10. In re Powers, 124 N. Y. 361, 26 N. E. 940; Graham v. Little, 5 Ired. Eq. (40 N. Car.) 407; Seaver v. Lewis, 14 Mass 83; Crone's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 571.

11. Kilford v. Blaney, 31 Ch. Div. 56; Clinefelter v. A yers, 16 J11. 329; Chapin v. Waters, 116 Mass. 140; Perry v. Hale, 44 N. H. 363; Suydam v. Voorhees, 58 N. J. Eq. 157; Sweeney v. Warren, 127 N. Y. 426, 24 Am. St. Rep. 468, 28 N. E. 413; Riegelman'a Estate, 174 Pa. St. 476, 34 Atl.'

120; Calder v. Curry, 17 R. I. 610, 24 Atl. 103; Arnold v. Dean, 61 Tex. 249.

12. Marsh v. Marsh, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 360; Hoes v. VanHosen, 1 N. Y. 120; Robards v. Wortham, 2 Dev. Eq. (17 N. C.) 173, 22 Am. Dec. 738; Swann v. Swann, 5 Jones Eq. (58 N. Car.) 297.

13. Canal Bank v. Hudson, 111 U. S. 66, 28 L. Ed. 354; Sistrunk v. Ware, 69 Ala. 273; Daly v. Wilkie, 111 I11. 382; Pearcy v. Greenwell, 80 Ky. 616; Merritt v. Buckman, 78 Me. 504, 7 Atl. 383; Gardenville Permanent Loan Ass'n v. Walker, 52 Md. 452; Horning v. Wiederspalen, 28 N. J. Eq. 387; In re Gray's Estate, 27 N. D. 417, L. R. A. 1917A, 611, 146 N. W. 722; Pryer v. Mark, 129 Pa. St. 529, 19 Atl. 895; Warren's Adm'r v. Bronson, 81 Vt. 121, 69 Atl. 655; Korn v. Friz, 128 Wis. 428, 107 N. W. 659.

3 R. P. - 30 the same clause with a devise of land, there is a direction to the devisee to pay the legacy.14

If after the gift of a pecuniary legacy or legacies, there is a gift of the "residue" or "remainder" of testator's property, thereby blending the real and personal property into one fund, the legacy or legacies are usually regarded as charged upon the land, since the term "residue" or "remainder" can in such case refer only to what remains after the payment of the legacies.15

That the testator knew, at the time of executing the will, that the personalty was insufficient to pay the debts and legacies has frequently been regarded as tending to show an intention to charge the legacies on the land.16 But such fact has been referred to as in ally enforcible in equity alone,29 unless a statute provides otherwise.30 And the mode of enforcement is ordinarily by means of a decree for the sale of the land, and payment of the amount of the charge from the proceeds of the sale.31 If, however, a sale is not necessary for this purpose, the court would presumably not order it, but would have the rents and profits collected and applied in satisfaction of the charge.32 Or it might authorize the execution of a mortgage on the land in order to raise funds for this purpose.33

14. Potter v. Gardner, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 498, 6 L. Ed. 706; Henry v. Griffis, 89 Iowa, 543, 56 N. W. 670; Merrill v. Bickford, 65 Me. 118; Buchanan v. Lloyd, 88 Md. 642, 41 Atl. 1075; Thayer v. Fin-negan, 134 Mass. 62, 45 Am. Rep. 285; Chase v. Warner, 106 Mich. 695, 64 N. W. 730; Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 87 Mo. 218; Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, 49 N. J. Eq. 344, 25 Atl. 963; Brown v. Knapp, 79 N. Y. 136, 143; Carter v. Worrell, 96 N. C. 358, 60 Am. Rep. 420, 2 S. E. 528; Yearly v. Long, 40 Ohio St. 27. But see Owens v. Clay-tor, 56 Md. 129; Penny's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 323; In re Wallace's Estate, 234 Pa. 459, 83 Atl. 280.

15. Greville v. Brown, 7 H. L. Cas. 689; In re Dyson (1896), 2 Ch. 720; Lewis v. Darling, 16 How. (U. S.) 1, 14 L. Ed. 819; Turner v. Laird, 68 Conn. 198, 35 Atl. 1124; Reid v. Corrigan, 143 I11. 402, 32 N. E. 387; Hill T. Bean, 86 Me. 200, 29 Atl. 986;

Peebles v. Acker, 70 Miss. 356, 12 So. 248; Bennett's Estate, 148 Pa. St. 139, 23 Atl. 1108. See Thayer v. Finnegan, 134 Mass. 62, 45 Am. Rep. 285; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 85 N. Y 142; Lee v. Lee, 88 Va. 805, 14 S. E. 534. In one or two states, however, such a disposition of testator's property is regarded as insufficient to show an intention to charge the land, when unaccompanied by other evidence of such an intention. Davidson v. Coon, 125 Ind. 497, 9 L. R. A. 584, 25 N. E. 601; Pearson v. Wartman, 80 Md. 528, 31 Atl. 446; Brill v. Wright, 112 N. Y. 129, 8 Am. St. Rep. 717, 19 N. E. 628; Morris v. Sickly, 133 N. Y. 456, 31 N. E. 332. See Simonson v. Hutchinson, 231 I11. 508, 83 N. E. 183; Newsom v. Thornton, 82 Ala. 402, 60 Am. Rep. 743, 8 So. 261; Allen v. Ruddell, 51 S. C. 366, 29 S. E. 198.

16. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 72 Conn. 253, 43 Atl. 1046; Duncan v. Wallace, 114 Ind. 169, itself insufficient to show such an intention.17

In this country the use of general words directing the payment of debts does not usually have the effect of charging the debts on land devised, such words being found in most wills, and being merely a direction for the doing of what the law compels.18 In one or two states, however, as in England, a mere direction by the testator that his debts shall be paid charges the land with the debts.19

Enforcement against purchaser. A charge of a legacy or of some other specific sum or sums, or of an annuity, may be enforced, it is usually said, as against a purchaser from the heir or devisee,20 but this statement is to be taken with the qualification that such a charge, like any other equitable lien, is not enforcible

16 N. E. 137; Thissell v. Schilling-er, 186 Mass. 180, 71 N. E. 300 (semble); Clotilde v. Lutz, 157 Mo. 439, 50 L. R. A. 847, 57 S. W. 1018; Stuart v. Robinson, 80 Miss. 290, 92 Am. St. Rep. 603. 31 So. 903; Stroh v. O'Hearn, 176 Mich. 164, 142 N. W. 865; Price v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 326, 29 Atl. 679; Mc-Ccrn v. McCorn, 100 N. Y. 511, 3 N. E. 480; Theobald v. Fugman, 64 Ohio St. 473, 60 N. E. 606; Dickerman v. Eddinger, 168 Pa. St. 240, 32 Atl. 41; Jaudon v. Ducker, 27 S. C. 295. 3 S. E. 465.

17. Taylor v. Tolen, 38 N. J. Eq. 91; Duvall's Estate, 146 Pa. St. 176, 23 Atl. 231; Dickerman v. Eddinger, 168 Pa. St. 240, 32 Atl. 41. See Wentworth v. Read, 166 I11. 139, 46 N. E. 777.

18. Starke v. Wilson, 65 Ala. 576; Decker v. Decker, 121 I11. 341, 12 N. E. 750; White v. Kauffman, 66 Md. 89, 5 Atl. 865; Hamilton v. Smith, 110 N. Y. 159,

17 N. E. 740; Byrne v. Byrne, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 548, 8 Am. Dec. 641; Farmer v. Spell, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 541.