HALL v. HALL. 135

But then the intention of the testator, that such devisee should
be put to an election, must be either distinctly expressed, or very
strongly manifested by facts and circumstances; for, no one can
be stripped of his rights by guessing or conjecture. It must
distinctly appear, that the claim is irreconcilable and incompatible
with the devise; or that to sustain the claim, would throw the
testator's estate into a channel entirely different from that in which
he had placed it by his will. To prevent such a perversion, or
disappointment of the express, or clearly manifested intention of
the testator, a court of equity will, by a strong operation of its
powers, put the devisee to an election, (f) But there is no instance
of a devisee being made to elect upon slight presumptions or
inferences; or where the will might have its full effect without
impairing the obligation of the claim; or where the testator has
property, which is absolutely his own, answering fully to the
description of that spoken of in his will, and by which all its
expressions may be satisfied, (g)

In this case, it appears that the testator had a considerable real
estate, in fee simple, by which his expressions, " all my estate, real
and personal," may be amply gratified without embracing the
entailed estate. There is nothing upon the face of the will itself,
nor any thing in the circumstances under which it was made, which
necessarily or very clearly shews an intention to comprehend the
entailed as well as the fee simple estate. Although the testator
might, during his lifetime, have aliened the lands which he held as
tenant in tail, by a mere deed of bargain and sale, legally executed
and recorded; and thus have barred the right of the heir in tail;
yet, it is very certain, that he could not devise those lands by his
last will and testament, (h) Upon the whole, then, it is my opinion,
that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover; and the amount in
such case having been agreed upon; it is thereupon,

Decreed, that Edward Hall, the surviving executor of the late
Thomas Hall, forthwith pay unto the claimants, John B. Bayliss
and Elizabeth his wife, as administrators of William W. Hall
deceased, the sum of $2666 66, or that the said defendant bring
the same into this court to be paid to the said complainants; the

(f) Noys v. Mordaunt, 2 Vern. 581; 2 Mad. Chan. 51; Blake v. Bunbury,
4 Bro. C. C. 21; Sheddon v. Goodrich, 8 Ves. 482; Dillon v. Parker, I Swan, 350.
(g) Pow. Devi. 465.—(h) Paca v. Forwood, 2 H. & McH. 175; Laidler v. Young's
Lessee, 2 H. & J. 69.