Case Name: Edith Ruston, Robert Wallace, John Ramsay and John Gilliland, executors of Job Ruston, against Thomas Ruston
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1796-03
Citations: 2 Yeates 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edith Ruston, Robert Wallace, John Ramsay and John Gilliland, executors of Job Ruston, against Thomas Ruston.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 54–70

Head Matter:
Edith Ruston, Robert Wallace, John Ramsay and John Gilliland, executors of Job Ruston, against Thomas Ruston.
[S. C. 2 Dall. 243.]
A will must be judged of by its own words, and not from evidence aliwn de. Devise of four tracts of land to J. his eldest son, Provided he pays to the executors 3000Z. at certain periods, with power to the executors to sell three of the tracts on J’s. default; J. enters therein; the executors sell two of the tracts, and the third having been mort. gaged by the testator, is sold by process of law: the devisee is liable to pay the difference between the net amount of sales, and the 3000Z and interest.
And the personal estate of the testator shall not go in ease of the morgaged premises so far as to defeat the specific or ascertained pecuniary legacies, or any part thereof. Aliter of the legacies of the residuum.
Debt. Pleas nil debet and payment.
This cause come on to be tried in bank January 8th, 1795, when it was agreed, that a verdict should be given for the plaintiffs for 2096i. 13s. 4£d. without argument, subject to the court’s opinion on the will of the testator, a,nd the following facts.
The will of Job Ruston bore date 17th January 1784, and after the usual introduction, run as follows :
“And for the settling my temporal estate, I devise and bequeath in manner following: Imprimis, after my just and lawful debts and funeral charges are paid, I bequeath to my wife Edith 300i. according to our marriage contract, payable one year after my death; (with certain specific articles) 200i. more, payable in two years and 100i. more, payable in three years after my death ; and if not paid at those times, she shall be paid interest; also a mulatto female slave, &c. Item, I give and bequeath to my son Thomas, (the defendant) all the lands I live upon, containing 425 acres, with my mill, and 44 acres of land with the usual allowance for roads adjoining the land I live upon, and the half of my tract in Penn’s manor, being 218 acres and half a quarter of an acre, to him, his heir and assigns, forever: Provided, he pays, or causes to be paid to my executors hereinafter named, or to their executors or administrators, the sum of 3000Í. in manner following, viz: 400i. per annum, without interest; the first payment to be made, if my son Thomas comes to America, in one year after my decease; but if he does not come to America, the first payment shall be made in two years after my decease, but if my son “ Thomas does not pay the first or any of the payments, within three months of the time I have ordered them to be paid ; in that case I do hereby empower my executors hereinafter named, or the majority of them, or the survivors or survivor of them, or if all are dead, their executors or administrators, fully to bargain, sell, alien, and confirm in fee simple, all that 44 acres of land,adjoining my other tract of 425 acres, except so much of said 44 acres as shall contain a road of three porches broad, along the line of Joseph Strawbridgos’s land, to take in water to my large field adjoining said 44 acres, to any person or persons, their heirs and assigns, forever ; and such sale shall be good and effectual in law against my heirs, to all intents and purposes : and in case my son Thomas fails in paying thesecond, or any other subsequent payments, in that case, I do hereby empower my executors and those within named, to sell 100 acres of land more, being part of my¡tract of 425 acres, to be laid off(in a certain specified manner:)and if my son Thomas fails in making the fourth,or any subsequent payment, in that easel do empower my executors, and those within named, to sell my 218 acres and half a quarter of an acre,being the remaining half part of the tract that I sold to my son-in-law John Evans Finley, in the same manner that I have willed my 44 acres of land to be done. And I do hereby empower my executors, and those within named, to comply with my articles of agreement with the said John Evans Finley. I give to my wife Edith interest for the money I have bequeathed her from one year after my decease, till it is paid. I give to my son John 200i. which shall be in full of his share of my real estate (and certain specific articles.) I give to my daughter Sarah 51. which shall be in full of her share of my real estate. I give to my daughter Louisa 200i. which shall be in full of her share of my real estate, and three mulatto slaves. I give to my daughter Elizabeth 51. which shall be in full of her share of my real estate, and three mulatto slaves. And the remainder of my estate, I do will and bequeath one tenth part thereof to my daughter Sarah, one tenth part thereof to my son Thomas, and the remainder shall be divided in three equal shares, 'which I give to John Louisa and Elizabeth, to be divided between them, share and share alike. I give to Thomas Love and James Boyd 100Í. to be put to interest, for the support of a minister in the meeting house of Fagg’s manor, the said 100Í. to be taken out of said remainder of my estate, before any share or dividend shall be made to my sons or daughters. And I do appoint my wife Edith, Robert Wallace, John Ramsey, and James Gilliland, my executors. In witness, &c”
The testator died seized of 687-J acres of land.
The defendant arrived in America from Europe, on receiving intelligence of his father’s death, and entered into possession of the lands devised to him, but paid no part whatever of the 3000J. as directed by the will. Whereupon the executors sold the tract of 44 acres, pursuant to their authority; and also the tract of 100 acres upon his second default. The 218|- acres tract was under mortgage to the trustees of the Pennsylvania Hospital, executed by the testator in his lifetime, and .was afterwards sold by the sheriff on a levari facias.
The present suit was brought to recover from the defendant, the difference between the net amount of the three sales, and the 3000f. and interest.
The inventory of the testator’s personal property amounted to 588i. 13s. 9d. exclusive of the specific personal legacies.
According to the statement of the accounts produced by the executors, if they were at liberty to charge the defendant with the 3000Í. and interest, and then to pay off the mortgage to the hospital, out of the monies of the estate, there would ensue a deficiency of 260i. 15s. 6fd. above the amount of assets, on payment of the debts and ascertained pecuniary legacies.
But many of the items of this-statement were objected to by the defendant, and the particular balance was not settled at the time of the argument.
The case was argued by Messrs. Ingersoll andE. B. M’Kean for the plaintiffs ; and by Messrs. Tilghman and Heatley, for the defendant, in April and September terms, 1795 ; but the opinion of the court was not given until the present term, under an expectation, that the precise sum due either to or from the executors, would be correctly ascertained which however eventually did not take place.
Two questions arose on the argument; 1st, As the defendant took possession of the four tracts of land devised to him, did he subject himself thereby to the payment of the 3000i. or was the remedy of the executors restricted to the three tracts only, as a specific fund ? 2d, Ought the defendant, as devisee to pay the mortgage money, or should it come in as a debt due from the testator, payable out of his general assets ?
The plaintiffs offered to the court a former will of the testator, which he had revoked, in corroboration of their construction, of the will in question ; but the court said it could not be received. ■ The present will must be judged of on the face of the written instrument itself, and not from evidence aliunde. This point has frequently been determined.
For the plaintiffs, on the first point, it was then said, that it appeared by the will the defendant took the lands devised to him, chargeable with the 3000/., because the testator has devised all his lands to him, and all his personal property to others. Nothing can be collected from the direction of the sale of the throe tracts of land by his executors, except that the testator thought that those lands were sufficient to raise the 3000/., and he was mistaken therein. The proviso forms an express condition, on what terms the devisee should take, and must be construed strictly. Words which will not raise a condition in a deed, will proceed that effect in a will. Yet even in a deed, a proviso will form a condition ; as if one lease for years by indenture, provided that the lessee shall not alien. Co. Lit. §§ 329, 203. b. So if on a feoffment rent be reserved to the feoffor, provided if the rent be behind, feoffor or his heirs may enter, lb. 204. a. The defendant entered on the lands under the will, and therefore acceded to the the terms prescribed by the testator. 3. Bro. Cha. lirp. 165.
But it may be said the proviso is a condition, where there is no other remedy. 1 Leon. 174. And that supposing it to be such in the present instance, the heir at law only can enter for the condition broken, which heir the defendant himself is, as oldest son. To this it may be answered, that in Pennsylvania all the children are heirs at law of the father, and the case in England of a devise of land to one daughter, paying a certain sum to her sister, is analogous to that in question
A devise of land in borough English to a second son, he paying 20/. to each of the daughters of the testator at twenty one, is a condition and not a limitation. But such a devise to an eldest son, would be a limitation ; for if a condition, there would be no remedy against him. Cro. Jac. 56.
Courts of justice are bound to give full operation to all the parts of a will. If it should be considered as a trust in the defendant, they would struggle hard to execute it. If the executors had not pursued their powers, the children would not have been without remedy ; for they might have sued the executors, and sold the lands by execution. Money devised to be raised out of the profits of lands, if the profits will not raise the sum in a convenient time, equity will decree a sale. 1 Vern. 256. 2 Vern. 26. 2 Vent. 357.1 Equ. Ca. Jib. 199, pi. 9,10.
Unless the intention of the testator is clear, to restrict the charge co the three specified tracts, the first charge must necessarily subsist. It is no objection to say, that the party has two remedies. For a devise on condition to pay hi. per aunum to B., and if he does not pay, that B. may enter and distrain, is still a condition, though there is a right of distress. One remedy does not take away another. Beni. 81. Dy. 348. 5 Yin. Ab. 59, pi. 6. 1 Atky. 382.
It is moreover asserted, that this very point was determined here on this will, between the same parties, some years ago, according to the plaintiffs’ present construction of it.
On the second point, the rule in equity certainly is, where it may be reasonably inferred that the devisee.is to take mortgaged lands, cum onere, it shall be so decreed. 1 Cha. Ca. 271. 3 Bae. Ab. 638.
In Pennsylvania, real and personal estate follow the same course of distribution ; and therefore the principle of the English law, as to the personal estate being the natural fund for debts, does not hold in this state. There must be either express words, or a manifest intention, to exempt the personal estate. Bunb. 302, 303. 3 P. Wms. 325. 3 Woodeson 384, 385. No peculiar form of expression is necessary to exonerate it, if the intention be evident. 2 Bro. Cha. Rep. 60.
A devisee of a mortgaged estate, shall have no assistance of the personal estate, if there be no assets to answer the legacies. But if the mortgagee resort to the personal estate, a specific or pecuniary legatee shall stand in his room, for so much of the real estate as the mortgagee has taken out of the personal estate. Forrest. 53. Ambl. 172. Devise of all his goods in such a house to A., and all the rest and residue of his personal estate to his wife, whom he makes sole executrix, passes •to his wife all that he had not before particularly devised. 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 271, ca. 15. 2Fonbla. 300.
According to the present will, defendant is entitled to one tenth part of the residue, and his sister Sarah to the same proportion; the remainder is to be divided into three- equal shares. Consequently, the defendant’s construction would thrown an undue advantage in his own favor.
The defendant’s counsel urged. 1. Under the terms of the will, the executors are restricted to the sale of three tracts of land, to raise the 3000Í. No legacy is devised them.
The proviso would have been an express condition, if the devise had not been to the defendant; for none but he, as eldest son and heir at law, could enter for the condition broken’ Here is no devise over; otherwise it might have been a limitation. Had there been no express fund, it would have descended on the heir as a trust, by necessity.
The case in 1 Leon. 174, pi. 242, shows that a proviso is a condition, there being no other'renaedy, and is in point. S. C. 8 Vin. Ab. 832, pi. 7. Co. Lit. 236. b.
Lands devised to the heir, paying &e., it is no condition ; but it will raise a trust in the heir, and affect a purchaser with notice. 2 Freem. 278, pi. 148.
Devise to one not an heir, paying &c., is a condition, not a limitation. 1 Vez. 47. Where there is a devise over, it is a limitation. 1 Atuy. 383.
The heir at law, may take advantage of a condition annexed to real estate, though not named. 1 Ve‘z. 46. He only shall enter for the condition broken. 1 Atky. 383. 2 Freem. 278.
Where there is an express fund, and no necessity exists, a trust shall not be raised by implication. Here is no personal charge against the defendant, but the remedy of the parties is confined to the land. The testator has not charged the fourth tract. Why if the 3000/. was to be raised at all events, did he not vest his executors with the authority of selling that also ? He certainly intended that the defendant should have his lands. He was mistaken in his calculations, as to raising 3000/. out of the three tracts, and this is no uncommon case. He must have intended a bounty to his eldest son, and that under all circumstances, he should be entitled to the fourth tract. If his intentions are inconsistent, the last intention shall prevail: his subsequent expressions must control the preceding words. Terms of implication will not destroy an express estate given by will. 1 P. Wms. 605. Wills must be construed according to the intention of the testator, if it be not contrary to, or inconsistent with the rules of law. 2 Burr 1100, 1111. So was the case of lessee of Rowland Evans v. James Davis, determined in this court, January term 1794.
Though it is admitted, the present point was heretofore determined on this will, as the plaintiffs now contend, yet the same objections were not then taken, as are now offered. The executors have made their election. The court will not now afford them a remedy, different from their own choice.
2. There is no doubt, that mortgaged lands are liable to the payment of the mortgage money ; but the personal estate is also subjected thereto, in the common course of administration, unless it would defeat specific legacies. The personal estate of a testator is liable to pay a mortgage. It is a debt, though there be no covenant, or bond. 3 P. Wms. 358, 1 Wms. 294. Real assets descending on the heir, shall go in aid of a specific devisee of mortgaged lands. 3 Atky. 430.
The devisee of real estate shall have the aid of the personal estate, to discharge the lands of incumbrances. 1 Vern. 36. The devisees of
mortgaged lands take cum onere, where to take otherwise would defeat other legatees. 1 Wms. 694.
If the 3000/. has been paid by the defendant, it ought to have been applied to the payment of debts in the first instance of which the mortgage is one. Should the court he of opinion with the plaintiffs on the first point, the defendant should be credited with the amount of the sales of the three tracts, and only be charged with the deficiency. The mortgage money ought to be paid out of the assets of the testator, and if a loss should eventually follow, the defendant will share his part of it with the other residuary legatees.

Opinion:
The court delivered their opinions seriatim.
M'Kean C. J.
minutely stated the will and case at large, and then proceeded thus :
In case of an intestacy, the rule of law is clear, that simple contract debts, bonds, mortgages and specialties of every sort, must be paid by the administrators out of the personal estate, this being the natural fund for debts, though the younger children should be thereby left destitute; but where there is a will, the testator can substitute other funds in the place of the personal estate. What .has Job Ruston willed in this particular ? is the question.
The intention of the testator shall 'govern in the construction of a will in all cases, except where the rule of law overrules the intention, and this is reducible to four instances. 1. Where the devise would make a perpetuity. 2. Where it would put the freehold in abeyance. 3. Where chattels are limited as inheritances. And 4. Where a fee is limited on a fee. Sel. Oa. in Cha. 31. And this intention must be collected from the whole of the will, or writing itself. 3 Burr. 1541,1581, 1662. 2 Burr. 771, 1106. 1 Vez. 231, and many other boobs.
What then was the intention of the testator, as expressed in his will ? The value of the real estate devised to the defendant, the quantum of his debts, and the amount of his personal estate at his death, would give considerable light in this matter. These have not been satisfactorily ascertained to us. However, we have been told that the debts, specific and pecuniary legacies, with the charges of administration, will amount to 3849/. 9s. 3and that the personal estate only produced 588/. 13s. 9d. so that if the defendant had paid the 3000/. there would have been a deficiency of 260/. 15s. 6fo?. and nothing left for the residuary legatees.
The counsel for the defendant insist that he shall hold the remainder of the real estate unsold, exempt from the payment not only of the legacies, but also of the debts, unless the personal estate and the produce of the lands shall prove insufficient for the discharge of the debts ; because, they say the 3000/. was no legacy to the executors; it was no charge on the lands, for they were all devised to the heirs at law ; it was no condition, there being no remedy in case of failure ; and it was no limitation, there being no devise over.
The defendant took possession of the lands so devised to him. This evidences his assent to pay the 3000/.; and the intention of the testator that he should pay it to the executors, is too plain to hear an argument. What rale of law or reason is there to prevent the executors from recovering it ? Suppose the devise to the defendant had been subject to the payment of his debts, instead of a certain sum of money, viz. 3000/., as in this case, the lands would he assets at law. The testator has subjected the gift to the payment of this sum, and it must pass cum onere.
I therefore consider the 3000/. as an equitable if not a legal charge, or as a trust and condition, which affects and binds the real estate devised to Thomas Buston, the eldest son, and which it was the manifest intention of the testator he should pay at all events. The defendant could not he considered in this case as heir at law in Pennsylvania, where, if at that time a person had died intestate, leaving divers children, his real estate would have descended to all his children equally, the eldest son having only a double portion or share, and therefore the devise may even be considered asa condition. Forrest. 271. 1 Atky. 383. 3 Wms. 325. The same judgment was given by all the then justices of the Supreme Court, above five years ago, between the same parties, on a case stated on this very point, which I deem conclusive.
But the second question, respecting the payment of the mortgage on the 218J acres, is new.
It appears to have been the intention of testator, that the legacies, specific and pecuniary, should he paid, as well as that the devise of the real estate should take effect; and, if practicable, the assets should he so marshalled, that the testator's intention in the whole should ho carried into execution. The testator seems to have thought the 300/. would have been sufficient to have discharged all his debts, and also the particular pecuniary legacies, (by which I mean those given to his widow and children in full of their respective shares of his real estate,) hut in this he has been mistaken.
A mortgage is a debt; it arises on a loan, and there is usually a convenant to pay the money; it is a specialty debt. Thomas Ruston is hmres factus of the whole real estate, on his payment of 30001., and if that sum had béen more than sufficient to pay off all the particular pecuniary legacies, I would be of opinion that the mortgage should be paid out of the residue of that sum, as much as any other debt, and that he should not take the estate with this additional incumbrance. It appears no where in the will that the testator meant the defendant should take the lands with this lien upon them.
It is the constant practice in chancery, to allow to children the same favor as creditors. Forrest. 275. I therefore think that the specific and particular pecuniary legacies, bequeathed to the children, ought not to be brought in ease of the particular lands mortgaged; but it seems to me that the devise of the residuary part of the personal estate should give way to the devise of the real estate subjected to the mortgage, and be applied as far as it will go in discharge of the mortgage. For the devisee of the real estate must take it cum onere, that is, subject to the mortgage, unless the residue of the personal estate will be sufficient to discharge it. Yid. Grilb. Equ. Rep. 72. Forrest, 202. 2 Atky. 280. 1 P. Wms. 694, 730. Prec. Cha. 578.