Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1168

calculation of his estate. That as the real estate devised, was £300 per ann. if the devisees should pay the £1600 charged thereon, they would still have near twice as much as any of the other legatees; and therefore it was conceived, that the testator's will would be best fulfilled by letting the real estate bear the mortgage, which was its own burthen, and the personal estate be applied in payment of the legacies, which in that case would be nearly sufficient.

On the other side it was insisted (W. Marriot), that the money due upon the mortgage, being a debt of the testator's, and the mortgage-deed containing a covenant from him to pay it; this, as well as all his other debts, ought to be paid out of the personal estate; which was still more plain from the words of his will, whereby he had directed, that his debts and funeral charges should be paid in the first place out of his personal estate; and it was not strange, that in the calculation of that estate he should be a little mistaken, considering, that at the time of making his will, he was engaged in a partnership trade, the accounts whereof were long, confused, and intricate, and had not been settled for the space of sixteen years. That as to the question of abatement, there was a known difference between a devises and legatee; the former being of a real estate, the latter only of personal things; and this difference was accordingly well known and taken notice of by the testator in the words of his will, by directing all his debts to be paid out of his personal estate; and therefore, as the real estate was specially devised, it ought not to contribute to any deficiency of the personal estate. That in the present case it was much the stronger, because there was a good and valuable consideration on the part of the devisees, namely, the £2200 and upwards, which the testator owed his son, and which was nearly equivalent to the value of the real estate devised; and that the decree, by discharging this debt, was rather more hard upon the respondents and their family, than upon the appellants.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 18. p. 491.)

Sir Rowland Lytton was seised in fee of the manors of Knebworth, Letchworth, Hanchetts, Maudlebury, Broxburne, alias Canwicks, Ansty, Half-Hide, and Homelyes, and of divers messuages, lands, and hereditaments in the county of Hertford; and also of the manors of Stotfold-Newnham and Stotfold-Brayes, and divers messuages, lands, and hereditaments in the county of Bedford: and he had issue, by Judith his first wife, four children, namely, William, Rowland, Judith, and Ann; and by Rebecca, his second wife, one child, namely, the appellant Lady Falkland. Judith married Sir Nicholas Strode, who had issue by her Sir George Strode, the respondent Lytton Strode's father; and Sir Francis Russell, Bart, married the other daughter Ann, now the respondent Dame Ann Russell.

Sir Rowland, upon the marriage of his eldest son William with Mary Harrison, by indentures of lease and release, dated the 19th and 20th of February 1665, settled the manors of Maudlebury and Broxburne, alias Canwicks, and divers other lands and hereditaments, of the value of £700 per ann. upon William for life; with remainder to the said Mary for life, for her jointure; remainder to the heirs male of the body of William by the said Mary; remainder to Sir Rowland, and the heirs male of his body; remainder in fee to his own right heirs. And as to the woods and woodlands, they were limited to the use of Sir Rowland for life; remainder to William for life; remainder to trustees to preserve the contingent remainders; remainder to the first and other sons of William, by Mary his wife, in tail male; remainder to trustees to