— the amount of the dower interest, and of the rents received.  