The intestate of the petitioner was the widow of ■James Cherry and was entitled to certain slaves and land under the will of her husband. The petitioner asks for a construction ■of said will in order that. he may know how to administer properly the estate of his intestate.
The testator in his will made an equal division of his land and slaves, between his widow.and only child, one of the defendants. As the widow was to have the principal care and ■support of the family, the testator bequeathed to her. the household furniture, stock, farming, tools, grain and other property generally used for such purposes. This care and support of the family was to be exercised, and the property intended for this purpose was to be managed under the advice and supervision of the executor. ' The land and slaves given to the widow were not fettered by any trust in the executor and were not limited ■over upon any. subsequent contingency.. In the case of the child the disposition was different. Here there was an. express trust for certain purposes, • and- the estate was limited over to third persons, if the child died, before arriving at the age, of twenty one years. It was necessary for the.executor to have •control of this estate to effectuate the trusts and limitations expressly declared in the wilj.
As the widow took, an absolute estate in the slaves, upon her subsequent, marriage, they passed by.operation of law to her second husband,.Hawkins*. When she purchased one of these •slaves from the administrator of second husband, she created a ■debt for which she was personally liable, arid upon her death it was a debt against her. estate.,- As her administrator has not sufficient personal assets to .discharge this debt, he is entitled to .an order for the .sale of the lands of his .intestate for this purpose. There was error in the ruling of his Honor, and this *478will be certified that the proper orders may be made in the-premises.
Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.