Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/72

 60 FEDBBAL KEPOBTEK, �have examined, including all cited in argument, and am content to rest my judgment on the principles enunciated in those most favora- ble to the executor, Lockhart v. Horn, 1 Woods, 628; S. C. 17 Wall. 570 ; McKenzie v. Anderson, 2 Woods, 359 ; Ex parte Jones, 4 Cranch, 185; Green v. Hanberry, 2 Brock. 403; Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161 ; Head v. Starke, Chase, Dec. 312 ; Johnson v. Kay, 8 Humph. 142; Bradshaw v. Cruise, 4 Heisk. 260, 203; McCaleh v. Ferry, 5 Hayw. 88; Michel v. Brown, 4 Bax. 468; Rockhold v. Blevins, 6 Bax. 117; Deherry v. Ivey, 2 Jones, Eq. 370; Tyrrell v. Morris, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 559; Wynns v. Alexander, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 58; Cannon v. Jenkins, 1 Dev. Eq. 426; Williams v. Maitland, 1 Ired. Eq. 92; Whit- ley V. Alexander, 73 N. C. 444 ; Bryan v. Milligan, 2 Hill, Cli. 361 Mikell v. Mikell, 2 Eich. Eq. 220; Teague v. DeacZ?/, 1 McCord, 456 Lamb v.Lamh, Speers, Eq. 289; Webb \. Bellinger, 2 Desa. Eq. 482 Hext V. Porcher, 1 Strob. Eq. 170; Boggs v. Adger, 4 Eich. Eq. 412 Clary v. Sanders, 43 Ala. 287; Harris v. Parker, 41 Ala. 604; McRae v.McRae, 3 Bradf. 200, 206; Sc/it(ite v. Z'wZfer, 3 Paige, 1S2; Re Butler, 38 N. Y. 397, 400; Thompson v. 7i;y«^i«, 4 Johns. Ch. 619; Pierson v. Thompson, 1 Edw. Ch. 212 ; Litchfield v. J>F/ufe, 7 N. Y. 438; Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 27 N. Y. 182; Mea^i v. Byington, 10 Vt. 116, 121; Munteith v. 2iate, 14 Wis. 227; iVe/'s Appeal, 57 Pa. 91; San/orci v. Thorp, 45 Conn. 241. �INTEEEST ON THE LEGACIE3. �Schedule C of the report shows the property specifically bequeathed to the plaintiff, including the notes and interest on them collected of the debtors, to have been $12,430.32. The interest on this irom the death of the testator to the filing of the master's report, at 6 percent., is $8,051.06, makingthe amount due the plaintiff, principal and inter- est, $20,481.38. That specifie legacies bear interest from the date of testator's death is settled. Eoper, Legacies, (2d Am. Ed.) 1250 ; 2 Williams, Ex'rs, (4th Am. Ed.) 1221; Sullivanv. Winthrop, 1 Sumn. 1; Dardenv. Orgain, 5 Cold. 211; German y. German, 7 Cold. 180; Mills v. Mills, 3 Head. 706 ; Jones v. Ward, 10 Yerg. 161 ; Harrison V. Henderson, 7 Heisk. 315, 348. �INTEBEST AGAINST THE EXEOOTOR. �The master bas not in fact in the aecount charged the executor ■with interest on any item found against him, but the report and the proof show that, deducting the value of the lands, the executor is ��� �