sonal. This rule applies, although there be a specific devise of part of the real estate intervening between the gift of the legacies and the residuary clause. It has been said, however, in Pennsylvania, that the blending of realty and personalty in the residuary clause, whereby the debts are charged upon the realty, may be a circumstance indicative of an intention to exempt the person 5 Ex parte Dickson, 64 Ala. 188; Hilford v. Way, 1 Del. Ch. 342; Walker v. Follett's Estate, 105 Me. 201, 73 Atl. 1092; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 13 Allen (95 Mass.) 252; Hays v. Jackson, 6 Mass. 149; Thayer v. Finnegan, 134 Mass. 62, 45 Am. Rep. 285; Knotts v. Bailey, 54 Miss. 235, 28 Am. Rep. 348; Heatherington v. Lewenberg, 61 Miss. 372; Corwine v. Corwine, 24 N. J. Eq. 579; Waln v. Emley, 26 N. J. Eq. 243; Johnson v. Poulson, 32 N. J. Eq. 390; Cook v. Lanning, 40 N. J. Eq. 369, 3 Atl. 132; Lavaggi v. Borella, 73 N. J. Eq. 419, 67 Atl. 929; Lewis v. Darling, 16 How. (U. S.) 1, 10, 14 L. Ed. 819; Goddard v. Pomeroy, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 547; Shulters v. Johnson, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 80; Roman Catholic German Church V. Wachter, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 43; Finch v. Hull, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 226; LeFevre v. Toole, 84 N. Y. 95; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 N. Y. 142; Scott v. Stebbins, 91 N. Y. 605; Moore v. Beckwith's Exrs., 14 Ohio St. 129, 135; In re Gallagher's Appeal, 48 Pa. St. 122; In re Wertz's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 173; In re Davis' Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 348; Greene v. Rathbun, 32 R. I. 145, 78 Atl. 528; Haldeman v. Oppenheimer, 103 Tex. 275, 126 S. W. 566; Read v. Cather's Admr., 18 W. Va. 263. The rule is adopted in a modified form in Johnson v. Farrell, 64 N. C. 266, and Bynum v. Hill, 71 N. C. 319. Contra: Gridley v. Andrews, 8 Conn. 1; Lupton v. Lupton, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 614; Myers v. Eddy, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 264. In the following cases it was held that such a blended gift is not, of itself, sufficient to charge the realty, but may have that effect when combined with other circumstances. See Van Winkle v. Van Houten, 2 Green Ch. (N. J.) 172; Dey v. Dey, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 Green C. E.) 137; Laurens v. Read, 14 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 245. Compare: McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 459; Forster v. Civill, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 282; Manson v. Manson, 8 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 123; Hart v. Williams, 77 N. C. 426. 6 Francis v. Clemow, Kay 435, 437; Wheeler v. Howell, 3 Kay & J. 198; Bench v. Biles, 4 Madd. 187. alty as the primary fund for their payment; but that of itself, it is insufficient to effect that result." And in West Virginia it would seem that a charge upon realty will be deemed to have been created by such blended residuary bequest only in the event of the personalty proving inadequate for the payment of the legacies. § 800. Whether the Charge Is Upon the Devise or Upon the Devisee. A devisee who accepts a benefit conferred by a will, coupled with a direction that he shall pay a certain sum to another person, thereby becomes personally liable to pay the legacy; and the legatee may enforce payment by an action of debt. The land, however, is not discharged from the lien of the legacy; nor is the legatee obliged, before resorting to the land, to proceed against the testator's personal estate.10 But something more than a mere direction to a devisee to pay a legacy is necessary to constitute a charge upon the land devised.11 7 In re Crone's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 571. 8 Thomas v. Rector, 23 W. Va. 26. 9 Kakuska v. Roubyk, 155 Ill. App. 452; Lofton v. Moore, 83 Ind. 112; Porter v. Jackson, 95 Ind. 210, 48 Am. Rep. 704; Mohn v. Mohn, 148 Iowa 288, 126 N. W. 1127; Etter v. Greenawalt, 98 Pa. St. 422. The devisee is not liable to the legatee before taking possession of the land.-Wilson v. Moore, 86 Ind. 244. 10 Lofton v. Moore, 83 Ind. 112. The provisions of a will charging the son and sole legatee of the testator with the duty of caring for two younger children was held to create a lien in their favor for such purpose. - Low v. Ramsey, 135 Ky. 333, 135 Am. St. Rep. 459, 122 S. W. 167. Where the will directed that the "owners" of land devised should put in the stable on the premises occupied by the testator's wife "as much hay as she may need to feed one horse and two cows," the fact that the widow removed from the premises mentioned did not forfeit her right to the hay, and it was held a charge on the land.In re Gingrich's Estate, 226 Pa. 9, 74 Atl. 611. 11 Hamilton v. Porter, 63 Pa. St. Accordingly, where a testator devised land to his son William, "he paying the legacies hereinafter enjoined on him to pay," and the son died without paying a certain legacy, it was held that the legatee could not follow the land.12 Where a devisee is charged with the support of a person, the latter's claim can not be enforced against the land itself in the absence of words in the will clearly warranting such a construction.18 So where the words of the will were, "Hamilton is to take a hundred acres of land at my death and pay seven hundred dollars to each of my within-named heirs," it was decided that the legacies were not charged upon the land, but that the devisee, having accepted the gift, became personally liable and answerable in assumpsit.1 § 801. The Same Subject. To make a legacy a charge upon the land given the devisee, it is necessary that it should be declared so by express words, or that it may be inferred from the whole will that such was the intention of the testator.15 Such an inference may be drawn from the use of the word "thereout," or similar expressions;16 as where the gift to the devisee is followed by such words as "he to pay thereout" a legacy to another.17 And an intention to 332; In re Buchanan's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 448; Van Vliet's Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 574, 576. 12 In re Buchanan's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 448. 13 In re Haworth's Appeal, 105 Pa. 362. 14 In re Brandt's Appeal, 8 Watts (Pa.) 198; Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 414; Hamilton v. Porter, 63 Pa. St. 332, 334. 15 Montgomery v. McElroy, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 370, 38 Am. Dec. 771. 16 Hoover v. Hoover, 5 Barr. (5 Pa.) 351. 17 Thayer v. Finnegan, 134 Mass. 62, 45 Am. Rep. 285; In re Cable's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 327, 329. Compare: 4 Kent Com. *540; King v. Denison, 1 Ves. & B. 260; Gardner v. Gardner, 3 Mason 178, charge the legacies upon the land itself was gathered from the whole will, in a case where the testator bequeathed certain land to a son "at thirty-three dollars per acre, and the proceeds thereof to be divided into eight equal shares," and be distributed among the other sons and daughters.18 Likewise, where a testator gave a sum of money to his sons in trust for his daughters, to pay to each her share upon her attaining a certain age, and the rest of the property, both real and personal, was directed to be divided among his sons, the daughters' shares constituted a charge upon the land.19 Where, however, it was evidently the testator's intention that legacies imposed as charges on an estate should be paid from the income after the maintenance of the devisee should have been secured out of the income, the liability of the devisees to the legatees was held to be confined to the income from the estate. 20 In another case, a farm was devised to the testator's son, and the will directed that a daughter of the testator should be supported on it. The house having burned and the son having offered the daughter a choice of residences until a new house should be built, she could not, upon refusal of the offer, enforce a claim against him for money.21 § 802. Limitations Upon Charges. Where no time for the payment of legacies charged upon land is fixed by the will, the general rule is that they should be raised immediately, and the title thereto Fed. Cas. No. 5227; In re Walters' 18 In re Gilbert's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 347. 19 Moore v. Davidson, 22 S. C. 92. 20 Eskridge v. Farrar, 34 La. Ann. 709; Nudd v. Powers, 136 Mass. 273. 21 Bennett (N. Y.) 251. v. Akin, 38 Hun will vest upon the death of the testator;22 and charges do not fail by reason of the lapse of the devise or legacy upon which they are made.23 The claims of legatees upon lands charged with the payment of legacies are not barred by statutes of limitations," although, of course, equity will not aid the enforcement of such a claim where a legatee has been guilty of laches.25 A charge once created will continue until satisfied, although dependent upon so remote a contingency as the future liability of the testator's daughters "coming to want."26 A provision in a will that the value of land specifically devised shall be charged to the devisee as part of his share, requires that the charge be made on the basis of the full value of the land, although the devisee's estate be a defeasible one.27 § 803. Charges Following the Land. Purchasers of real property from devisees prior to a complete settlement of the estate take the land subject to the possibility that it may be sold for the satisfaction of claims against the estate.28 Creditors may hold each beneficiary liable to the extent of the assets received by 22 Cowper v. Scott, 3 P. Wms. 119; Wilson v. Spencer, 3 P. Wms. 172; Emes v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 507; Hodgson v. Rawson, 1 Ves. Sen. 44; Furness v. Fox, 1 Cush. (56 Mass.) 134, 48 Am. Dec. 593; Bowker v. Bowker, 9 Cush. (63 Mass.) 519. Compare: Ager v. Pool, Dyer 371b; Turner v. Probyn, 1 Anstr. 66; Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. Wms. 612, Cox's note. 23 Oke v. Heath, 1 Ves. Sen. 135. See $$ 760, 761. 24 Watson v. Saul, 1 Giff. 188. 25 Henderson v. Atkins, 28 L. J. Ch. N. S. 913; Gwynne v. Gell, 20 L. T. 508. 26 Pickering v. Pickering, 15 N. H. 281. But see Donnelly v. Edelen, 40 Ind. 117; Clyde v. Simpson, 4 Ohio St. 445; Baylor's Lessee v. Dejarnette, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 152. 27 Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526, 28 L. Ed. 816, 5 Sup. Ct. 291. 28 Flood v. Strong, 108 Mich. 561, 66 N. W. 473; Thomas v. Williams |