HALL v. HALL.—1 BLAND. 125

* But then the intention of the testator, that such devisee
should be put to an election, must be either distinctly ex-
pressed, or very strongly manifested by facts and circumstances;
for, no one can be stripped of his rights by guessing or conjecture.
It must distinctly appear, that the claim is irreconcilable and in-
compatible with the devise; or that to sustain the claim, would
throw the testator's estate into a channel entirely different from
that in which he had placed it by his wili. To prevent such a per-
version, or disappoint the express, or clearly manifested inten-
tion of the testator, a Court of equity will, by a strong operation
of its powers, put the devisee to an election, Noys v. Mordaunt,
5 Vern. 581; 2 Mad. Chan. 51; Blake v. Bunbury, 4 Bro. C. C. 23;
Sheddon v. Goodrich, 8 Ves. 492; Dillon v. Parker, 1 Swan. 359.
But there is no instance of a devisee being made to elect upon
slight presumptions or inferences; or where the will might have its
full effect without impairing the obligation of the claim; or
the testator has property, which is absolutely his own, answering
fully to the description of that spoken of in his will, and by which
its expressions may be satisfied. Pow. Deri. 465.

In this case it appears that the testator had a considerable real
estate, in fee" simple, by which his expressions, " all my estate,
real and personal," may be amply gratified without embracing the
entailed estate. There is nothing upon the face of the will itself,
nor any thing in the circumstances under which it was made,
which necessarily or very clearly shews an intention to comprehend
the entailed as well as the fee simple estate. Although the testa-
tor might, during his life-time, have aliened the lands which he
held as tenant in tail, by a mere deed of bargain and sale, legally
executed and recorded; and thus have barred the right of the
heir in tail; yet, it is very certain, that he could not devise those
lands by his last will and testament. Paca v. Forwood, 2 H. &
McH. 176; Laidler v. Young's Lessee, 2 H. & J. 69. Upon the
whole, then, it is my opinion, that the plaintiff's are entitled to re-
cover; and the amount in such case having been agreed upon; it
is thereupon,

Decreed, that Edward Hall, the surviving executor of the late
Thomas Hall, forthwith pay unto the claimants, John B. Bayliss
and Elizabeth his wife, as administrators of William W. Hall, de-
ceased, the sum of $2,666.66, or that the said defendant bring the
same into this Court to be paid to the said complainants; the
* said sum of lawful money being the value, and in satisfac-
tion of the legacy given by the late Thomas Hal! to the late
William W. Hall, as in the proceedings mentioned. Decreed,
that the defendant and complainants each pay their own costs.
Decreed, that the bill of complaint be dismissed as to all the other
defendants with costs.