This decree is said to be in conformity with the precedent in the case in this court of Griffith and Penningtons 1795: But Key, the attorney for the appellant in this case, suggested, that it did not seem to be-correct; for it appeared impracticable fco affirm the decree cf the chancellar, and then give interest, or direct it to he stated from one year after the date of the will; because the chancellor had assumed a sum different from the amount of the legacies. The legacies make 250/. whereas the chancellor had stated the principal to he 28b/. 15*. 0d. which is composed of (he whole principal and vmie interest. This occasions embarrassment in affirming the decree. The simple business appeared to him to he, to reverse the decree, and direct the chancellor to have the account restated, decree the principal ef 250/. being t.he amount of the legacies, and interest from ibth of November 17/0, till paid, and costs, &e, The decree of affirmance was changed to what it now appears,