HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.— 2 BLAND. 299

Chancellor. And in case the Chancellor should determine that the
said contribution shall be borne by the said property in propor-
tion to its value, then the property devised to Thomas Hammond,
shall be estimated to be worth 810,000: the property devised to
Charles Hammond, shall be estimated to be worth $10,000; the
property devised to Henry Hammond, shall be estimated to be
worth $10,000; the real property devised to John Hammond, shall
be estimated to be worth $2,000; the property devised to George
W. Hammond, shall be estimated to be worth $.10,000; the prop-
erty devised to Eezin Hammond, shall be estimated to be worth
$10,000; the property devised to Matilda Hammond, shall be esti-
mated to be worth $10,000; the property devised to Harriet Ham-
mond, shall be estimated to be worth $10.000; the property devised
to Philip Hammond, Jr. shall be estimated to be worth
*$10,000; and the property devised to Philip H. Mewburn, 313
shall be estimated to be worth $10,000. It is also agreed, that no
advantage shall be taken of any alleged defect in the bill, in not
charging, that Charles and Harriet Hammond, are entitled to have
their pecuniary legacies raised by contribution."

BLAND, C., 22d December, 1829.—This case standing ready for
hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been fully heard,
the proceedings were read and considered.

It has been urged, that the sums of money given to Charles and
Harriet are merely pecuniary legacies, payable only out of the sur-
plus after debts and specific legacies. It is alleged in the bill and
admitted, that the personal estate of the testator is inadequate to
pay his debts; hence it follows, that those sums of money given
to Charles and Harriet, cannot be paid, unless, like the devises
and bequests of the original will, they are to be considered as spe-
cific legacies, only chargeable with a proportional contribution for
the payment of the debts, which the funds appropriated for that
purpose by the testator, was insufficient to pay.

In questions of this kind, it is declared by all the authorities,
that the intention of the testator is always to prevail, unless it con-
travenes some established rule of law. It is evident, from the
general character of the testamentary instrument under considera-
tion, that the late Philip Hammond, by his will, had designed to
"dispose of his whole estate, of every description, in a very especial
manner. His wife, each one of his children, and his grandson,
are named and provided for, by a donation of what he manifestly
had estimated as a due proportion of his property. And each share
is given, in a manner, so carefully guarded, as clearly to shew, that
the whole subject had been pondered over and well considered.
Whether each one of the dividends, so made, was, in fact, of equal
value is of no importance, as regards the present question. After
the testator had thus established the proportions, in which the first