JONES v. STOCKETT.—2 BLAND. 399

credit for the sum of $50, a fee to counsel retained by him to de-
fend that suit.

The defendant Stockett excepted to the accounts A and B, be-
cause in said accounts the defendant Wayman was allowed one-
half of the commissions heretofore allowed to this exceptant by
the Orphans' Court; and he excepted to the account C, because
the complainants were thereby allowed interest on their legacy
from the time of the death of the testator; whereas interest ought
not to be allowed until twelve months thereafter.

BLAND, C.,21st February, 1828.—The solicitors of the parties
having been fully heard, the proceedings were read and consid-
ered. It is clear, that the allowance of commissions to executors,
in all cases properly brought before an Orphans' Court is a matter
as entirely within the jurisdiction of that tribunal as this: and in
so far as it appears, that the matter of commissions had been ad-
justed and determined by the Orphans' Court, as has been done
in this instance, the judgment of that tribunal cannot be reviewed
or reversed by this Court. Therefore the first exception must be
sustained.

This legacy, the annual interest and profits of which alone have
been given to the plaintiff Ann, during her life, is only payable out
of the personal estate of the testator; as to which it has been laid
down as a general rule that, as the executors must be allowed a
reasonable time to collect the estate, first.to satisfy the creditors and
then the legatees of the deceased, no such legacy shall carry inte-
rest until one year after the death of the testator. Sitwell v. Ber-
nard, 6 Ves. 539; Bourke v. Ricketts, 10 Ves. 333. And this gene-
ral rule applies as well to annuities as to mere pecuniary lega-
cies; for an annuity so given is a legacy, and therefore even if
the donation to the plaintiff Ann be regarded as a mere annuity,
although with propriety it cannot be in all respects so considered,
still it falls under the general character of a legacy, and must in
*this respect be governed by the same general rule. Hume
v. Edwards, 3 Atk. 693; Nannock v. Norton, 1 Ves. 401; Sib- 417
ley v. Perry, 7 Ves. 534; Franks v. Noble, 12 Ves. 485. Where a
parent gives a legacy to a child, especially if the child has no other
means of support, there, because of the duty of a parent as far as
he can to provide a maintenance for his child, the legacy shall
carry interest from the death of the testator; Crickett v. Dolby. 3
Ves, 13; Chambers v. Goldwin, 11 Ves. 1; and so too in all other
cases, if such be the express declaration or manliest intention of
the testator, the legacy shall bear interest from his death. But
this legacy is given by an uncle to his niece and her children, and
there is no intimation by the testator as to the time from which
the legacy is to begin to bear interest, and therefore the second
exception must also be sustained.