CAsps ruled and" adjudged in the

1.792. fome fubftantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the prar,

rtice contended for, the Court will not alter the ufual courfe.
Rule difcharged.

JACKSON verfus VANOERSPREIGLE's, Executor.

T-HIS was an a6tion brought to recover the amount of a

T.bond, in favor of the Teltatrix, which the Executor had
received. The plaintiff claimed it as a legacy, under the follow-
ing words in the will : " Item, I give and bequeath'unto Mary
c Ja ckfon, wife of Milliam 7ackfon, all my wearing apparel,
-cchoufehold furniture, plate, linen, books, and every nzoveable
cc zvha foever." The Teftatrix then proceeds to give a variety
of legacies in caih, and bequeaths the reft and refidue of the
eftate to Samuel;_Robifon, and others. Her perfonal eftate was
about ,CZooo, principally out at intexeft ; but (he had no real
eftate.
Rawle, for the plaintiffi; urged, that the words were broad
enough to cover the debts due to the Teftatrix. He referred to
12 Co. p. I. i -4tk. 7. 177. 1So. 4 Mod. 156. x rez.
369. 173. Co. 33. b.I P. Wns.267. Brown 127. and, without
reading the authorities. deflred that the ,point might be re-
BY :Tr
ferred e But, ut :We have no doubt- at- prefent. The

meaning of the Teftatrix is plain enough.. If the plaintiff's

conftru&ion were right, all the reft of the will would be def-
troyed. In this cafe, moveables muft be confined to things of
the fame nature with thofe.before fpecified. Let there be a
verdift for the defendant, with liberty for the plaintiff to move
for a new trial, if, on coufideration, he think his pofition tena-
ble.
XVerdi& for the Defendant..

:MJERCIER V.'fits MERcIER,

TI ilS caufe flood on the lift. for triaL. Dupneeaa mored

for a rule on the plaintiffto file his warrant caf Attorney.
But, By TH-E Couawr, :-It has been often ruled, that this.
-apilicatibn muft be made before plea pleaded. Rule rrefufed.

NESBIT-