HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 301

And that then each division, charged with contribution, must con-
tribute, as prescribed by the will, to the payment of such debts as
remain unpaid from that fund, after those two legacies have been

* deducted from it. In so far as the executors, into whose
hands a sufficiency of assets came to satisfy those two lega-
cies failed to do so. they are chargeable with a devastavit; and
consequently, they alone are liable for the whole amount, princi-
pal and interest; and the legatees cannot be allowed to take the
place of creditors and have the amount raised by contribution from
the devisees.

It is, in general, true, that pecuniary legacies bear interest from
the end of one year after letters testamentary have been granted,
allowing that time for the executors to collect the effects of the
deceased. Maxwell v. Wettenhall, 2 P. Will. 26; Pearson v. Pear-
son. 1 Scho. & Lefr. 11. In this instance, there appears to be an
additional reason why interest should be allowed from that time
on these legacies; and that is, their having been expressly declared
to be in lieu of certain specific legacies which, if they had not been
withdrawn, should have been delivered immediately, and could
have been at once made profitable to the legatees; thus indicating
it to have been the intention of the testator himself, that interest
should be allowed as a substitute for the profits of the slaves in
lieu of which the money was given; since it is in general, true,
that where one legacy is substituted for another, the substitute
will be attended with the same incidents, as the original. Chatteris
v. Young, 6 Mad. 31; & C. 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 72. I am there-
fore of opinion that interest on these sums has been correctly
charged.

It is alleged, that the whole fund, set apart by the testator for
the payment of his debts, will not be sufficient for that purpose;
and it is upon the truth of this fact, that the plaintiffs claim to
have the assets accounted for by the executors; to have the
amount of the unsatisfied claims against the deceased ascertained;
and to have the other devisees compelled to contribute to the pay-
ment of such debts, according to the terms of the will. Although
all the executors, and the legatees Charles and Harriet, as such,
with all the devisees who have been charged with contribution by
the will, have been made parties to this bill; yet it is not alleged,
that the suit has been instituted generally for the benefit of those
interested in the correct distribution of the real or personal assets
of the testator; or for the benefit of those creditors and others who
may have an interest in the fund appropriated by the testator for
the payment of his debts. The bill contains no distinct and ex-
press allegation, that the plaintiffs had instituted this suit, as

*well for the benefit of creditors as of themselves; and yet 316
the case has been hitherto so conducted as if it were by positive
allegation and in its nature a creditor's suit.