MARGARET HALL'S CASE. £05

under the will of her husband, is to "be considered as a purchaser
with a fair consideration."(o) It is clear, therefore, that this devise
is fraudulent, as against creditors, only so far as it exceeds the value
of the dower, in lieu and discharge of which, it was given, and has
been accepted.

The creditors have associated themselves with the widow and
devisee of the deceased, and have asked to have the real estate
sold for the payment and satisfaction of all. But these creditors
now, it seems, propose to have their claims first satisfied, in pre-
ference, and exclusion of the devise to the widow. They who
are the widow's opponents, would thus bind her to her election to
take under the will, Which satisfied her claim that had a preference
over theirs; and yet they would leave her to take, by that devise,
nothing, or less than the amount of her legal claim. This cannot
be allowed. They who ask equity must do equity. These creditors
must either permit the widow to take to the whole amount under
the will, as is her choice, or allow her to obtain full satisfaction for
her dower; because to the value of that, at the least, she is both
at law and in equity,"a purchaser with a fair consideration;" and
to that extent, therefore, the devise must be sustained. The widow
is clearly entitled to one, or the other; either the devise, or the
dower; and since her taking the whole of the subject devised,
which was and is her choice, has been objected to, she must be
allowed to take, as devisee, to the full value of the dower which
she has relinquished, but no more.(c)

Therefore it is Ordered, that the said Margaret Hall be, and she
is hereby allowed one-seventh part of the proceeds of the real estate
in the proceedings mentioned, in bar and satisfaction of all that
portion of the real and personal estate devised to her by her late
husband, Joseph Hall, and which property so devised she had
elected to take in lieu of her dower.

(b) 1798, ch. 101, subch. 13, s. 5; Sug. V. & P. 257.—(c) Burridge v. Bradyl,
1 P. Will. 127; Blower v. Morret, 2 Ves. 420; Davenhill v. Fletcher, Amb. 244;
Heath v. Denby, 1 Russ. 543.