From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 19:15, 1 March 2019 by Alearnard (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

But where the testater charges, as William Joes, his debts upon his whole estate, real and persenal, the persenal still remains the primary fund and the ordinary order of administration must be [illegible]. The whole personal property must be [extracted?], [illegible] bequests one and are before recourse can be had to the realty. [Lee?] Powell [in?] ‘ Derises 2nd old eddition pap 681, new edition 364. “ The next branch of our [illegible] inquiry is as to what will exempt the [presence?] estate [illegible] primary hability to debts and [illegible] charges, for which the testator has provided another fund inquestion which it will be seen has seen a [illegible] subject of litigation. That the making a provision for debts or [illegible] out of the real estate does not discharge the [personalty?] is implied in the [stay?] terms of this inquiry. There must be and intention not [illegible] to onerate the realty, but to exonerate the personalty; not mostly to supply another fund, but to substitute that fund for the property antecedently [illegible]. There in numerous cases it has been held that written a charge of debts ar the testaor’s lands generaly, or a [illegible] portion of them, nor a devise upon trust for sale, however personally [illegible] anxiously provided, nor a term created for this purpose, will discharge the personalty.” Again see Williams in Exors. [vol?] 2nd pap 1047. “ with respect to the exoneration of the real estate from [illegible], the general rule is equally clear as it is with respect to debts that the personal estate is the natural fund for the payment of them and the real estate is only to be [illegible] in aid of the personal: Therefore even in cases where there is no doubt as to debts and legacies being effectually charged by the testator in the real estate, yet the personal estate remains undischargex from its primary [illegible] to those claims.” It is manifest the exor. was right in selling Janet before resorting to the land. There are other [illegible] legatees besides [Janet?]- Those to whom certain laws are given after the wife’s death. Had they too then right to regaine the sale [illegible] land to save their legacies the court will observe the consequences of the actions [intended?] for by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Under the act of assembly of March 17th 1842 all debts induced by [illegible] are declared to the [charge?] [illegible] on land. How is it to be presumed that this [illegible] reverses the relative if real and personal propert in the administration of the assets [illegible] an estate? That it makes land the primary fund out of [illegible] debts shall be paid as as to protest in case of deficiency of personal assets not especially bequeathed, the [illegible]? It is impossible that this can be the construction to be pleaded as the Act, and if it be not the construction then as such effect as is contended for could be given to a [illegible] charge in a hire prior to the passage of the law. Chaffrin ([illegible]) has at this term of the court (Oct. 1845) filed his answer asking relief against the exor. in the event of a [illegible] in the plaintiffs favour. He is entitled to no such relief- certainly to [illegible] there the medium of this cause. He knew that he was buying the slave [illegible] the will of Wilson [illegible] from the exor. acting under his will. It was his [illegible] examine the will and judge for himself as to the right of Janet to his freedom. He does not charge that we the exor. [illegible] the title to the negro or that we made any false representation about him