594 ADDISON v. BOWIE.—2 BLAND.

be allowed any portion of the profits after she had obtained her
share of the negroes themselves.

It only remains to ascertain what the testator William meant
by the home, the support, and the dividends of the rents and pro-
fits he gave to his widow and younger children. In contemplating
these subjects it should be borne in mind, that a- man is under a
moral aad legal obligation to maintain his wife and infant children.
They are among his highest and most honorable duties. With
regard to his wife, the legal duty fastens a lien upon his property,
which may be made available after his death, in opposition to any
previous act of his; her dower and distributive share being rights
of which he cannot deprive her. He may, it is true, give his pro-
perty totally away from his children; but the presumption of law
is, that nature is sufficiently strong to bind him to his duty, in this
respect also, unless there be some cogent reasons for a different
course. Rawlins v. Gold/rap, 5 Ves. 444; Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves.
206; 2 Fonb. 121.

This testator declares, that his wife and daughters and her sou
shall have a home at his mansion house. The home thus given,

*is a local habitation, a place of residence. It is a right to
627 have the enjoyment of a certain house, as a dwelling place.
The right of habitation is confined to so much as is neccessary for
the habitation of him to whom it is granted, and his family. It is
the donation of a privilege, so absolutely personal in its nature,
that it canuot be leased or assigned to another, nor is it such an
estate, as if given to several, can be separated by partition, and
given to each one in severally. The party to whom it is given,
may enjoy or leave it at pleasure; but he cannot claim compensa-
tion for it from any one, unless he has been hindered in, or driven
from the enjoyment of it; of which, their being here no alle-
gation, there need be no inquiry as to the value of this bequest to
any one of these legatees. Co. Litt. 122, a; Ayliffe, Civil Law, 6.
3, tit. 7; Domat, i. 1, tit. 11, s. 2; Code Napole. Civil, s. 633, 634;
Warfield v. Gambrill, 1 G. & J. 503.

The testator William, then proceeds to direct, " that all the pro-
perty be kept together, and worked by the family slaves, until my
son Walter shall arrive to full age, for the support of the family."
This is a provision made by a husband and a parent, for his family;
and therefore, should have a construction, at least co-extensive
with what his duties were, when he was alive. His family was
rightfully composed of his wife and his infant children; each of
whom, as such, during his life, was entitled to a reasonable and
proper maintenance from him according to his means and circum-
stances. Hence, it is fair to presume, that he intended by these
comprehensive expressions in his will, to hasve his property so ap-
plied, as most effectually to accord with the duties of a husband
and a parent. Being satisfied that this was the general intention