Court of Appeals of Virginia.

29

putting him forth either to law or merchandise”): John had 1834 .a son born after the death of the testator, who claimed thelegacy; though he was unfit to be placed out, as directed Rowlettby the will, yet the legacy was ordered to be paid to him. „

So in Barton v. Cooke, 5 Yes. 462. testator directed his exe- R °wlett’scutors to apply £100. for the board and education of J. B.until he were fit to be put out apprentice, and that then theyshould pay the further sum of £ 100. with him, as an ap-prentice fee. It appeared, that J. B. attained the age ofnineteen, but had not been placed out apprentice. Thequestion was, whether he was entitled to the two legaciesof £100? Lord Alvanley decreed them to him; adding,that if a legacy is given for the benefit of an infant in oneway, and it cannot be so applied, it may be applied for hisbenefit in another way; and he pat the case of a legacygiven to put an infant into orders, and he should become alunatic. Other cases are referred to in the books; 1 Rop.on Leg. 430. but these are enough to shew the rule.

I am, therefore, of opinion that this legacy vested equallyin the three children, Archer , Polly and Martha; and thatArcher dying, his portion went to his general distributees.

I am of opinion also, that the seven children took vestedinterests in the principal sum put out to interest during theirmother’s life.

Cabell and Brooke, J. concurred. Decree reversed.