WILL AND TESTAMENT—Continued.
took an estate for life; for a period thereof, to be held by her, for
the benefit of herself and her children; that is, during their mi-
nority. Upon the children attaining their full age, the widow
still living, her estate would continue until her death, disencum-
bered of any charge oi> account of the children, and upon her
demise the limitation over for life to the children would take ef-
i feet, and upon their death, the inheritance would pass to the heirs .
' .$ at law of the testator as property undisposed of by the will. Moody
vs. Elliott, 390.
9. A testator devised his lands to bis executor to be sold, and gave a lega-
cy of $2,000 to his niece, to be paid her out of the proceeds of the sale
of his real estate, HELD—That the surviving husband of the niece had
the same title to demand this legacy bequeathed his wife, as if it had
been payable out of the personal estate of the testator, and that it made
no difference whether the wife died before or after the sale actually
took place. Thomas vs. Wood, SMB.
10. It is the duty of the courts to give effect to every part of a will, with-
out change or rejection, provided, an effect can be given to it not in-
consistent with the general intent of the whole'will taken together.
Pue vs. Pue, 382. '
11. Where there are two conflicting clauses, the principle is, that you are
not to disturb the prior devise farther than is absolutely necessary for
the purpose of giving effect to the posterior qualifying disposition. Ib.
12. Where a testator uses, in one part of Ilis will, words having a clear
meaning in law, and in another part, words inconsistent with the former,
the first words are to be cancelled and overthrown, only, when the
two provisions are totally inconsistent with each other, and where the
real intention of the testator cannot be ascertained. Ib.
13. It is now fully established that the general intent of the testator, though
first expressed, will overrule the particular intent. Ib.
14. A testator, by his will, manumitted certain negroes, and after 'giving
then a pecuniary legacy, devised as follows: "I will and devise that
my executor shall cause to be erected on some part of my farm, called
'» Rose Hill, (the place to'be selected by the above manumitted negroes,)
'/ a good substantial dwelling house,with one brick chimney, which house,
""' together with two acres of land adjoining thereto, I give and rip.visp tn
' the above manumitted negroes and their heirs forever. HELD—
What the testator intended, by this devise, to provide the negroes in
question with a habitation to live in, and as this intent comes in-,.
conflict with the policy of the legislature, which forbids persons in
their situation from remaining in the state, unless upon terms in-
compatible with the unrestricted enjoyment of the devise, the
latter must fail. Mgro Momca vs. Mitchelt, 366.
.15. A testator devised and bequeathed certain portions of his real and per-
sonal estate to trustees, in trust for his daughter, during her life, and
after her death, in trust for any child, or children, she might have,
with direction (that the trustees, or the survivor of them, should, after