{
  "id": 8690494,
  "name": "John Bullock v. Richard Bullock, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bullock v. Bullock",
  "decision_date": "1832-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "322",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. Eq. 307"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Law. Rep. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Law Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1161,
    "char_count": 33148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.367,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.131684355300914e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9560455069002093
    },
    "sha256": "18127ccc5a4998c77ad8a67e8186da6b8c1fde1d01f3f1161ce8f9da7ecf441e",
    "simhash": "1:d3a3324db564ae1a",
    "word_count": 5914
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:28.297091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Bullock v. Richard Bullock, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Chief-Justice\nThis bill is filed by John Bullock, executor of Win Bullock, to have the trusts of his testator\u2019s will declared, and to have tiie advice of the court on the execution of them. It is a proper case for such an application, as the will in many parts is of very doubtful meaning.\nThe question which presents itself is as to the increase of the slaves bequeathed to his daughters Susan Jiggils and Lucy Lewis, and to his grandson, Wm. B. Inge.. As to tlie latter, wo decline to give an opinion, as the testator says he lias made his grandson a deed of gift for the slaves. This deed must determine the question, and we have it not before us.\nA legacy to a daughter of \u201cthe negroes I placed in her possession at her marriage,\u201d passes the increase as well as the original stock.\nA parol gift of slaves is not entirely void by the act of 1806,(72ct. c. 701,) the death of the donor, or a confirmation of it by him renders it good ab initio.\nAs to the two former, we think that the increase passed to his daughters respectively, together with the original stock, as wre look upon the bequests rather as confirmations of prior gifts than as legacies de novo. The testator in describing the original stock, says they are the slaves which he put into their possession, upon their . . marriages respectively Our act of 1806, {Rev. c. 701 does not annul entirely gifts of slaves made by parents to children, either express, or those presumed from a delivery of possession, but leaves them in the hands of the child as an advancement, if the parent does not by will or otherwise, declare the contrary. And although in this case, they are not advancements, so as to be brought into hotch-pot, for there is no intestacy, yet they have that character so far as to -form a guide in-arriving at the testator\u2019s intent. There are additions al reasons appearing upon other parts of the will, which support this conclusion. In the clause creating cross remainders, we understand that this property is not esteemed as property received under the will, but as falling within the description of that heretofore received. The codicil affords strong proof, that as to these legacies he did not deem it necessary to mention the increase in order to pass them. For he therein declared, that as to the increase of the negroes bequeathed to his son John, in trust for the heirs of his son William, and of his daughter Fanny Jinn, he intended it should pass, anchis silent as to the increase of those bequeathed to his daughters Susan and Lucy. In the will, they were bequeathed in the same way without the increase. As to those given in trust for the heirs of his son and daughter, there had been no prior gift or delivery to the trustee, or the heirs, which the will could confirm. And therefore the testator very probably concluded, that it required express words to carry the increase. He there inserted the increase in the codicil as to them and said nothing as to the legacies in question, thinking as we believe, that the increase passed by the confirmation of the original gift. An additional reason might be given. He made a de^d of gift to his grandson, Wm. B. Inge, for ihe negroes lie put into the possession of his mother under the same circumstances. This' deed carried the interest from its date. Why then it may be asked, should he make this exception against these two daughters ?\nA legacy of stock in trade and all purchases made therewith, gives the legatee the profits there.\nWc think also, that the bequest to the plaintiff of the testator\u2019s interest in the Clarkesville si ore, in trust for the heirs of his son William, carries with it the testator\u2019s share of the profits. This, we think, sufficiently appears on the face of the will. But taken in connexion with the master\u2019s report made from the books of the concern, and from the testator\u2019s own books, to which wo think the testator has given a testamentary character and which ought to be proved as parts of his will, as far as they are referred to in it \u2014 there cannot be a doubt on the subject. The words of the will are \u2014 \u201cmy said son John, (who became the partner of the testator after the purchase) is to continue to manage it to the best advantage, as ho has done for several years past, with all the purchases lie has made of (with) said stock, for the benefit of John and William Bullock, I do hereby leave for the benefit of the heirs of Win. H. Bullock.\u201d From the master\u2019s report, it appears that nearly the whole of the stock and profits, at least a great part thereof, had been applied to the use of William IS. Bullock, with the testator\u2019s consent. I say with his consent, for he was a partner, and lived in the neighborhood, and it is presumed he knew the state of the books. And further, the sum of $1015 10, the one half of the amount given for the goods by William and Richard, Bullock,, to William and John Bullock, is carried to the testator\u2019s own books, and entered as a credit thereon to Jfm. H. Bullock. We cannot but understand from this, that the appropriations made to the use of William SI. Bullock, by John Bullock, the active partner, 'were known to and approved of by the testator. And these advances made to Jim. H. Bullock, and appearing on the testator\u2019s books, as charges against him, against whom and all his other \u00a9hildren, it appears that the testator kept accounts, is conclusive evidence to show, both that the testator in* tended tbo profits to pass ; amt also approved of the ap-propriatiou of both stock and profits by the plaintiff, the active partner, to the use of Wm. II. Bullock. No exceptions being taken to the master\u2019s report on this subject, the same is confirmed; and the executor is directed in closing the accounts of said concern, to make the said report the basis of the settlement.\nA legacy to tlie lieirs of a living person, is to bo construed as to his children, if it will that he is li-v'ms-\nAnd in that case after horn children take un-dor the words \u201cheirsproceeding from Uls body\u00bb \u25a0\nThe next question is, as to the meaning of the words, heirs of the body, or heirs proceeding from the body: for ,. , , . , . . .. . . , testator uses both expressions indiscriminately. \u2014 - The words imnort a present gift. And if there is no person to taKc the legacy, it is void. As to the meaning of the words lieirs of the body of Wm. II Bullock,. we arc relieved from all difficulty on the subject. For the testator notices in another part of his will, that his son \u201e . ,. _ , ,. , William 11. is ahve. In speaking of some article, lie says, \u201cwhich my son William II. has now on loan.\u201d\u2014 \u2014. . . , f, \u00bb .. . . Jhvidently therciorc, lie di\u00ab not mean heirs m its technical sense, the representatives of a dead man, but heirs apparent, to wit, issue, children. And we think the same construction must be put on the words, \u201cheirs of the body of Fanny Ann Until.\u201d In the first place, we Lave a specimen of the testator\u2019s meaning of the words,. and unless controlled by other words, the same words should have the same meaning j and especially, when used by the same person in the same instrument, on thesamesufc-ject matter. The words are \u2018 \u2018 proceeding from the body 5\u201d which word proceeding, is future, contingent, not past \u2014 \u25a0 which have proceeded. It looks forward to the having of other children. Another reason might be given, if necessary. The testator mentions his daughter, Fanny Jinn, many times. Ho never declares whether she is living or dead. He mentions his daughter Elizabeth, hut once. He then calls her his \u201cdeceased daughter.\u2019? \u00cd have avoided touching on the doctrine of the case of Stith v. Barnes, (1 Law. Rep. 484.) We are therefore of opinion, that in each case, the words hdirs of the body mean children, or rather issue. The next question is, do these words take in after born children ; or is it confined to those born at the making of the will, or the tes* tator\u2019s death. We think it embraces all. And we rely on the word jyroceeding as sufficient, independently of all other reasons. We are aware that in the conveyance of a mere legal estate, the estate cannot open and shut, as it is called. For the estate must pay to the grantee at first, br not at all. I speak of immediate freehold interests. It is otherwise as to a use or a trust. These may-cease in one person in whole or in part, and arise in another. Ami if it be a use, a sufficient scintilla of seisin remains in the trustee, to be converted into a seisin to feed the new use. And it is the same in wills. But here there is not only a will, but a trustee also for the heirs, as well those born as those to be horn. This is said as to the lands.- As to the personal estate, the inconvenience of permitting it, is here avoided. For the legatees in trust are not entitled to the control of the property, or to call for an immediate conveyance on account of these ulterior trusts ; so that there is no danger of its being wasted or eloigned, to defeat the ulterior cestuis que trust.. And we can therefore see no reason, why the personal estate also, should not open upon the birth of a child, and let it in to the benefit of the trust. And if there was no trustee appointed by the will, the court, to effectuate these intents, would declare the heir and executor trustees for that purpose.\nThe next question is, what property is subject to the cross remainders ? From the will we are bound to say all the properly taken under ii. These arc the testator\u2019s words; and there is nothing in the will to control them, or-vary the meaning, only tiie expression \u201c not adverting to what has heretofore been given.\u201d This can control them so far only, as to exclude all property, which the will states, either expressly or impliedly, to have been heretofore received. For as to that, the testator has made the will more confirmatory than legatory. But we cannot travel out of the will to ascertain what he intends to confirm as a gift or qziasi gift, and what he in-, tends as a legacy de novo, entirely under the will.\n[ His Honor then proceeded to specify what property was subject to the cross remainders, and came to the con* elusion, that all the property which had not been given by the testator to his children before the date of the will, was thus subject \u2014 including in this exception, property which had been given to r'Hliiam II. Bullock, and Fanny Jinn limit, but which was by the will devised to the plaintiff in trust for their several children.]\nAccounts rc-becometestameu-tary and may bo nono?thntiSta-tot\u2019s intention,\nThe Executor has asked the advice and assistance of the court, in regard to the property subject to the cross remainders. He must take bonds from the legatees with ample sureties payable to himself, that the property shall be forthcoming, in case it shall be necessary, to perform the'ulterior trusts of the testator\u2019s will.\nUpon the subject of accountability for the receipts and advancements to equalize the distribution, upon what the testator calls the first division of his estate, wo are left somewhat in the dark. But after much consideration, we think that nothing received under the will, except the $ 4,000 to John Bullock, anil a part of the legacy given to him in trust for the heirs of Fanny Jinn Hunt, are to be accounted for. The testator\u2019s will, as to what is equality, is the sole law. He can by his declaration so far as respects this question, make that equal which is in fact unequal. In giving the other legacies, he says nothing about inequality, but whenever he speaks of those two, he speaks of equality and drawbacks, and directs that they shall bo accounted for upon the division. It appears also, that the testator had something else in view when he speaks of equalizing the other legatees, master reports, that lie had kept accounts against i,is children. It must bo that he refers to those accounts, when he says, these two legatees are in advance of the -others. Had not the testator by referring to his books, made them in some degree testamentary, wg could not possibly travel out of the will to ascertain his meaning. In making the division, the executor will not consider the legacies given in the will, except as above mentioned, as creating the inequality to be made up upon the division. But he will be governed by the master\u2019s report on the subject, as to the advancements made to the different children } and will make that the basis on which to found the equality directed by the testator, except as to the legacy to himself of g 4,000, which he will take into the account as so much advanced him, together with interest thereon from the time he received it. He will also take into account the monies paid hy the testator for the land devised to him, in trust for the heirs of Fanny Jinn Hunt, together with all his testator\u2019s liabilities for John Hunt, deducting therefrom the bond which his testator gave to John Hunt, all which appears upon the master\u2019s report. The executor will strike a fair balance, and make what is due from John Hunt the basis of equalizing the legacy to the heirs of Fanny Jinn upon the division. In striking the balance, the executor will include what he, as executor, has yet to pay on account of his testator\u2019s suretyship for John Hunt, as wel] as what he has paid.\nThe Clerk and Master having reported, that William H. Bullock and John Hunt are prudent and discreet persons, and properly qualified to take the management of the property bequeathed to their respective families, the executor is hereby authorized, if bethinks proper, to put the trust property in their hands respectively, for the support of their families and to permit them to expend the whole profits for that purpose, and in the education of their children, the master having reported that they are not more than sufficient for that purpose. But the property is to be under the supervision of the executor, who may at his pleasure withdraw it, and must do so upon their mismanagement.\nAs to the application of the trustee to ho permitted to retire from the trusts, we can see no reason why he should, and therefore refuse his application.\nWe are also of opinion, that the heirs of William H. Bullock and the heirs of Fanny .inn Hunt form a unit each, and that upon the death of any one of them, the share of the one so dying goes to its heirs and next of kin, and not to the children of the testator.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Degree accordingly.\nAt this term the plaintiff\" filed a petition verified by affidavit, in which he stated that the defendant Richard Bullock had become insolvent and as far as the interest of his infant cestui que trusts extended, lie prayed that the legacy of the defendant Richard should not bo paid over to him.\nThe defendants also filed a petition to rehear that part of the former decree which declared that all property which passed under the will was subject to the cross limitations \u2014 contending that it only applied to the property.-to be received at the last division. A rehearing was also bad of the former order, refusing to substitute William II. Bullock and John Hunt as trustees for tlieir children instead of the plaintiff.\nGaston, for the defendant.\nHehdersoN, Chief-Justice.\nWe are satisfied with our former opinion, as to what part of the testator\u2019s property is subject to the limitations in cross remainder; the words of the will arc too strong and point too plainly to what shall be received under the will as distinguished from that which had been heretofore received. The first, meaning that which the legatees had not possessed before but claimed entirely under the will; the latter, that which helmd before the making of his wdll possessed them of, and confirmed to them by the will. We went as far as we could in declaring that the property put into the bands of William H. Bullock and Fanny Jinn Hunt, and by the will given to John Bullock in trust for tlieir respective Children, to be property not received under the will in the meaning of the testator; substituting the trustee to their prior possessions, and their children to them.\nWe think that wc erred in directing the executor not to pay or deliver over the property subject to the cross limitations in remainder j for the testator has prescribed no conditions, and we think we cannot so do unless for some cause which wo think would have determined the testator himself to provide the means hy which his ulterior legatees should not be disappointed. In such a case we think it would be our duty to interfere, for we should then speak what we presume the testator would himself say were he capable of speaking, or would hare provided for had he foreseen the necessity. It is going very far then to take care of a remote contingent interest, to the prejudice of the near and immediate objects of the testator\u2019s bounty, for it almost necessarily reduces the legacy to its interests or profits only. However, where there is a cause for it, as insolvency or the like, we think that we are bound to interfere, and John Bullock, the executor, as guardian and next friend to James Bullock, and trustee for the children of William 11. Bullock and Fanny Ann Hunt, having by his petition, verified by affidavit presented at this term, stated that Richard one of the legatees is insolvent to a very large amount, and praying that the said Richard should bo restrained and enjoined from demanding any part of said legacy in cross remainder so far as those for whom he acts are concerned, we think that until the petition be disposed of, that the prayer of the petition should be granted and the benefit of it be extend\u00e9d to all, for if Richard be insolvent it should affect all those who may claim.\nIn remote limitations of personal estate the first taker is not to secure the forth coming of the property to answer the ulterior' limitations unless ho be insolvent.\n\u00a5c therefore direct, that until bond and satisfactory surety be given by Richard for the forthcoming of the property as before mentioned, or until this court shall otherwise direct, the executor shall not pay said legacy or any part thereof to said Richard, and that the said Richard be restrained and enjoined from demanding and suing for said legacy.\nIn the former decree it was erroneously directed that the plaintiff should be charged with interest on the four thousand dollar legacy, from the time he received it. The court reverses so much of that decree and now declares that the same is payable out of the funds of Norwood and . Bullock from the first money received therefrom after the payment of the debts of the firm. The legatee is and was entitled to receive the same out of the first money collected from said firm, after paying the debts thereof and that he is not chargeable with interest thereon, but if the fund is sufficient, he is entitled to interest thereon from one year after the testator\u2019s death until he recover the amount.\nThe petition of William H. Bullock and John Sunt praying to be substituted for John Bullock as trustee for their children respectively, is continued for further con-' sideration.\nPer Curiam\u00bb \u2014 Decree accord in gxy.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Chief-Justice HehdersoN, Chief-Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The case was \"discussed several terms ago, by Jfash for the plaintiff, and Badger and Devcreux for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Bullock v. Richard Bullock, et al.\nThe executor of a will which is of doubtful import has a right to apply to a court of equity to have it construed, and its trusts declared.\nWilliam Bullock, late of Granville county, duly made and published his will, whereby he devised as follows:\n'\u201cI give my daughter Susan Jig gits, the 12 negroes, \u201cand stock of horses and cattle, household goods, &c. \u201cput in her possession on her marriage with Dr. Win. \u201cDams, also one thousand dollars, which was appropria- \u201c tecl to the payment of Dr. Davis\u2019 debts as executor to \u201c his estate after his death, which money was credited \u201c said estate in settlement of account.\n\u201c I give unto my grandson, Wm. B. Inge, the 14 ne- \u201c groes lent to his mother Elizabeth Inge, with all the \u201c stock and household-furniture put in her possession at \u201c her marriage with Dr. R.Inge; the negro property, \u201cI have heretofore made my grandson, W. B. a deed of \u201cgift for, which is in full of the legacy to my said de- \u201c jiarted daughter Elizabeth.\n\u201c I give unto my son John Bullock, the eight thousand \u201c dollars furnished in establishing him with a store in \u201c Clarkesville in 1818, which has been paid over to \u201chim, also, Squire and Charles being a part thereof; \u201c also a house, lot, furniture &c. furnished, all of which \u201cI hereby give him and his heirs forever in like manner. \u201c I now give him four thousand dollars to be made out \u201cof the first money that is made after paying all the \u201c debts that may be owing by the concern of Bullock & \u201c Jforxvood in Warren, North-Carolina.\n\u201c I give unto my son Richard, 8000 dollars and pro- \u201c fits proceeding therefrom, as settled by us at the dissolution of our business in 1825, which may be seen \u201cin Win. & R. Bullock\u2019s Ledger C, also, &c. to him and \u201c his heirs forever.\n\u201c I give unto my daughter Lucy Lewis, the fifteen ne- \u201c groes I placed in her possession at her marriage with \u201c with Mr.' JV*. M. Lexvis, with &c. to her and her heirs \u201c forever.\n\u201c I give unto my son James M. Bullock, my two blacksmiths, Peter and Tom, .with the black-smith\u2019s tools \u201cand seven thousand dollars to be made out of my es- \u201c tate to be paid to him by my executor whenever my \u201cson James marries, or arrives at the age of twenty \u201c years, (to have interest from the time of my decease) \u201c or at a sooner period, should my executor think it \u201cwould be to James\u2019 interest to have it; I also give \u201c him &c.\n\u201cI also give unto my wife Lucy and son Lames, the \u201c part of the tract of land I now live on, lying on the \u201c south side of the road leading from Capt. W. Norwoods\u2019 \u201c mill to Shilo meeting house being part of &c. with all the \u201c negroes thereon, except those heretofore given, &c. 6a-\u201cbriel,Joe. Silvey, Creatia and boy child Mick, Bob, Jenny \u201c\u00bf\u00a1\u2022soi^Dete\" (Culbreath,) the balance of negroes on said \u201cplantation, about fifty one or two in number, with all \u201c the stock thereon not heretofore given, household and \u201c kitchen &c. all of which is given during the natural life \u201cof my -\\viicLucij, and at her death I give the land to my \u201cson James his heirs and assigns forever. Should my son \u201c James marry, or should there become any discontent \u201cbetween my wife and son James, I would recommend \u201c to my executor to have a comfortable house built, but \u201cnot very costly, on some part of the land for cither \u201cparty, as will be most advisable; and let there be a \u201c division of these fifty two or three negroes, James to \u201c have one third of them, my wife two thirds.\n\u201cI give unto my sons John, Richard, and the heirs \u201c proceeding from the body of William II. Bullock, the \u201ctract of land lying on the north side of the main road \u201c leading from, &c. to them and their heirs forever.\n\u201c I give unto my son John Bullock in trust for the ben- \u201c efit of the heirs of my daughter Fanny Jinn Hunt the \u201cfifteen negroes I putin her possession at her marriage \u201cwith Capt. J. Hunt \u2014 also the tract of land whereon \u201c Capt. Hunt now lives containing 585 acres. I give \u201cthe stock of horses, cattle, and household furniture \u201cloaned John and Frunces, in the same manner to them \u201c and their heirs forever, to the heirs proceeding from \u201cthe body of my daughter Fanny Jinn ; but be it understood as I have advanced money and paid for this land \u201c given the heirs of Fanny Hunt, there will be a draw- \u201c back on those legacies which I may give to the said \u201cFanny Ann, and it will be understood that each Iega- \u201c tee must make up these debts and have so much dis- \u201c counted in their ratio at the division of my estate, that \u201c each legatee may share and share alike.\n\u201cI give unto my son John Bullock, in trust neverthc- \u201c less for the heirs of W. II. Bullock, the interest I purchased of Col. John Baptist in Clarksville, of stock in \u201c trade with said son John of about $5,400, to still con- \u201c tinue to manage it to the best advantage as he has done \u201cfor several years past, with all purchases that he has \u201c made of said stock for the benefit of John and W. Bullock, I do hereby leave for the benefit of the heirs of \u201c W. Bullock; it is well known that the first niqiety given \u201c my son William, there is none remaining.\n\u201cHaving about 18 negroes at the mill plantation in \u201c addition to them will be added Gabriel, &c. making if '\u201c no mistake in count, twenty-seven there, with all the \u201cstock of every description in said plantation except '\u201c such property as my son W. H. has in loan and brought \u201cwith him, with all thereto pertaining, with the balance \u201c of the concern in Warren, with all the debts due me \u201c after discharging my own debts, with every other spe- \u2022\u2018 cies of property I possess that does not belong to the \u201c tract of land whereon I now live, after paying Janies \u201c his legacy, be equally divided between my sons John, \u201c Richard and the heirs of W. II. Bullock as one distrib- \u201c utce, my daughter Susan Jiggits, Lucy Lewis, the \u201c heirs of Fanny Hunt as one distributee,- and my son \u201c James M. Bullock, all the foregoing property, tobe \u201c equally divided share and share alike ; but it will be \u201c understood, that my son John Bullock and the heirs of \u201c Fanny Hunt will have a considerable draw-back as \u201c they are considerably beforehand in receiving of my \u201c estate; therefore, what they have and will receive will \u201c be accounted as part of their legacy and the quota ls made up to them, so as all will share and share alike \u201c at the first division.\n((^ftcr tjie {|eatll ()f my Wjfe> I wish an equal division \u201c of my estate that may have been loaned to her or my \u201c son James, with every species of property not hcreto- \u201c fore* given, tobe equally divided between my son John, \u201c Richard and the heirs of TV. Bullock, as one distributee, \u201c my daughter Susamiah Lucy, the heir of Fanny Hunt, 11 as one distributee, and my son J. M. Bullock share and \u201c share alike, all the property that will be received by \u201c virtue of this my last will and testament, (not ad ver-ting to that that has been heretofore given.) I give it \u201c on the following conditions: if those to whom it is giv- \u201c en die without a lawful heir, then in that case for their \u201cproperty to return to the surviving brothers and sis- \u201c ters, or to their heirs in case they should die first and \u201cleave heirs.\u201d\n\u201cA codicil to the foregoing will.\n\u201cI give unto my son Richard Bullock, negro boys \u201c Anthony and Sam now in his possession. I give unto \u201c my son John Bullock, for the benefit of the heirs of W. \u201c Bullock, which may proceed from his body, Jonas, &c_. \u201c with their future increase. The negroes named in the \u201c foregoing will given my son John for the benefit of the \u201c heirs of (V. Bullock and Fanny Hunt, which was nam- \u201c ed without the increase, but be it understood that I \u201c intended to convey them and their increase, and do \u201c hereby convey them and their increase.\u201d\nOf this will the testator appointed his son, the plaintiff, sole executor. The bill charged that in many respects, it was difficult to put a construction on the will which was satisfactory to the plaintiff or which'he could safely adopt, especially as some of the legatees and devisees (those supposed to be intended by the description of the heirs of William H. Bullock and Fanny Ann Hunt, for whom the plaintiff was constituted testator,) were infants of tender years. The bill then set forth the difficulties which the plaintiff experienced, in the following order: That it was uncertain whether the issue of the slaves 'mentioned in the first, second and fifth clauses of the will passed to the legatees respectively named therein, or was a part of the residue and subject to division as provided by the residuary clause.\nThat as to the bequest to the plaintiff of the testator\u2019s interest in the Clarkesville store \u201cin trust for the heirs of William H. Bullock,\" the plaintiff alleged'that fie was in that store a partner with his testator \u2014 that the testator\u2019s interest therein had been appropriated by him for many years to the maintenance and support of the family of his son William H. Bullock who had become insolvent \u2014that by these advances the property had been nearly exhausted \u2014 that it was the testator\u2019s habit to charge his children with all the property which he conveyed to them and credit them with that which they returned to him\u2014 that a short period before the death of the testator the plaintiff had by his directions assigned all the effects of that partnership to tiic heirs of William and Richard Bullock, another company in which the testator was in-, terested, that one half of the sum paid by the latter co-partnership for this assignment was placed on the books of the testator to the credit of William JI. Bullock, so that in appearance this was a debt due him when in fact it was a legacy. The plaintiff in this respect prayed that this balance might be declared not to be a debt, and as ho occupied the threefold character of surviving partner, executor and trustee, that his accounts might be settled under the direction of the court; and farther that if; might be declared whether in the legacy to the plaintiff intrust, for the heirs of William H. Bullock, the testator\u2019s share of the profits passed.\nThe plaintiff then set forth his belief that the testator constituted him. a trustee for the children of his son William and his daughter Fanny Jhin^ flnnt, solely because of the insolvency of their respective fathers, and that he had the utmost confidence in the integrity of his son and son-in-law and would haye constituted them trustees for their respective children, had he not feared that thereby the property given the latter would have been subjected to the debts of their fathers.\nThe plaintiff then avowed his belief in the integrity of bis brother and brother-in-law, and prayed that they be constituted in his stead. If the plaintiff could not suc-cee\u00bf ju this, then he prayed that it might be declared whether he was a trustee for the children of William II. Bullock and Fanny Jinn Hunt born at the date of the will, or at the death of the testator \u2014 or whether the trusts extended to children subsequently born. The plaintiff further requested direction as to the course he was to pursue in making the final division, whether he was to estimate in making up the share of each of the legatees the balances against them on the books of his testator, and also the pecuniary and specific legacies given them by the will; and as he was interested in that division, that it might be. made under an order of the court.\u2014 Upon this subject the plaintiff admitted that lie was to account in the division of the residue for the 4000 dollars given him by the fourth clause of the will, and he insisted that the testator, in speaking in the tenth clause of the drawback due by the plaintiff and the heirs of Fanny Jinn Hunt, alluded to the 4000 dollars given the former and to the payment mentioned in the eighth, clause made by him for the land devised to the heirs of the. latter.\u2014 And finally, the bill stated that the plaintiff was entirely ignorant of the property which was subjected to the cross remainders created by the last clause of the will \u2014 whether the cross remainders attached upon all the property which passed under the will, or were confined to that disposed of by the residuary clause \u2014 whether they applied to all legacies as well pecuniary as specific, or whether they were confined to the last \u2014 and if applicable to the pecuniary legacies, the plaintiff prayed he might be protected in paying them over.. A\u00cd1 the parties interested under the will, wore made defendants_ of these William B. Inge was a non-resident and did not appear and answer.\nBy an amendment, the plaintiff stated that one of the children of Fanny Jinn Hunt had died and that he had been advised to administer upon its estate, but he averred that he was entirely ignorant whether the interest of tlmt child under the will of his testator survived to its brothers and sisters, or whether he, the plaintiff, held it in trust for the next of kin, and in this Respect he prayed instructions.\nBy consent, the master in the court below was directed to enquire whether Wm. 11. Bullock and John Hunt were proper persons to substitute as trustees for their respective children, and whether the property of their children would be safe in their hands. It was also referred to him to state an account of the-Clarkesville co-partnership, and of the amount which the testator had paid, and the plaintiff was still liable to pay for the land devised to the heirs of Fanny Jinn Hunt, and also to state an account of the property advanced by the testator to his children, contained in the books. The master reported that W. H. Bullock, and John Hunt were proper persons to appoint trustees for their children, and that the property which their children took under the will, would be safe in their hands. He also stated the accounts ordered to be taken, and there were no exceptions filed to his report.\nThe case was \"discussed several terms ago, by Jfash for the plaintiff, and Badger and Devcreux for defendants.\nThe plaintiff made no questions which were adverse to the interest of the several defendants, but submitted to any decree which would indemnify him."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 328
}