WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND. 239

heirs-at-law. It was held, that, to prevent the disappointment of
the testator's intent, the devisee of the fee simple estate, and the
devisees of the lease, and of the annuity, should each contribute to
the debts by specialty. And, for that purpose, it was, among other
things, directed, that the master should ascertain what, at the tes-
tator's death, was the value of the lands devised in fee, and of
the lease, and also of the annuity; and, to lay the said deficiency
ratably upon the same according to their respective values; and
to state what part necessarily must, and what part most conve-
niently might be sold for that purpose. Long v. Short, 1 P. Will.
403; Franks v. Cooper, 4 Ves. 763. In 1726, on a bill by a devisee
in remainder of an estate pour autre vie, it was held to be personal
estate which could not be devised away from creditors; neverthe-
less, being a specific devise, that all the rest of the testator's per-
sonal estate, not specifically devised, should be first applied to pay
the debts; and, if there were any other specific devise it should
come in average with this, and pay its proportion; but if that would
not serve, that then all should be sold to pay the testator's debt.
Devon v. Atkins, 2 P. Will. 380; Lewin v. Lewin, 2 Ves. 415; Rog-
ers v. Millicent. Dick. 570. And in 1749, it was held, that a de-
visee of an annuity for life charged on the personal estate, where
there was-a deficiency of assets, should abate in proportion with
the other legatees. Hume v. Edwards, 3 Atk. 693.

* In the year 1738, in a case of bankruptcy, it appeared,
that the petitioner had, in the year 1720, paid three nun- 225
dred pounds for an annuity of thirty pounds per annum for her
life, payable out of the estate of the bankrupt. Upon her petition,
to be admitted as a creditor for the whole three hundred pounds,
it was ordered that the commissioners settle the value of her life;
and that she be admitted a creditor for such valuation, and the
arrears of her annuity, it being unreasonable, that she should
have the whole three hundred pounds, when she had enjoyed the
annuity eighteen years. Ex parte LeCompte, 1 Atk. 251; Ex parte
Belton, 1 Atk. 251; Bothomly v. Fairfax, 1 P. Will. 334, note; Ex
parte Artis, 2 Vet,. 490; Ex parte Carter, 1 Bro. C. C. 267; Ex parte
Burrow, 1 Bro. C. C. 268. The same principles are evidently as
applicable to a condition of insolvency, as to that of a condition of
bankruptcy; and therefore, to abolish a technical distinction which
had been introduced by the Courts of common law in relation to
insolvency; Cotterel v. Hooke, Dowg. 97; Webster v. Bannister,
Doug. 393; it has been recently enacted in England, that a present
value shall, in all such cases, be put upon the annuity, and the
annuitant be Jet in to that account only as a creditor against the es-
tate of the insolvent. 1 Geo. 4, c. 119, s. 10; 1 Petersd. Abr. 714, note:
Smith Merca. Law, 409; Ex parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 249; Johnson
v. Compton, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 20; Lyde v. Mynn, 6 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 230.