#### *John C. Ellerbe*vs. *The Heirs and Legatees of William Ellerbe.*

I! Testator provided in his will, that his estate, both real and personal, should be kept together until his just debts were paid, and until the decease of his wife ; and further, that his wife, together with his daughter and grandson, should have “a reasonable and competent support,” out of the proceeds of his estate, until his just debts were paid, and during the natural life of his wife.

2. The reasonable and competent support provided for, held not to mean merely the food and clothing necessary to sustain life, nor any other fixed quantity or allowance, but must depend on circumstances and exigencies.

3. Where a provision of this kind is made for different persons, the inquiry would be, what is reasonable and competent in the situation of each.

4. There seems to be no other practicable method of construing a bequest for support or maintenance than to mean, that support shall not be wanting. If the legatee’s private means are unable to supply it, the deficiency shall be made up out of the testator’s bounty.

5. A different intention, gathered from the terms of a particular will, might lead to a different construction.

6. The daughter having a sufficient property for the support of hersell and child, the bequest could not take effect.

7. The argument that the grand-son had no property of his own, and, therefore, came within the scope of testator’s bounty, not sustained.

8. There seems to be no instance of a mother of ability to maintain her children, though having no property themselves, who has been reimbursed for doing so.

*Before*Johnson, Ch., *at Cheraio.*

*Bill for account, partition and relief.*

The bill in this case was filed by the executor of Wm. Ellerbe, for account, partition and relief, and sets forth, that William Ellerbe departed this life, having first duly made and executed his last will and testament. So much of which as is material to the understanding of the question made in this case, will be found in the circuit decree of the Chancellor.

That he left a widow, Elizabeth Ellerbe, and the following named children, to wit: Thomas C. Ellerbe, Mary Ellerbe, wife of Samuel Spencer, Harriet Ellerbe, the wife *329of William Cole, Obedience Ellerbe, wife of Zachariah Ellerbe, Michael C. Ellerbe, William C. Ellerbe, Elizabeth E. Ellerbe, and John C. Ellerbe. That William C. El-lerbe administered upon the estate of the testator, *cum tes-tamento annexo.*That upon the death of William C. El-lerbe, John C. Ellerbe, the executor named in the will, was duly qualified as executor, and entered upon and continued in the trust to the time of the filing of this bill. That William C. Ellerbe left a widow, and Allen Ellerbe, Win. Ellerbe, Robert Ellerbe and Napoleon Ellerbe, his heirs at law. That Elizabeth Ellerbe, the widow of William El-lerbe, complainant’s testator, departed this life, having first duly made and executed her last will and testament. That William Ellerbe, the testator, in his life-time sold a tract of land to William Gullege and Obadiah Gullege, but did not execute titles for the same. That John C. Ellerbe, the executor, managed the estate to the best oí his ability, keeping the same together until the death of Elizabeth El-lerbe. That, authorized and empowered by the will aforesaid, the complainant sold the entire estate, real and personal, upon the terms directed by the will.

The bill prays that complainant may settle his accounts In this court, and that partition may be made, and so forth.

To this bill, the defendant, Elizabeth E, Ellerbe, one of the children of William Ellerbe, the testator, filed her answer, (E. B. C. Cash, the grand-child, being a minor, answered by guardian, *ad*litem, submitting his rights,) not objecting to the material facts and allegations in complainant’s bill, and consents that partition be made, as sought by the bill, of the estate of William Ellerbe, after the payment of her claim under the third clause in the last will and testament of her father, William Ellerbe. Avers, in her answer, that she has received but a very inconsiderable part of said claim, and now claims such amount as she may be entitled to receive under the clause aforesaid, in the will aforesaid,, in addition to her equal and distributive portion of said estate.

Upon a reference before E. A Law, Commissioner, on the question raised by the answer of Elizabeth E. Ellerbe, the following testimony was offered.

*330
      *Gol. D.*(S'. *Harllee,*sworn, says he was present when the estate of Capt. William Ellerbe was sold. Witness was asked what would be a reasonable and competent support for Elizabeth E. Cash and E. B. C. Cash, out of the estate of testator, having reference to the value of the estate ? The question was objected to. Objection overruled. Witness thinks that one thousand dollars would be requisite to support them in Cheraw; that is, to furnish every thing, including house rent, negro .hire, and feed of servants and horses, and clothing.

The old lady died in 1841. The estate owned upwards of fifty negroes, a river plantation, and grist and saw mills. Witness thinks income of the plantation ought to have been 100 bags of cotton, at an average value of $3,000.

Board at taverns in Cheraw, averages $15 per month, washing not included.

Witness think thats $15 per month, would be sufficient to furnish the raw material of provisions for two persons, that is what they would eat. For the whole time from testator’s death, Mrs. Cash and her son’s clothing would be worth, on an average, if making is included, $175 per annum, Young Cash was eight or nine years old when his grand-father died. He is now nineteen or twenty years of age, If making of the clothing is not included, it would not exceed $150. There would be a gradual increase in the expense of clothing for the young man. During the latter part of the time witness' knows that the expense of clothing has exceeded what he has given as the average expense. Mrs. Cash lived eighteen months at her mother’s, who lived at the family residence, as she, Mrs, Cash, informed witness. She also said she never received any thing towards a support, but board for herself and son, and that only for eighteen months. She says she lived at Cheraw for some time after the old man’s death. She has not lived there since .December, 1831. She said she lived two years, or near two years, after she left her mother’s, at Buck Springs. She there became the wife of James Eller-. be, and removed to Ellerbe’s place, and has lived there ever since. While at Buck Springs, she lived on a plantation of her own, and also since her marriage she hag lived on- her own plantation.

*331If Mrs. Ellerbé and her son had lived in the country, witness thinks that if 25 pel’ cent was deducted from his estimate of what was necessary to support them in Che-raw, it would be a fair estimate of necessary expenses, excluding clothing expenses, Which would be less in the country. If every thing were to be bought in Cheraw and the country, they could be got as cheap in Cheraw as in the country.

Mrs. Cash’s means of living, independent of her interest in the estate, were limited, previous to her marriage with Ellerbe, compared with what they are now. Her marriage with James Ellerbe increased her means very much. She had, previous to her marriage, a small plantation, and ten or twelve negroes, as witness supposes. She was married, witness thinks, in the early part of the year 1835. While Mrs. Cash lived with her mother, they both dealt at witness’s store, and they had separate accounts. What Mrs. Cash bought she either paid for it, or it was charged to her separate account. Witness’s estimate of house rent in Cheraw, for Mrs. Cash, is $100. The hire of two servants, (the number in witnesses estimate,) feed and clothing, would be worth $250. The furnishing a horse and gig, $100. Physician’s bills, at Cheraw, $50. In the country it would be about the same. The old man died in May, 1830.

*C. D.*Wallace, sworn, says that he thinks there is very little difference in the expense of living in Cheraw and in the country. The following is witness’s estimate of necessary expenses of Mrs. Cash and her son, in Cheraw.

Two Horses, $ 200

Clothing, 175

Three servants, 150

House Rent, 150

Sugar, Coffee and Tea, ' 60

Bacon, 75

Butter, 15

Flour, 15

Meal, 30

Clothing Servants, 25

Pin Money, 50

$945

*332Witness thinks there would have been no difference in the expense, whether the articles necessary for Mrs. Cash’s support had been bought in Cheraw, or sent to her from the plantation of the estate. W Witness thinks his estimate of expenses is fair, even if the supplies were made on the plantation.

*William Gulledge,*sworn, says he wras well acquainted with testator in his life-time, and his manner of living. He was not extravagant in his living, but kept a good table. The board and expenses of living of Mrs. Cash and son. at the family residence, would not have been more than half as much as it wo aid at Cheraw. Witness overseed for Capt. Ellerbe when Mrs. Cash lived at Cheraw, before the old man’s death. The old man frequently sent meal. Sometimes the the boy came from towards the old man’s house, having meat, (he did not know where the meat came from,) and as he came to the mill for meal, he having charge of the mill, supplied the boy with meal, about 1 1-2 or 2 bushels a week. Generally the boy carried meat when he got meal. Mrs. Cash did not keep a horse in the old man’s life time; but Capt. Ellerbe sent her a horse whenever she wanted one, and sent her his carriage wdien she wanted it. She had possession of negroes which did not belong to the estate. House servants at her place in Cheraw. Mrs. Cash, in her father’s life time, was very economical in her clothing. Thinks $50 would have fully clothed her and her son. Witness did business for the family eleven years, managing the mill and plantation. He was general superintendant of the old man’s business. Witness thinks it would not take more than $100 to supply old Mrs. Ellerbe with board and clothing per annum. The same would have supported Mrs. Cash, and the same her son. The same carriage and horses were kept on the plantation after the old man’s death, that were there before, but does not know whether Mrs. Cash used them after the death of the old man. The old man had a plain stick bodied gig wdien witness left him. Witness left in January, and the old man died in May after. Mrs. Cash had a gig when her husband died. A very good gig. A first rate one. It had a top to it.

£*! Board in the country is worth about $8 per month. *333Witness says he did not say it was worth half as much to live in the country, as in Cheraw. Witness says that the old woman and Mrs. Cash dressed a good deal in homespun, when they lived on the plantation. The old man gave Mrs. Cash some negroes when she married Cash. They afterwards came back, and were always called Mrs. Cash’s negroes. It would have cost each of the family of Capt. Ellerbe, to live as they did $8 per month. As the family lived $100 would support each one, and furnish them with clothing per annum.

*Obediah Gulledge,*sworn : say she was acquainted pretty well with Capt. Ellerbe in his life. Often worked for him. Has heard the statement of William Gulledge, foregoing. Thinks his statement about the worth of board correct, that is, he thinks $8 per month is sufficient in the way they lived! He does not think $100 per annum enough for both board and clothing.

Capt. Ellerbe kept a good table, and a plenty of every thing. Often eat with him. Always saw a plenty, and of that which was good. The fare was plain and substantial and good, but nothing extravagant. Thinks it would take 15 or 20 or 25 dollars for the clothing of Mrs. Cash, per annum. For her son, at the time of the old man’s death, when he was small, it would not take so much, but as an average of the whole time, thinks that his board and clothing would be as much as his mother’s. Does not .think it would take more than $100 per annum to support the old lady (testator’s wife) in board and clothing in the way in which she lived. Thinks that Mrs. Cash would have taken more, *both in*board and clothing, than her mother. When she moved to her place at Buck Springs, she continued to live pretty much as she had lived whilst with her mother. Witness has been at her house while she lived at Buck Springs.

!*! Witness has never calculated what it cost to support his own family. His family are not always alike. They vary as to numbers. He can’t tell what it costs to support his family per head. He lives a great deal cheaper than Capt. El-lerbe did. Has had to provide as much as $100, to the head, in his family, but it was not all consumed by his family, but by visitors and friends. Witness entertained more *334company than Capt. Ellerbe. Witness thinks still that his estimate before given is correct. He, witness, would not incur more than half of that amount for his family, in the way he lived. Thinks that Mrs. Cash could have lived about as cheap away from her father’s as she did there. It would cost no more to provide for one than for five, if they were all of the same size and age.

When he says he entertained more company than Capt. Ellerbe, he refers to his keeping the jail of Chesterfield, where he entertained the prisoners committed to his charge. He ceased to be jailor last October. Was jailor two years, and at a former period three years.

*Mr.*Strother, sworn: says he knew Capt. Ellerbe and family. Would suppose the estimate of the expense of living of Mrs. Cash and her son, made by Mr. Gulledge first examined, was correct, speaking in reference to board. In the old man’s life-time, board and clothing for Mrs. Cash and her son, would not have been worth more than $100 per annum, as the old man’s family lived, and they lived plain but plentifully. Witness knows that Capt. Ellerbe had a gig, and frequently saw Mrs. Ellerbe riding in a gig while she lived at Cheraw, but does not know that it was the same gig. She might live in the country and board for $100 per annum. Says that the items of expenses mentioned by Messrs. Wallace and Harllee are reasonable for persons living in the style supposed by them. Mr. Gulledge’s estimate of the expense of living in the manner Capt. Ellerbe’s family lived, is fair for the first part of the time, but it must have been more the latter part of the time. Does not think it could have cost the old man more than $500 to support himself, his wife, Mrs. Cash and her son, per annum. Capt. Ellerbe was very economical, he lived plainly, but plentifully; lived very much within himself. He is pretty certain that the horse Mrs. Cash used while she lived at Cheraw and at Buck Springs, was one of Capt. Ellerbe’s carriage horses. That she drove the horse in a gig.

*Col.*Harllee, again called: says old Mrs. Ellerbe and Mrs. Cash dealt at his store a good deal. They generally got good clothing. He has seen Mrs. Cash dressed in a way in which her outer garments must have cost $25.

*335The Commissioner reported as follows, *viz :*

I

*Commissioner’s Report.*

The Commissioner, to whom it was referred to enquire into and report upon the support to which Mrs. Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and her son E. ,B. C. Cash, are entitled, under the last will and testament -of William Ellerbe, begs leave to report, that he has had the subject under consideration, and has examined a number of witnesses upon the matter referred, whose testimony is herewith submitted. The commissioner is of the opinion that the will of William Ellerbe, in the third clause, contains a *patent*ambiguity, which may be explained by parol testimony. In order to ascertain what the testator meant by the expression, *“a reasonable and competent support*,” it is natural and proper to refer to the standard of expenditure which he had himself established in the support of his own family. His own acts afford the surest indications of the meaning he attached to the above expression ; at least, they afford safer guides for interpretation or construction, than the varying opinions of any number of witnesses, as to what is a reasonable and competent support. The •Commissioner is also of opinion, that the word'“support” was intended to include clothing as well as boarding. He, therefore, recommends that Mrs. Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and her son, E. B. C. Cash, be allowed each one hundred dollars annually from Nov. 1831, with interest on the same up to the time of old Mrs. Eller-be’s death, in 1841, nothing being allowed for their support during the eighteen months, from May 1830, to November, 1831, when they lived with old Mrs. Ellerbe. This allowance is intended to include only boarding and clothing, taking the estimate of those witnesses who testified as to the value of board, or cost of a support, according to the style and manner of living in the family of the testator previous to his death.

In the course of the reference, the question was made, as to whether a part of this claim for a support was not barred by the statute of limitations. I held that no part of it was barred.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

E. A. LAW, *Comm’r. Equity.*

28 May, 1842.

Upon this report exceptions were filed by the solicitors. *336of complainant, and defendants, Elizabeth Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, and E. M. Ellerbe.

*Exceptions.*

The complainant excepts to the report of the commissioner in the above case in relation to the claim of Mrs. Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and son, for support under the 3rd section of the will of William Ellerbe, deceased, on the following grounds, viz:

1st. Because they were not entitled to any support out of testator’s estate after Mrs. Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and son ceased to reside at the family residence with the widow of testator ; or, at all events, after said Elizabeth E. Ellerbe married James Ellerbe.

2d. Because the commissioner should not have allowed interest,

HANNA, *Solicitor of Complainant.*

The defendants, Elizabeth Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, except to the report of the commissioner in the following particulars:

1st. Because the commissioner decides that the third clause of testator’s will contains a patent ambiguity, and may be explained by parol.

2d. Because the support allowed by the commissioner, being for board and clothing, is wholly inadequate, and against the testimony in the case.

3. Because the commissioner decides that the support to be allowed to E. E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, is to be regulated by the standard of testator’s expenditures.

4th. Because the term support implies more than board and clothing.

5th. Because the credit for the support of E. E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, of eighteen months, is allowed, as if furnished from May 1830, to November, 1831, whereas it was furnished from May, 1832, to November, 1833.

6th. Because the commissioner allows nothing for the supportof E. E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, from May, 1830, to November 1831.

7th. Because the amount allowed for support, should be regulated by the expense of living in Cheraw.

*3378th. Because the commissioner, in his report, allowed nothing for clothing during the eighteen'months in which boarding was furnished to E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash.

T. J. WITHERS, *Solicitor.*

The defendant, Mrs. Ep. Sanders, and her minor children, except to the report of the commissioner in said case:

1st. Because there were no proceeds of the estate which could have been applied to the support of the said Mrs. Cash, now Ellerbe, and her son.

2d. Because the testator never provided or intended that their interest under his will, should be applied to the said support. ' And the sum reported by the commissioner would abate their interest under the said will.

3. Because the said Mrs. Ellerbe and son, were not entitled to any support out of testator’s estate after they ceased to reside at the family residence with the widow of testator ; or, at all events, after said E. E. Ellerbe married James Ellerbe.

4th. Because the commissioner should not have allowed interest.

F. J. MOSES, *Solicitor.*

These exceptions were argued before Chancellor Johnson, at Sumter, who gave the following decree:

Johnson, Ch. The original object of this bill appears to have been for a settlement of the estate of the complainant’s testator, but the only question now' is, whether any, and what, allowance ought to be made for the support of the testator’s daughter, Elizabeth E. Cash, and her son, E. B. C. Cash, under the provisions of his will.

In the first clause of the will, the complainant is appointed his executor. The second and third clauses, out of which the question in controversy arises, are as follows: “2d. It is my will that my estate, both real and personal, be kept together until my just debts are paid, and until the decease of my wife, Elizabeth Ellerbe. 3d. It is my will that my wife, Elizabeth Ellerbe, and my daughter, Elizabeth E. Cash, and my grand-son, B, B. C. Cash, *338have a reasonable and competent support out of the proceeds of said estate, until my just debts are paid, and during the natural life of my wife, Elizabeth Ellerbe.” He then goes on to give some specific legacies, and among other things, a house and lot in Cheraw, to his daughter, Elizabeth E. Cash. The residue of his estate he directs to be kept together until the death of his wife. The annual profits, after paying debts, to be divided amongst his wife and children. At her death, the whole to be sold and the proceeds distributed amongst certain of his children.

The testator had a considerable estate, consisting principally of land and negroes, the annual proceeds of which, according to the estimates of some of the witnesses, might be estimated at an hundred bales of cotton and provisions. Elizabeth E. Cash was a widow at the death of testator, and lived in the house devised to her by the will. She had a horse, servants, and a plantation, and a few slaves that were employed on it. On the death of the testator, she went with her child to live with her mother, who resided at the family mansion, and remained there about eighteen months. She then removed to her own plantation, and not long after intermarried with James Ellerbe.

The testator’s widow died in 1841, but it does not appear that the defendant, Elizabeth E. Ellerbe (late Mrs. Cash,) and her son, E. B. C. Cash, derived any assistance or support from the estate of the testator, from the time they left the mansion house until the death of the widow, and they now claim to be paid what their support may have been reasonably worth, from the death of the testator to the death of his widow.

The matter, was referred to the commissioner, and in his report, he recommends that each should be allowed one hundred dollars, annually, from the time they left the mansion house until the death of the widow, with interest thereon.

This.report has given rise to various exceptions on both sides. The only one, however, which it is thought necessary to consider, is made on the part of the other residuary legatees of the estate, and denies that Mrs. Ellerbe and hen son are entitled to any thing.

*339The case of *Whilden*vs. Whilden, decided in Charleston, at February terra, 1837, reported in Riley’s Chancery Cases, 205, is decisive of this question. There, the testator, by his will, after giving a pecuniary legacy to his wife, directs that all the residue of his estate, real and personal, should be sold, and the proceeds invested in bank stoclq for the *support*of his children, until his youngest child should come to the age of twenty-one, or get married, and then the whole to be divided amongst his children. The testator had two families of children, by different marriages. Those by the first marriage, had attained full age, and were, to a limited extent, provided for by the testator, in his life-time. Those of the last marriage were all minors, and were not otherwise provided for, than by the will. One of the questions was, whether all the children were entitled to be supported out of this fund, or the minors^ only. And it was held, on the authority of *Raulins*vs* *Goldfray, 2*Yes. 440, and other cases cited, that provision for the support of children, made by a will, was only in aid of their own means, and that these, no matter from what sources they were derived, must be exhausted before the fund can be touched, and that quantum of support must be measured by the means and necessities of the children severally.

A support, on the most latitudinarian interpretation of the term, can’t extend further than the necessaries and con-veniencies of life; and it will hardly be believed that any one would think of providing them for another, who had ample means of his own. If a positive and certain benefit was intended, the donor would put it in some other form, and it would seem to follow, necessarily, that a provision for a support was only intended to take effect when the circumstances of the beneficiary should render if necessary.

At the time the testator made his will, his daughter was a widow, and her son an infant, and so far as I can collect from the evidence, her means and income were inconsiderable, and the testator might well have reasoned that they might not prove sufficient for their support, and that he. intended by this provision, to provide for that contingency. That it was not necessary, is shewn by the fact, *that they have never made any demand on the executor*
      *340
      *for*any aid from this source, and have been supported and maintained without it. Nor is there any thing in the evidence, from which it can be collected that Mrs. Ellerbe and her son, or either of them, were ever under the necessity of resorting to this fund for the purpose of their support.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that this demand be not allowed in the settlement of the estate of the testator.

From this decree, the defendants, Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash, appealed, upon the grounds following, to wit:

That his Honor erred in disallowing the claim made by the answer of these defendants, for a reasonable and competent support, out of the estate of testator,

1st. Because, on a fair construction of the words of the will, the testator’s intention is manifest, that his estate should be charged with such support of defendants, Elizabeth E. Ellerbe and E. B. C. Cash.

2. Because the testator well knew that these defendants had property, independent of his estate, sufficient for their necessary support, and must, therefore, by the clause of his will in question, have intended to relieve that property to the amount of a reasonable and competent support to be furnished out of his own estate, and not merely in aid of their means.

These defendants also insist, before this court, upon the exception filed by them, to the report of commissioner, fixing the amount of the reasonable and competent support claimed by them.

*Me Tver*and *Withers,*for the appellants.

*Hanna, Moses*and *Dargan,*contra.

*Mclver*

cited Riley’s Ch. Ca. 265. *Withers*referred to 1 Con. Ch. Rep. 397; 1 Russel, 590.

*Curia, per*Harper, Ch.

The principal question in this case, is not one of construction, as seemed to be thought in argument, but of fact. No doubt a reasonable and competent support is given by the will, -both to the testator’s *341widow, 'and to his daughter and grand-child. But this reasonable and competent support, does not mean merely the food and clothing necessary to sustain life, nor any other fixed quantity or allowance, but must, as contended for on the part of the appellant, depend on circumstances and exigencies. If, as in the case of *Whilden*vs. *Whilden,*a testator leaves a fund for the support of a large family, of whom one is an infant, one a boy at school, one at College, you would not give an equal allowance for the support of each of these. The enquiry would be, what was necessary,' or suitable and proper, or what amounts to the the same thing, reasonable and competent, in the situation of each.

But suppose, as in the same case, that you should find one established in the world of a large fortune, perhaps larger than that of the father, living in a style of fashion and expense, how would you make an allowance for his support *1*One would hardly think of making him such an allowance as should supply necessary food and clothing. But beyond this, there is no limit but such a provision as will enable him to live in the style and manner in which the testator knew him to be living, so as to exempt his private fortune from that expense, and enable it to accumulate. But this would be to defeat the purpose for which support was provided ¡

In the case before us, it is contended on behalf of the appellant, that she should have such an allowance as would support her in the place and manner she had been accustomed to live. There seems to be no other practicable method of construing a bequest for support or maintenance, than to mean, that support shall not be wanting.If the legatee’s private means are unable to supply it, the deficiency shall be made up out of the testator’s bounty. Of course, a different intention, gathered from the terms of a particular will, might lead to a different construction. In the present case, the widow, so far as appears, had no property of her own. Her support, therefore, must, of necessity, have been provided for, altogether out of the testator’s estate. But it is agreed that his daughter had sufficient property for the support of herself and child, and *342there was no room for the bequest for the support to take effect.

It was argued, with respect to the grand-child, that he had no property of his own, and must, therefore, come within the scope of the testator’s bounty. The claim, however, is not on his behalf, but that of his mother. He has, in fact, been supported by her, and the claim must be similar to that of one who has advanced his money to fulfil the object of a trust, and comes to be reimbursed of the trust fund. _ But I have known no instance of a mother, of ability to maintain her children, having themselves no property of their own, who has been reimbursed for doing so. It is said, generally, that *parents*of ability are bound to maintain their children, though a difference is indicated, where the mother has entered into a second marriage. 1 Bl. Com. 446. Reeve dom Rel. ch. 9. In *Valentine*vs. Bladen, Harp. 306, it was held, that the mother might maintain an action on a contract made with her for the work and labor of her son. But if she be entitled to the services of her child, she must be bound for his maintenance. The decree is affirmed.

Johnson and Dunkin, Chancellors, concurred.

Johnston, Ch. absent from indisposition.