626 ADDISON v, BOWIE.

received the profits of their negroes. Consequently, the legacies
given by the testator William can, in no respect, be considered
as a satisfaction of this claim of his children.

I am, therefore, 0f 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 father, 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 he put these legatees to
their election as to the use of these same negroes, which then
remained 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, (n) But in making this esti-
mate 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 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 profits
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 and legal obligation to maintain his wife and infant children.
They are among his highest and most honourable 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, (o)

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

(n) Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. 748; Raven v. Waite, 1 Swan. 557.—(o) Raw-
lins v. Goldfrap, 5 Ves. 444; Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves. 206; 2 Fonb. 121.