no express provision for the payment of debts, the courts will supply it by implication.12 § 693. General Legacies, Abatement Of. Where general legatees are volunteers, partaking of the testator's bounty, and the assets of the estate are sufficient to pay the debts and to satisfy the specific and demonstrative legacies, but are insufficient to settle the general legacies, in the absence of provisions to the contrary, the last named class abate proportionally.13 If the residue has been exhausted and the funds of the estate are insufficient to pay all legacies, general legacies must be exhausted before specific legacies may be called upon to abate.14 § 694. Annuities, Abatement Of. Annuities are also paid before anything passes to the residuary legatee, no matter what may be the value of 12 Alsop v. Bowers, 76 N. C. 168. 13 Barton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. Jun. 461; Emery v. Batchelder, 78 Me. 233, 3 Atl. 733; Loring v. Thompson, 184 Mass. 103, 68 N. E. 45; Carpenter's Estate v. Wiley, 166 Iowa 48, 147 N. W. 175; Towle V. Swasey, 106 Mass. 100; Duncan V. Township of Franklin, 43 N. J. 143, 10 Atl. 546; In re Newman, 4 Demarest (N. Y.) 65; Matter of Merritt, 86 App. Div. 179, 83 N. Y. Supp. 213; affirmed, 176 N. Y. 608, 68 N. E. 1119; Heath V. McLaughlin, 115 N. C. 398, 20 S. E. 519; Nickerson v. Bragg, 21 R. I. 296, 43 Atl. 539. 14 Rexford v. Bacon, 195 111. 70, 62 N. E. 936; Humes v. Wood, 8 Pick. (25 Mass.) 478; Corrigan v. Reid, 40 Ill. App. 404; Barton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. Jun. 461; Wallace v. Wallace, 23 N. H. 149; Bonham v. Bonham, 33 N. J. Eq. 476; Matter of Matthews, 122 App. Div. 605, 107 N. Y. Supp. 301; McGoldrick v. Bodkin, 140 App. Div. 196, 125 N. Y. Supp. 101; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 75 Misc. Rep. 21, 134 N. Y. Supp. 645; Heath v. McLaughlin, 115 N. C. 398, 20 S. E. 519; Baptist Female University v. Borden, 132 N. C. 476, 44 S. E. 47, 1007; Pennsylvania University's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 187; Nickerson v. Bragg, 21 R. I. 296, 43 Atl. 539. the testator's estate. 15 Annuities charged on the personal estate are classed as general legacies, and the rule as to abatement is the same, neither having any preference.16 If, however, the annuities are given as specific gifts chargeable to and as an interest in real estate, they do not abate with legacies charged against the estate generally, there being a deficiency of assets to pay both such annuities and legacies.17 § 695. Specific Legacies and Devises, Abatement Of. Specific devises of realty and specific bequests of personalty abate only after the residuary and general legacies have been exhausted; they abate only for the purpose of paying the debts and expenses of the estate, the abatement being proportional.19 A deficiency of assets to sat 15 Croly v. Weld, 3 De G., M. & G. 993, 995; Arnold v. Arnold, 2 Myl. & K. 365, 374; In re Tootal's Estate, 2 Ch. Div. 628; Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521, 54 N. E. 255. 16 Hume v. Edwards, 3 Atk. 693; Inness v. Mitchell, 1 Phill. Ch. Cas. 710, 716; Emery v. Batchelder, 78 Me. 233, 3 Atl. 733; Pennsylvania University's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 187. Compare: Smith v. Fellows, 131 Mass. 20. The rule applies whether the annuity is to commence at once after the death of the testator, or at a future date.-Inness v. Mitchell, 2 Phill. Ch. Cas. 346. 17 Creed v. Creed, 11 Cl. & F. 491; Portarlington v. Damer, 4 De G., J. & S. 161; Coore v. Todd, 7 De G., M. & G. 520; Towle v. Swasey, 106 Mass. 100. 18 Hensman v. Fryer, L. R. 3 Ch. App. Cas. 420; Gervis v. Gervis, 14 Sim. 654; Maybury V. Grady, 67 Ala. 147; In re Woodworth's Estate, 31 Cal. 595; In re Neistrath's Estate, 66 Cal. 330, 5 Pac. 507; In re De Bernal's Estate, 165 Cal. 223, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 26, 131 Pac. 375; Angus v. Noble, 73 Conn. 56, 46 Atl. 278; In re Parson's Estate, 150 Iowa 230, 129 N. W. 955; Lewis v. Sedgwick, 223 Ill. 213, 79 N. E. 14; Chase v. Lockerman, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 185, 35 Am. Dec. 277; Nash v. Smallwood, 6 Md. 394; Porter v. Howe, 173 Mass. 521, 54 N. E. 255; Cooney v. Whitaker, 192 Mass. 596, 78 N. E. 751; Tuell v. Hurley, 206 Mass. 65, 91 N. E. 1013; In re Corby's Estate, 154 Mich. 353, 117 N. W. 906; In re Drew's Estate, 195 Mo. App. 628, isfy the general legacies will not cause specific legacies to abate unless such general legacies are made a special charge upon the specific legacies or the personal estate and there are no other assets from which they may be satisfied;19 otherwise, specific legacies are not subject to 187 S. W. 788; Nowack v. Berger, 133 Mo. 24, 34, 54 Am. St. Rep. 663, 31 L. R. A. 810, 34 S. W. 489; Wallace v. Wallace, 23 N. H. 149; Bonham v. Bonham, 33 N. J. Eq. 476; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 75 Misc. Rep. 21, 134 N. Y. Supp. 645; Taylor v. Dodd, 58 N. Y. 335; Glass v. Dunn, 17 Ohio St. 413; Hallowell's Estate, 23 Pa. St. 223; Armstrong's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 312; Wood v. Hammond, 16 R. I. 98, 17 Atl. 324, 18 Atl. 198; M'Fadden v. Hefley, 28 S. C. 317, 13 Am. St. Rep. 675, 5 S. E. 812. By making a legacy specific the testator gives the strongest expression of an intention to exempt it from deduction or abatement.In re Drew's Estate, 195 Mo. App. 628, 187 S. W. 788. The reason that specific legacies are preferred over residuary legacies seems to be that if, when the testator made the will and specified the legacies, he knew that he had not sufficient personal property to pay them, he should be deemed to have intended to subject his residuary real estate to the burden of payment, or otherwise he must be deemed to have made his will a mere trick upon the legatees.-McGoldrick v. Bodkin, 140 App. Div. (N. Y.) 196, 125 N. Y. Supp. 101. II Com on Wills-11 By the statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., ch. 104, in England, and by statute in most of these United States, the real property of the estate of a decedent is liable for his debts as well as the personalty, and therefore there seems no reason why specific legatees, whose legacies have been disposed of in order to pay the debts of the estate, can not call upon specific devisees to contribute to their loss.-Jackson v. Pease, L. R. 19 Eq. 96; Maybury v. Grady, 67 Ala. 147; In re Woodworth's Estate, 31 Cal. 595, 616; Brant v. Brant, 40 Mo. 266, 280; In re Grim's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 333. But see, contra: Shreve's Exrs. ▼. Shreve, 10 N. J. Eq. 385, 391; Rogers v. Rogers, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 188, 190; M'Fadden v. Hefley, 28 S. C. 317, 13 Am. St. Rep. 675, 5 S. E. 812; Elliott v. Carter, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 541, 549. If lands are not made subject to simple debts, specific devises will be preferred over specific legacies. - Dugan v. Hollins, 11 Md. 41. 19 Sayer v. Sayer, Prec. Ch. 392; Biddle v. Carraway, 6 Jones Eq. (59 N. C.) 95; White v. Green, 1 Ired. Eq. (36 N. C.) 45. abatement although the general and residuary legacies may be almost exhausted.20 § 696. Demonstrative Legacies, Abatement of. Where the fund out of which demonstrative legacies are to be satisfied is sufficient for such purpose, specific and demonstrative legacies are placed on the same footing with regard to abatement.21 Demonstrative legacies are preferred to general legacies in so far as they can be 20 Clifton v. Burt, 1 P. Wms. 678; Hayes v. Seaver, 7 Me. 237; Stevens v. Fisher, 144 Mass. 114, 10 N. E. 803; Wallace v. Wallace, 23 N. H. 149; Lynch's Estate, 13 Phila (Pa.) 322; Wilson's Estate, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 528; Douglas v. Baber, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 651. A specific devise of land can not be reduced by taking part of it to satisfy the widow's dower.-Rice v. Rice, (Iowa) 119 N. W. 714. Sometimes under statutes, the specific legatees take subject to the widow's rights, and in that case they will be compelled to abate to pay the widow's share if the estate is not sufficient for that purpose without such abatement. -Lewis v. Sedgwick, 223 III. 213, 79 N. E. 14. A specific legacy will be protected as against a general legacy, not only against debts but also the expenses of administration in the settlement of the estate, when it appears that such was the intention of the testator.-In re Corby's Estate, 154 Mich. 353, 117 N. W. 906. When the assets are insufficient, 21 Dugan v. Hollins, 11 Md. 41; O'Day v. O'Day, 193 Mo. 62, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 922, 91 S. W. 921; Armstrong's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 312. "While demonstrative legacies do not abate until general legacies are exhausted, they do abate with specific legacies, after the general ones are exhausted, in order to pay debts."-Matthews v. Targarona, 104 Md. 442, 10 Ann. Cas. 153, 65 Atl. 60. Where all the legacies are demonstrative, there is a presumption that the testator did not intend to give one legacy a preference over others in the absence of any statement showing such inten. tion, and therefore they will abate proportionately in case of an insufficiency of assets to pay them all in full. - Estate of Apple, 66 Cal. 432, 6 Pac. 7; Matthews v. Targarona, 104 Md. 442, 10 Ann. Cas. 153, 65 Atl. 60; Alsop v. Bowers, 76 N. C. 168. paid out of the fund designated for that purpose;22 but when that fund is exhausted and they remain unsatisfied, as to the unpaid portion they lose their specific character and stand as general legacies.23 When demonstrative legacies, thus become general, they abate pro rata with general legacies.24 If part of the demonstrative legacy be paid out of the fund, only the balance is liable to abate with the general legacies, if the general estate be not sufficient to meet them all.25 § 697. Legacies Given for a Valuable Consideration. An exception to the rule that all the general legacies abate proportionally where there is a deficiency of assets, is made in the case of legacies bequeathed for a valuable consideration; for where a general legacy is sustained by a valuable consideration, such as the relinquishment of a debt, and the right to the claim constituting the consideration subsists at the testator's death, the legatee is entitled to the full payment of his legacy in preference to the other general legatees who take merely of the testator's bounty.26 But money to pay the debts. O'Day v. O'Day, 193 Mo. 62, 4 24 Mullins v. Smith, 1 Drew. & Sm. 204; Gelbach v. Shively, 67 Md. 498, 501, 10 Atl. 247; Matter of Warner, 39 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 432, 79 N. Y. Supp. 363. 25 Sellon v. Watts, 7 Jur. N. S. Dig. 134. 26 Burridge v. Bradyl, 1 P. Wms. 127; Blower v. Morret, 2 Ves. Sen. 420; Norcott v. Gordon, 14 Sm. |