HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 365

458; Gordon v. Trail, 3 Exch. Rep. 391. But here, as our Acts of
Assembly have not made the costs a part of that judgment debt

whether, to prevent the great inequality in favor of a younger son, educa-
tion might not mean barely the price of tuition, books, &c., lodging, food,
and clothing, must be had whether at school or at home; and, therefore, it
might be said, that he who is charged with education is not, of course,
charged with those articles of necessity. In construing a will, it is notorious,
that the Judges have never considered the question as a mere point of gram-
mar. The question ever is, "what was the intent of the testator," to be col-
lected from the whole of his words. Amongst grammarians, there is no
doubt, that his is considered, in propriety, as referring to the antecedent, if
there be one, and not to a subsequent. It may, indeed, in this case, be con-
tended, that the testator was not aware of any antecedent, or any rule of
grammar. It is probable, that he was no grammarian. Let it just be sup-
posed, that he had appointed two executors; and had said "my will and
desire is, that my executors, instead of saying my son Alexander, do. out of
his part of my estate, expend," &c. &c. Is there even a rigid grammarian,
who would say, that the testator violated the rules of grammar. No! he
would say "his" refers to the antecedent, if there be one: but the word his
may well be placed so as to refer to a subsequent, as in the case of Mr.
Frazier's directing his two executors out of his part of the estate, to educate
his son John Alexander. From the proofs in the cause, and from reasonable
suppositions, the account may stand as follows:

A. Frazier, deceased, to John A. Frazier, Dr.
To one-half of the gross profits of the estate, from 9th May,

1779. to June, 1790,11 years 1 month, at £129 per ann....... £1,429 15s. 0d.

To timber from my part, or one-half of the timber sold....... 50 0s. 0d.

£1,479 15s 0d.

Contra.

By one-half of the gross profits of the estate for 6 years, at
the rate aforesaid....................................................... £774 0s. 0d.

By one-half of taxes, medicines, repairs. &c. &c. for 5 years,
1 month; that being the difference between the time of
Alexander's holding the estate, and John's holding the
estate, the repairs, being made chiefly by Alexander, at
£24 per ann................................................................ 133 0s. 0d.

By board, clothing, education, pocket money, physic, &c. for
8 years, at £45 per arm................................................. 360 0s. 0d.

By one-half of the gross profits of the estate, from the
arrival at age of John to Alexander's death. It is not to
be supposed, that if Alexander held the estate, after his
brother's full age, he had less than one-half. The defect
of proof must again be remarked. But say only £75 per
ann. for 3 years, after John arrived at age, and was en-
titled to his estate......................325 0s 0d

£1,481 0s. 0d.
By balance in favor of Alexander................................. 1 5s. 0d.

On the whole, from the fullest investigation of this case; and on full de-
liberation, it does not appear to the Chancellor, that John A. Frazier's legal