Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-30


\ Hatcher.
Il ia insisted, that the Chanceslsr erred in decree
Ing that The lesatses should cun1ributs equally to
the pay Slent o. me debt Ills argued thar he sur
pus of the proceeds Of the land q 70 be viewed a
residuary fund, and SUCH is to be frst applied
to the discharge Of the debts and it Is conceded
that this fund Is greatly more than sufficient for that
purpose.
Il is not denied, that If there be a residuarv
fund.- and the assets are insufficient to discharge the
debts. that such residuary fund must be first appli
ed. In such case, the residuary legafee has no
right to call rpon general legasees to sbste.
The whole personal estate. not specifically be-
queaihed must be exhausted before gener1l egIteCa
can be required to contribute anything ous OF their
Iegacies. Williams On Ext ll65. ! Roper on
Log $50.
And general legaees must al sbase together, pro-
portionably In case Of deficiency Of assets, before
Inc specified lesatees can be called on to cOntr'-
The question depends upon the nature Of the be-
quest Of the surplus fund arising fr$m the sale Of
1t Is scarcely necessary to notice the important
| acy. -
Ahe former is bequest Of q paI ticular thing, o.
n'ney o. the test4tor. specified and distinguished
from AL others Of the same kind. I. Roper. on
| Leg 1879. Williams On Exr s93.
lrSacy Of quantity, is ordinarily general leg
ayi put mere are iegaeies of quant in the nature
Of specific legaciesi a legsey Of so much money,
with reference to particular fund for payment.
This is called By the civilians = demoustrative
| legacy. 2 Williams. 995. Roper Is0.- I
Add Of this character, are the three leQae;ea 70
Sallie Organ. Mary S. Hatcher and ] ne Hatcher.
able out Of the proceeds Of the land which i'm
mediatey precede the disposition Of the surplus Of
that fund. -
1t is argued, in support Of the decree. that tha
beeuest of the surplus Of the fund arising from the
sale Of The land. not Of residuary nature. but
rather Of the nature of specific legacy and es-
sentisly of tho same character as the three pre-
ceeding legaces though these are each for sum in
Rlnero. -. ErGeE
1t Seems, that where particular fund is gwen in
PARCELS and, upon deficiency Of sssets, il becomes
necessary TO resort 20 t for the payment Of debts
the principle is, in general that If the person 70
whom the last fractional part of the fund IS giyen
be appointed 10 take il. the residue, REMINDER
ef the specific fund then he as residaary legAtee
Will only be entitled to the surplus Of the fund.- af
ter full satisfaction IF the other aquot parts OF il
specifically bequeathed and in the character Of
sduary legatees he cannot call upon the particular
egatees of fractional parts of the specific fund
abate; for since If there had been al excess OF the
funds, he as residuary egAtee, would have been
tied TO ii; 40, if there be deficiency Is Is only
equitable that his share should be less in that pro-
portion. l ROGER on Leg. 253-4, 22s Bro. c e.
10. %.
There can be no doubt as to he residuary nature
CT the bequest of the surplus OF the fund.
Three several bequests Of fractional parts OF this
particular fund, each for specific sum, previ.
ously made: two Of them 70 lestato-is neices Mary
and JAM Hatcher; and then, the remainder" Of
the fund. if any there should be-which WA 0bvi-
ousy doubtful in testa.oIs mind is given equally %
the same two neices.
This is beyond al question, residaaFy bequest.
and being go It first liable to DO applied 20 the
discharge Of the debts Of the estate.
There are other errors in the DEGREES, bu. Il u
not important to notice them.
The decree will be reversed. McKnNEY
Correct copy; J. P. CLARK, Clerk.