ADDISON v. BOWIE.—2 BLAND. 593

In equity, where a debtor bequeaths to his creditor a legacy,
equal to or exceeding the amount of his debt, it may be presumed,
in the absence of a contrary intention, that the legacy was meant
as a satisfaction for the debt. The rule has not, however met with,
general approbation, and does not apply where the debt did not
exist when the will was made, or where it was upon a negotiable
security, which might be then in the hands of a stranger; or where
the debt was cine upon a current account, the amount of which
was unknown to the testator. Rawlins v. Powell, 1 P. Will. 298;
Jeffs v. Wood, 2 P. Will. 130; Thomas v. Bennett, 2 P. Will. 343;
Foirler v. Fowler, 3 P. Will. 353; Matthews v. Matthews, 2 Yes. 636;
Richardson v. Greese, 3 Atk. 65; Binchcliffe v. Hinehcliffe, 3 Fes.
529; Carr v, Eastbrooke, 3 Ves. 561; Wat hen v. Smith, 4 Mad. 325;
Partridge v. Partridge, 2 H. & J. 63; Edelon v. Dent, 2 . & J.
185. Here the testator might well know that he was accountable
to his children for the profits of the legacy of negroes which had
been given to them by their grandi'ather; but there is no reason
whatever to believe that he then knew the amount; or from any
expression in his will, that he meant any bequest he made them
should be considered as a satisfaction of a debt. On the contrary
he expressly refers to the will of the testator Baruck, and then dis-
tinctly indicates how far what he gave should control or modify any
right they might deduce from the will of their grandfather, witliout
the most distant allusion to any claim they had upon him, because
of his having * received the profits of their negroes. Con-

sequeutly, the legacies given by the testator William can, 626
in no respect, be considered as a satisfaction of this claim of his
children.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the one-third of the negroes
given by the testator Baruck to the rest of the children of his
daughter Kitty must be regarded as a specific legacy of things
which passed at the time of his death; as an immediate gift of a
fund with all its produce; and that, therefore, the legatees of these
negroes became entitled to their profits immediately from and after
the death.of the testator Baruck; and their lather, who held these
negroes, as their guardian, must be charged with the profits of
them from the time of the death of the testator Baruck down to
the time of his own death, when they passed into other hands;
but more especially because by his will lie put these legatees to
•their election as to the use of these same negroes, which then re-
mained in his possession: and under the designation of "the
family slaves " were a part of that property he directed to be kept
together for the use of the family. Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. 748;
Raven v. Waite, 1 Swan. 557. But in making this estimate of the
amount of the profits of these negroes due to each one of these
legatees, it will, of course, be recollected that no one of them can

38 2B.