Leggett, 2 Sim., 479. YalBurchett v. Woodward, Tur Sinkler, 2 Desseau. S. G. Cabeen v. Gordon, 1 Hill's

Worthington v. Evans, 1 Sim. & Stu., 165. Webb v. Weller, Ibid., 311. Clifford v. Beaumont, 4 Russ., 325. Lear v. mond v. Morehouse, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 464. & Russ., 442. Ext's. Sinkler v. Legatees of Rep., 127. Morris v. Kent, 2 Edw. Rep., 175. Rep., 55. Poor v. Mial, 6 Mad. Rep., 32.

7. What is the general rule as to all kinds of conditions?

That they are all liable to be avoided or controlled, if they be absurd, or impossible, or contrary to the precepts of religion, or positive law, or public safety, or public decorum, or grossly unjust.-Hujusmodi enim testamentorum dispositiones valere secta meorum temporum non patitur.-Inst. Jus., lib. 2, tit. 20. Attorney General v. Green, 2 Vern., 666. Attorney General v. Green, 2 Bro. Ch. Ca., 492. Freke v. Lord Barrington, 3 Bro. C. Ca., 281. Routlege v. Dorrell, 2 Ves. Jun., 357. Attorney General v. Boultbee, Ibid., 380. Bristow v. Ward, Ibid, 336. Attorney General v. Boultbee, 3 Ves., 220. Attorney General v. Andrew, Ibid, 633. Attorney General v. Boyer, Ibid, 714. Attorney General v. Minchull, 4 Ves., 14. Corbyn v. French, Ibid, 418. Brown v. Higgs, Ibid, 713. Bishop of Hereford v. Adams. Lady Twisden v. Adams, 7 Ves., 324. Andrew v. Trinity, Hale's Cam., 9 Ves, 525. Attorney General v. Whiteley, 11 Ves., 251. The Holland Land Co. v. Intruders, 4 Dall., 170. Inglis v. Trus tees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Peters' S. G. Rep., 110. King v. Mitchell et al., 8 Peters' S. G. Rep., 326. 3 Ibid, 377.

If a testator's widow, who was one of the executors, devises her estate to her daughter, on condition that she abide by such settlement of her husband's estate as the surviving executors shall make; and the surviving executors make a settlement, the daughter will be bound by it -Ambler v. Macan, 4 Call. Rep. 606.

A testator devised stock in trust for A. for life, and after his decease, for his children, and declared that the provision he had made for A. should not be subject to any alienation or disposal by him, but if he should alienate, or attempt to alienate, it should operate as a forfeiture of the provision, and the same should devolve on the person next entitled. A., who had several children, became bankrupt: Held, that his assignees were entitled to his life estate. Lear v. Leggett, 2 Sim., 479. Yarmond v. Morehouse, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 364.

A testator directs his executors to pay A. B. a yearly sum, as wages, so long as she should continue in his wife's service; and that the payments should be made quarterly, to cease in case she left the service of his wife, until his wife's decease. The wife died in the testator's lifetime. To what was A. B. entitled?

She was entitled to the annuity during her life.—Burchett v. Woodward, Turn. & Russ., 442.

The testator by his will bequeathed certain negroes to his helpless daughter B., and then declares: "I allow my daughter M. to take care of my daughter B., and at her decease, I allow my said daughter M. to have the said negroes to her and her heirs and assigns for ever:" Held that this

was a bequest upon condition that the direction be complied with, and if M. should not "take care of B.," the remainder would not vest.-Cabeen v. Gordon, 1 Hill's Rep., 55.

8. What is the rule as to interest upon a legacy to A. as soon as she attains twenty-one, with interest?

The legacy is contingent, and no interest is payable until the legatee attains the age of twenty-one, and then it is to be computed from the end of a year after the testator's death.-Knight v. Knight, 2 Sim. & Stu., 490.

Bequest to M. on the day of her marriage with any other person than T., and if she married T., then over. M. married T. in the lifetime, and with the consent of the testator: Held that she was entitled to her legacy. -Smith v. Cowdry, 2 Sim. & Stu., 358. Bartleman v. Murchison, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 136. 1

9. How is it determined whether a condition in a devise is present or subsequent ?

It is well settled that there are no technical appropriate words which always determine whether a devise be on a condition precedent or subsequent.

The same words have been determined differently, and the question is always one of intention. If the language of the particular clause, or of the whole will, shows that the act upon which the estate depends must be performed before the estate can vest, the condition is precedent; and unless it is performed the devisee can take nothing.

If, on the contrary, the act does not necessarily precede the vesting of the estate, but may accompany, or follow it, if this is to be collected from the will, the condition is subsequent.-Finlay v. King's Lessee, 3 Peters' S. C. Rep., 377.

SPECIFIC AND PECUNIARY LEGACIES.

1. What is a specific legacy?

A bequest of particular things distinguished from all others of the same kind, as money in a bag, a piece of plate, a term of years, &c.—1 Roper on Legacies, 25.

A general legacy is a testamentary gift of personal estate generally, as of goods and chattels, or money.

A universal legacy is a testamentary disposition, by which the testator gives to one or several persons the whole of the property which he leaves at his decease.-Lou. Code Civil, art. 1599. Poth. Donat. test. ch. 2. sec. 1. On comprenait autrefois, sous le titre de legs universel, les legs d'une universalité comme ceux d'une quotité où d'une certaine espèce de biens, soit pour totalité soit pour partie. 5 Toul., 117, 482.

The legacy under a universal title, is that by which a testator bequeathes a certain proportion of the effects of which the law permits him to dispose, as a half, a third, or all his moveables or immoveables, or a

fixed portion of all his immoveables or moveables.--Lou. Code Civil, tit. Leg. by a universal title. Pothier, Donat. test. 2, sec. 1. 5 Toul., 485.

Every legacy not included in the definition before given of universal legacies, and legacies under a universal title, is a legacy under a particular title. Lou. Code Civil, art. 1618. Poth. Donat. est. ch. 5, sec. 2. Ib., Droit de Propriété, No. 250. 3 Toul., 281. 5 Ibrd, 115, 512, 530.

A bequest of all the testator's right, interest and property in thirty shares of the Bank of the United States, is a specific legacy.-Walton v. Walton, 7 Johns. Rep., 262.

A legacy to the testator's wife of "all the property she brought me," is specific; and not bound to contribute to other legacies, or to the payment of debts, till the rest of the property is exhausted.-Warren v. Wigfall, 3 Desseau., 47.

2. What is the general rule as to pecuniary legacies?

Pecuniary legacies, having reference to a particular fund for payment in the first instance are so far deemed like specific legacies, that in a case of deficiency of assets, such legacies shall not be bound to contribute out of the particular fund, which is their peculium; and have the advantage of specific legacies, in that if the particular fund fails, they may come on the general assets for payment.-Cogdall's Ex. v. his Widow, 3 Desseau., 373.

A bequest to J. S. of twenty negroes is a specific legacy of the second class, and liable to abate with pecuniary legacies, on a deficiency of assets.Warren v. Wigfall, 3 Desseau., 47.

A fi. fa. against the estate of the testator cannot be levied on slaves specifically bequeathed, in the possession of the legatee.-Sampson v. Boyce, 5 Munf, 175. Scott v. Holiday, Ibid, 103. Randolph v Randolph, Ibid, 78. Wilson v. Butler, Ibid, 559.

A bequest of a negro of a particular description, with a direction to the executor to purchase one rather than divide families, is a pecuniary legacy.-White v. Batie, Dev. Eq. Rep., 87. Bladley v. Newby, 6 Munf. Rep., 64.

A legacy of £1000, "being part of the monies received by J. from my debtor A. G., but not remitted to me," is specific.-Nelson v. Carter, 5 Sim., 530.

When a slave is specifically devised and the executors assent to the bequest, such slave cannot be sold to satisfy a judgment recovered against he executors for a debt due by the estate.-Lyon v. Vic, 6 Yer., 42. Trumbo v. Sorency, 3 Monro., 285.

A testator gives to three different persons three leasehold estates, one of which was mortgaged, and directs that the mortgagee shall be paid out of his residuary personal estate, which proves insufficient for that purposé; the legatee of the mortgaged leasehold takes it cum onere, and the legatees of the other two leaseholds shall not contribute towards the payment of the mortgage debt.-Hallirwell v. Tanner, 1 Russ. & Mylne, 633. Wilcox v. Rhoades, 2 Russ. Rep., 452.

3. May lands specifically devised be sold for the purpose of paying specific legacies?

There seems to be no authority nor reason for holding that lands specifically devised, are liable to be sold to pay specific legacies. The most that the legatees can claim is, that they should be put on an equal footing with the devisees.-Hubbel v. Hubbel, 9 Pick. Rep., 561.

There is no rule better established than that pecuniary legacies are never to be charged on real estate unless such an intention be clearly expressed by the testator.-Gridley v. Andrews, 8 Conn. Rep., 5. Wright v. Den, 10 Wheaton, 229. Swift v. Edson, 4 Conn. Rep., 536.

But where there are expressions in the will to show that the testator had the land in his mind, the court will turn them upon the land rather than that they should go unpaid.-Downman v. Rust et al., 6 Rand. Rep., 587.

If A. by will devises to his wife all his personal estate at a place called W., and devises to B. a legacy of £500, and several other legacies, and the assets prove deficient to pay the £500, and the other legacies; yet the wife's legacy, being specific, shall take place.-Sayer v. Sayer, 2 Verm., 688.

That a specific legacy shall not abate in proportion with a pecuniary one. -2 Vern. 111. Nels. Chan. Rep., 303. 2 Chan. Ca. 25. Lord Castleton v. Lord Fanshaw, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. Brown v. Aylen, 1 Vern., 31. 2 Chan. Rep., 138.

Specific legacies were left to A. to be paid him after the death of B. he executrix: Decreed, that B. should give security that the specific legacies should be paid after her death.-Burdet v. Young, 9 Mad. Rep., 93.

VESTED LEGACIES.

1. What is a vested legacy?

Where a legacy is to one, payable at a time which must some time or other come, there the legacy is immediately a vested legacy; but if devised upon an uncertain event, which may or may not happen, and the party dies before the time comes, the legacy is lapsed.-3 Eq. Ca. Abr., 339. 2 Freem. Rep., 24. 1 P. Will. Rep., 84. Gilb. Rep. in Eq., 11. Prec. in Chan., 267. Carter v. Bletsoe, 3 Eq. Ca. Abr., 540. 1 Leon., 177. Godbo. 183. Perkins v. Michlethwaite, 1 Wills. Rep., 274. Glosberry's Case, 2 Vent. Scott v. Byrgeman, 2 P. Wills. Rep., 69. Lyman v. Vanderspiegel, 1 Aiken's Rep., 280.

Where the time of payment of the legacy is postponed for the benefit of the estate, and not with reference to any particular circumstances of the legatee, the legacy becomes vested at the death of the testator, and is transmissible to the personal representatives of the legatee although he dies before the time of payment arrives.—Birdsall v. Hewlett, 1 Paige Rep., 32. Lyman v. Vanderspiegel, 1 Aiken's Rep. 275.

When a testator directs his real estate to be sold, and the money

arising therefrom to be paid to particular persons, the interest of the legatees is a vested one, although the will may give a discretion to the executor, as to the time of selling the estate. The principle will be the same, whether the estate devised to be sold, be an estate in possession or remainder.-Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand., 313. Bass v. Russell, Tam., 18. Scott v. Bargeman, 2 Will. Rep., 69. Smith v. Vaughan, 8 Viner's Abr., 381. Wilson v. Spencer, 3 Wills. Rep., 172. Swinburne on Wills, 463.

A. devised to B. £20 to put him out apprentice when he should come to the age of seventeen years, and he died before that age: resolved that his administrator should have it.-2 Freem. Rep., 89. Glosberry v. Lampen, 3 Eq. Ca. Abr., 540.

2. What would be the rule upon a devise to a mother for the maintenance of her child, and the child die?

The mother shall have the legacy.-Bushnell v. Parsons, Prec. in Chan., 219. Hickman v. Stroud, 3 Eq. Ca. Abr., 541. Scott v. Bargeman, 2 P. Will. Rep., 69. Cruse v. Burly & Benson, 3 Wills. Rep., 20. Dobbins v. Bland, 2 Kely, 1. Duke of Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. Will. Rep., 610. Cowper v Scott et al., 3 Will., 119. Bass v. Russell, Tam., 18.

A testator devised real estate to A. for life, remainder to B. in fee. And he gave a legacy to C. to be paid her by B. after the death of A.; and. he charged his estate with the legacy, and appointed A. his executrix; C. died in A's lifetime: Held, that the legacy did not lapse.-Poole v. Terry, Sim. 294. Balfield v. Record, 2 Sim., 354.

A testator bequeathed a legacy of £400 to his executors in trust, to pay to his son, in such smaller or larger proportions, at such time or times, and in such way or manner as they should in their judgment and discretion, think best. Held that the discretion of the executors was determined by the insolvency of the legatee, and that the legacy vested in the assignee of the insolvent.-Piercy v. Roberts, 1 Mylne & Keen, 4

3. What is the rule for the vesting of legacies payable on real estate?

It is this, that where the gift is immediate but the payment postponed, it is contingent, and will fail if the legatee dies before the day arrives; but where the postponement is in regard to the convenience of the persons and the circumstances of the estate charged with the legacy, and not on account of the age, condition or circumstances of the legatee, it will be vested and must be paid, although the legatee should die before the time of payment.-Marsh v. Wheeler, 2 Edw. Rep., 156. Perry v. Rhodes, 2 Murp., 140. Dunlap v. Dunlap, 4 Desseau. Rep., 314. 4 Bac. Abr., 384. 2 Fonb. Eq., 468. Toller's Law of Extrs., 304. Lyman v. Vanderspiegel, 1 Aiken's Rep., 380.

If no time be fixed for a legacy to vest, marriage will vest.-Frazier v. Frazier, 2 Leigh's Rep., 642. Postell et al. v. The Ex. of Shriving, 1 Desseau., 158.

4. What is the general rule as to the vesting of legacies charged upon personalities?