Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/91

PDLLIAM V. PULLIAM. TO �plaintifE for the money he received, and interest on it ; but she is nol entitled to two satisfactions, and whatever she reoovers from them must be credited to the extent of the principal sum of $9,246.02 on her decree against J. J. Pulliam. As to the interest recovered from Joel L. Pulliam, it is interest on her money and belongs to her, and should not go to relieve J. J. Pulliam of any liability to her. There- fore, let the decree provide that out of whatever sums she realizes from Joel L. Pulliam's eatate she shall be paid first interest up to the time of settlement with her, any balance to be credited as above directed, so that so much of the principal sum as she recovers of Joel L. Pulliam's estate shall go to exonerate the executer. �LIABILITY OF THE LAND. �When this case was first before me there appeared to be a deficiency of Personal assets and a necessary resort to the land to enforce the trusts of the will ; but the investigations before the master have developed the faet that there were sufficient personal assets to pay the plaintiff's legacies, and therefore the land is not liable, and never was. The will does not charge the legacies on the land, but exonerates them from the debts by charging the latter upon the land. Byrd v. Byrd, 2 Brock. 169 ; Garnett v. Macon, 2 Brock. 185 ; S. C. 6 Cali, (Va.) 308 ; Stevcns v. Gregg, 10 Gill. & J. 143 ; Lupton v. Lupton, 2 Johns. Ch. 628 ; Perry, Trusts, §§ 568, 576; 2 Wms. Ex'rs, (4th Am. Ed.) 1245, and notes. That the interest accumulated since the settlement bas car- ried the legacy beyond the personal assets (if no interest be charged against the executer on these balances against him) cannot affect the case. Eesiduary legatees are not liable to refundunless in case of an original deficiency of assets. Walcott v. Hall, 2 Bro. C. C. 305; S. C. 1 P. Wms. 495, note; Derriere v. Scranton, 8 Ga. 43; 2 Wms. Ex'rs, 1245. �There were assets enough to pay the debts, and therefore the land is not to be charged, because, at last, the plaintiff would not recover her legacy from the land, but only so much of the debts as had been necessarily paid with her legacy on aocount of deficiency of personal asaets. �POST-JIOPTIAL BOND. �The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief en account of the post- nuptial bond mentioned in the bill. It was satisfied by the bequests of the will. Bryant v. Hunter, 2 Wheat. 32; S. C. 3 Wash. 48. ��� �