38 FEDEBA.L BEPOBTEB. �It is conceded that two of the notes collected by the executer — that of Locke & Abbott for $1,735.49, and that of John L. Parham for $7,702.66 — were received by the testator from the plaintiff (or her mother for her) at his marriage, and that they are the notes men- tioned in the will ; while, on the other hand, it is conceded by the plaintiff that the S. R. Carney note for $5,335.83 was not so received. But the point is made that the Locke & Abbott note having been renewed by the testator in his own name, instead of that of the plaintiff or her mother, as it originally stood, it is taken out of the category and does not pass by the bequest. I think the testator intended it should, and that the intention is plain; otherwise, there being only two, he would not have used the plural. Taking it in his own name was a reduction to possession, and would defeat the wife's survivorship ; but it nowhere appears that he intended the bequests to be limited to such notes as would have survived to her. His lan- guage is : "I further will to her all of the notes I received of her at our marriage, of which I have collected but a small amount." This is plain and unambiguous. �The master, in taking the account, will therefore allow her these two and other notes which she may show came to the testator by his marriage with the plaintiff and were collected by the executer. If the judgment against E. S. and Darling Allen for $250, mentioned in the settlement, was on a note coming by the marriage, it will also be allowed. The Carney note will not be allowed, as she proves no claim to it. The specifie articles of personal property will be allowed to her, unless it is shown either that they did not corne into the hands of the executor, were neoessarily absorbed in the payment of debts, or that she bas received them. He will be credited with all she received. �As to the $10,000 of money admitted to be in her possession atthe time of the testator's doath, the will gives it to her in the plainest terms. It may have been assets for creditors on failure of all other resources, but it was not her duty to surrender it to the executor. No credit- ors are here asking to have it applied to their debts, and the execu- tor, as to the creditors, bas settled his accounts and been discharged; nor does it appear that there are any creditors unpaid not barred by tne statute of limitations. �The next question to be determined is that relating to the real estate. It appears that the testator had a quantity of land in Arkansas and some in Tennessee. It is not denied, and cannot be, that this wUl charges the debts of the testator upon all the other ��� �
