and  C  muat  abate  in  proportion.  Wright
V.  WetioH.  vol.  26,  p.  429

23.  A  teatatrix,  who  waa  entitled  to  half  of
her  aiater'a  reaiduary  eatate,  bequeathed
a  lane  legacy,  which,  if  it  ahould  fail,
ahe  directed  ahould  fall  **  into  her  own
eatate."  She  bequeathed  the  residue  of
her  ]>roperty  (except  that  derived  from
her  aister)  to  ^.,  and  the  residue  of  her
property  derived  from  her  sister's  eatata
to  B,  Held,  that  the  latter  muat  contri-
bute with  the  former  towarda  payment  of
the  debta,  expenaea  and  legaciea.  Green-
wood V.  Jemmett.  vol.  26,  p.  479

24.  "Residue"  ia  not  a  "legacy"  in  the
ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  though  the
person  taking  it  is  a  *'  reaiduary  legatee."
Ward  V.  Qrey.  vol.  26,  p.  4H5

25.  The  ]  WilL  4,  c.  40  (aa  to  the  ri^ht  of
executors  to  the  undispoeed-of  residue),
merely  shifts  the  burden  of  proof  from
the  next  of  kin  to  the  executor.  Read  v.
SUdman,  vol.  26,  p.  495

26.  Devise  and  bequest  of  reaidue  of  tea-
tator'a  property  to  A,,  B.  and  C.  **  upon
trust"  to  convert  and  pay  debta  and  cer-
tain legacies.  The  testator,  in  a  aubae-
quent  dause,  appointed  A,t  B.  and  C.  bis
executors,  and  he  died  without  next  of
kin.  Held,  that  the  Crown,  aa  against
the  executors,  waa  entitled  to  the  undis-
poaed-of  residue.    Ibid,

27.  The  testator  gave  all  hia  real  and  per-
aonal  eatate  to  truateea,  upon  trust,  ex-
cept aa  to  money  due  to  him  from  A.  E,,
to  convert  bv  aale  and  invest  in  the  funda,
"  and  pay  the  interest  thereof  unto  his
wife"  for  life,  with  remainder  over.
Held,  that  the  widow  waa  entitled  to  the
intereat  arising  from  the  debt  from  A.  E.
