PULLIAM V. PULLIAM. 47> �executer only with the residue. And the plaintiff may now select orie^ section, the title to be secured to her by conveyance from the defend-: ants according to the practice of the court. Boy ce v. Grundy, supra, Lewis V. Darling, supra; Hickey y.Stewart, 3 How. I50 ; Watts v. Wad- die, 6 Pet. 389; S. C. 1 McLean, 200; Watkins v. Holmati, 16 Pet. 26. �By this will the testator bequeathed to Alfred B. Pulliam bis Isbell plantation, valued at $6,000, to be taken into account as part of his estate received from the testator. It ia claimed by the plaintiff tbat this land is also charged under the will with the debts of the estate in exoneration of her legacy. This is undoubtedly true, and in that respect it occupies no other attitude than does the Arkansas land, and ita value must be charged against the executor in the same way. The fact that it is specifically devised does not relieve it from the burden put upon it by the testator in favor of the plaintiff. By sueh devise an equity is no doubt created that this land shall not be touched for debts until all the other property bas been exhausted. Darden v. Hatcher, 1 Cold. 513. Nor does the statute of limitations pro- tect the land. He held it under the will and is bound by its trusts. It may be that, as between bim and the executor, the statutes of limita- tion would proteot the land against the exercise of the power of sale for debts, but the equities between these devisees is not of that char- acter which is barred by the statute of limitations. As against the executor the plaintiff bas a right to an account, charging him with the value of the land just as if be had sold it to the best advantage in the execution of his trust. �But it appears by a paper offered as proof that on the twenty- second day of June, 1863, subsequent to the date of the will, the tes- tator by deed of gift, in consideration of love and affection, conveyed an undivided half of the Isbell plantation to Alfred B. Pulliam, to whom the will devises the wbole. Alfred B. Pulliam says in his answer that he went into possession soon after his father died, and has been in possession ever since. It is manifest, then, that he did not go into possession under the deed, at least until after his father's death. He also says in his answer that he acquired by deed of gift from his father one-half of said land, the deed being made in 1863, and being of record. This answer was filed in July, 1877. It does not exhibit the deed, nor is it proved or produced otherwise than by its production by his counsel at the bearing. It is said in the answer that it was registered as required by law. It appears by the certifi- cates upon it that on the twentieth of July, 1872, the day after the final settlement of the executor was filed in the county court, and ��� �
