592 ADDISON v. BOWIE.—2 BLAND.

these infants, elect that they shall take entirely under the will of
their father, the late William Bowie.

But the one-third of the negroes given by the testator Baruck,
upon his death, immediately vested in the rest of the children of
his daughter Kitty, to be distributed when they should arrive at
age, that is, in these parties, Eliza, Walter, and Kitty. This
specific legacy to them was the immediate gift of a fund, with all
its produce. The testator William, as their father and natural
guardian, might well take and hold these negroes for them; but in
doing so he made himself accountable to them for their profits.
Consequently, the amount of those profits which had accumulated
in his hands, during his life-time, was a debt due from him to
them, it was a part of their property in his hands. But it has
been in no way disposed of by him; he has not described, or even
alluded to it as a part of that mass of property, by the special
disposition of which he has especially or impliedly driven them to
elect to take under or against his will. On the contrary, consider-
ing it as a debt due from him, he has, together with all others of
his debts, expressly provided for its payment.

The principles of election arise out of the fact, that a party who
has a right to one parcel of property, has another given to him,
with an express declaration, or under circumstances which leave
no room to doubt that the donor, who has disposed of both in-
tended he should have choice of either; but that he should not be
permitted to take both of them. It is no where spoken of as
arising out of the circumstance of the testator's being a debtor to
his devisee or legatee. In this case the testator William shews
that he perfectly understood the extent of his power to put some
of his children to an election, by the manner in which he has dis-
posed* of his property among them. He carefully describes
625 the several parcels of property, and the various advantages
between which they were to make their election; but in speaking
of that property and those advantages there is not the slightest
reference to the previously accumulated profits of their specific
legacy of negroes then in his hands. Ixo property has been given
in lieu of those profits, or as a compensation for them; nor has any
thing been placed before these parties in competition with those
profits. And, therefore, it «annot be inferred that this claim for
the profits of those negroes, which had been then received; and
were then in hand, were intended to be embraced within the scope
of that election which the testator William expected his children
to make; for in relation to this doctrine of election, it certainly
cannot be so applied as to spell or guess a man out of his prop-
erty. Forrester v. Cotton, 1 Eden, 532; Blake v. Bunbury, 1 Ves,
Jun. 524; Green v. Green, 19 Ves. 667. C. 2 Meriv. 93; Tibbits v. ;
Tibbits, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 148; Hall v. Hall, I Bland, 130.