The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-11-29

/ have intended the Whole legacy 70 DC
paid ia money, chareeablc ia the fret
Instance only upon bis slave property,
when be provides, in plain terms
I that only a small part shall be paid IN
money, and that the principal part Of
the legacy shall be paid In negroes, Mt
cart.in valuation, that is, that a por.
ton Of the fund itself shall be dis
tubdted to the lcgatees.
But this BE- not all The testator
further declares that the negroes given
10 his daughters shall be as much in
families, and as many Of them fe-
males, as the circumstances will admit
and he limits The estate given % them
"a the negroes 10 life estate, and
gives them, on The death Of his
daugtcrs, TO their children. This is n
conclusive refutation Of the idea that
the testator intended 10 give money,
and not slaves. for If money WAS the
subject Of the bcqucst, aud the negroes
only the object referred to as the pri-
mary source from which the money
was to come, Il would be wholly i'm
pertinent 10 define the estate, and pre-.
scribe the limitations regulating the
enjoyment Of the slaves by bis daugh-
tiers in their lifetime, and by their
children after them.
The aljudQcd cases on lcg0cics sim
liar to those under discussion, sustain
the conclusion TO which we have ar
rived Legocies OF money payable
cat Of n particular debt or security,
which failed, arc held TO be general
lcgacics Roberts w. Poeorh, 4 We
scy, y. $50 Coleman VS. Coleman, ,
Voscy, p. $50. Gallagher vs.. Gala
CHER, 8 Watts, 173 and in hrby u.s.
Poucr I Ncscy, p. 7lS, legacy Of
CLOOO, " oM NJ my rcduccd bunk an
Auiiicg," was held "A general legacy,
but the Master Of the Rolls said: IF
this Legacy had been expressed thus
porf AZ my reduced bank auuuitics,
or in my reduced bank annDities, !
could not have considered that the
tcetator. meant anything but an i3cof-
cR poJt n Hc coypus. 50 Request
Of such part of my stock Of horses
as he shull select, to lac fairly valued
and appraised, to the amount Of
$500, was held 10 lac q specific be
quest" Richards VS. Richards, 9 Price,
2l0. EXchcquer Rep, 80. A be
quest of s3,9lT, IN notes, to be taken
out Of my notes as soon after my
death as it can be done, was decided
to be specific legacy Perry 49, Nor-
weH, DeycreuX Equity Rep, jG2.
SO whore a tostator bcqucathcd to his
wife $500 in personal property, such
as she may select e Williams ENrs,
1872, note /, and where the bequest
was Of the sum Of $4,000, capital
stock in the three per cent consOls, or
in whatever Of the government funds
the same shall be found invested
Lambert Vs. Lambert Nesey, COZ.
II plainly appears from the whole
will that the tcstator was disposing o I
his own slaves, which he then owned,
and which he continued 30 own ut
the time Of his death. The lcgacica
all vested mt that period. The corpHs
Of the property has since been de
The legatecs who received
their shares before the general emm-
cipation took effect, have suffered |
equally with those whose shares were |
not yet reduced to possession; and |
we do not see how these petitioners |
can stand ON any better footing than
their sisters, in regard to claim for
rccompcnsc or satisfaction ont of the |
general estate, for the specific prop |
'rty which they have lost They are
alt i'm the same category in regard TO
their loss, mt least prima iacia, for it
rciyod thcit shares may have turned
the negroes into money, but that does
not appear; and il would be no
ground for decreeing compensation
against them, ii did. The decree of
the court below in effect requires
these legatees who have received their
shares, and lost them 10y force of the
to contribute ratcably |
from their interest in the residue, to
make mp the specific lcgacies lost by
he petitioners, and it also requires
such contributions from the legatecs,
who take nothing under the will hut
heir interest in the residuum. Moth
ny is moro clear than that il spc-
tic legacy be disappointed, 10y the
allure of the particular fund, the leg |
,tee will not he entitled TO any recon
lense or satisfaction ont of the per.
.oual estate ! Roper on Log, 1872 |
'urric ct al vs., Murphy 30, Miss 49,
On the whole, We are of opiaiou
hat the decree OF the court below was
erroneous, and ought to be reversed,
With costs. and the petitioners dis
missed
HUr Rl-vtrNs ny ErN - JouN- ]