of making a new Presentation And in all pleadings of this sort the notice is generally alledged to be the same day or within a day or two at the most That certainly it ought to be with convenient notice But then it was urged That the six Months ought not to be from the Death of the last Incumbent if there be a person Criminal presented which the Patron doth or may know as well as the Bishop there the six Months must be from the Death but if it be upon a refusal for a Cause which lies only in the Bishop's knowledge then it must be only from the notice and that notice ought to be personal but if the Months incur from the Death the notice should be in conveient time and what that is the Court must Judge Then it was urged from Speccot's Case That this Plea is too general and uncertain that a Temporal right being concerned the Bishop ought to have set forth more particularly and distinctly the cause of his Refusal 8 Rep. 68. the certain cause of a Divorse must be shewn 11 Hen. 7. 27. 2 Leon. 169. The Ordinary is a Judge only of the matter of Fact if true not if this matter pretended be a cause of Refusal he ought to alledge that so particularly as to manifest it to the Court in which the Suit depends That 't is a legal cause of Refusal He is not a Judge whether Hodder's insufficiency in any one point of Learning be a good cause of Refusal for if it should be so the Temporal Right of Patronage would be very precarious The Court ought to have enough before them whereon to Judge of the Cause as well as that on Issue may be joyned and tried here 't is only said that he is less sufficient not that he is altogether illiterate this will put it in the Power of the Ordinary to refuse for want of knowledge in any Learning as he thinks fit as Mathematicks or Anatomy without which a Man may be well Qualified to be the Rector of a Benefice and the consequence of such Opinion will be much to the prejudice of Lay Patrons that certainty in Pleading ought to be encouraged for the prevention of the exercise of Arbitrary discretionary Power that the Wisdom of the Common-Law is to reduce things to single Questions that the Determination upon them may be plain and certain and known and the reasons of such Determinations may appear which cannot well be done if general Allegations or Pleadings be countenanced for which and other Reasons urged by the Counsel who argued with the Judgment 't was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed It was replied on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that the Books were very plain that the six Months were to incur from the Death of the Incumbent and then if there were not notice in convenient and due time in order to enable the Patron to present again that this ought to come on the other side That to require Learning in Presentees to Benefices would promote the Honour of the Church nay of the Nation in general That every Man who knew this Presentee and his Ignorance even as to the Latin Tongue must acknowledge that the Reverend Prelate who refused him had done worthily and becoming the Character of his Order Family and Person and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be Reversed and it was Reversed Robert Davis versus Dr. John Speed WRIT of Error on a Judgment in Ejectment in the King 's Bench for certain Lands in Hamp-Shire the Declaration was upon the Demise of Francis Cockey The Verdict finds that William Horne and Ann his Wise were seized of the Lands in Question in their Demesne as of Fee in Right of the Wife that they made and executed a Deed Covenanting to Levy a Fine thereof to the use of the Heirs of the said William Horne lawfully begotten and to be begotten on the Body of the said Ann his Wife and for default of such Issue then to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Horne for ever and a Fine was Levied accordingly to these uses that William and Ann were seized prout Lex postulat that they had Issue William Horne their Son who Died without Issue in the Life of William and Ann that she Died and William the Father and Husband Survived her that then he Died without Issue that the lessor of the Plaintiff is Sister and Heir of the said William Horne that after his Death she entred and was seized prout Lex postulat that Elizabeth Joanna and others were Co-heirs of the said Ann that their Estate and Interest came by mean conveyances to the Defendant Speed That he was seized prout Lex postulat that the Lessor of the Plaintiff entered and Ousted the said Speed and made the Demise in the Declaration and that the Plaintiff entered and was Possessed till the Defendant entered upon him and Ousted him And if it shall appear to the Court that the Desenant's entry was lawful they find the Defendant not Guilty and if c. upon this special Verdict Judgment was given in B. R. for the Defendant And now it was Argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Judgment was Erroneous and ought to be Reversed for that these Lands belonged to the Heirs of the Husband by force of this Deed and Fine that this was in the Case of an Use which was to be construed as much according to the intent of the Parties as a will That if by any construction that intent could be fulfilled it ought That the intent of the parties here was plain to give this Estate to the Husband and his Heirs that uses are to be governed by Equity and that therefore the meaning of the persons concerned was to be pursued That the Woman intended to take nothing her self nor to reserve any thing but to part with the whole That here was an use by implication in the Husband tho' none could result back to the Husband because he had none before but that in this case as in that of a Will an use might by implication very well be raised to the Husband and then this might be good by way of Remainder after the Death of the Husband or create an Estate Tail in him by coupling the use implied to him for Life with that to the Heirs of his Body and that if it were not so then that it was good as a springing contingent use to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband c. and that in the mean time till that Contingency happened the same was to the use of the Wife and her Heirs And that this Construction contradicted no Rule of Law That it was no more than was allowed in case of a Will by way of Executory Devise according to Pell and Brown's Case in 2 Cro. that the Estate should remain in the Wife and her Heirs during the Life of the Husband
is aliud testamentum i.e. a general Testament The 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is directly thus The Defendant pleads one Will the Plaintiff replies another and exception taken because he did not traverse the former but held needless to do so quia per ult ' testamentum ut placitatur generaliter primum testamentum revocatur in omnibus and it cannot be pretended that this might be the same Will written over again for if so it could not be aliud it would be the same these are not quibbles upon words for can it be said that this is a Devise by the last Will of Sir H. when there 's another Nor is it an Objection that the Contents do not appear for the Will belongs not to the Heir to keep and consequently not to shew in pleading he is not bound to a profert 't is enough that there was a subsequent Will And as the latter may confirm or be consistent with the former so it may not be so and the consistency is not to be presumed especially against an Heir at Law and in possession In the Case of Coward and Marshal 3 Cro. 721. the Substance of both are declared and thereby they appeared to be consistent and consequently no Revocation here Eadem mens sic testandi the same intent of disposing his Estate the same way can never be thought to continue for then there had been no occasion of making another Will If this be not a Revocation 't is an act void and to no purpose which is never to be intended Then 't was insisted on That the bare act of making and publishing another Will is a Revocation and the finding of the Contents unknown is void If this be not a Will 't is a Codicil and that is contrary to the finding of the Jury for the Verdict mentions a second Substantive independent Will without reference to the former which second Will is a Revocation and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed It was argued on the other side in behalf of Mr. Nosworthy That this was no Revocation that here had been a great stir about nothing for that nothing appeared against his Title that a Man may make a Will of several things at several times and they both shall stand that a deliberate Will being made the Contents whereof are known shall never be revoked by that which is not known nothing can be judged upon that which doth not appear and consequently it can never be judged to be a Revocation Here 's another Will and nothing is given by it nothing is found to be given by this subsequent Will The form of entring the ancient Judgments was Quibus visis lectis auditis per Curiam plene intellectis now what is here read to make a Revocation 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is with the Judgment for there 't is replied that he made another Executor there are the Contents pleaded sufficient to maintain his Count and answer the Defendant's Bar the Book is per hoc quod alius Executor nominatur Then was cited 1 Cro. 51. the Reason given is quia in dubiis non presumitur pro testamento and here being a good Will at the most the other is doubtful 1 Cro. 114 115. Several Wills of several things may be made And the same Book 595. 10 Car. 1. which Refolution Serjeant Maynard in arguing this Case below said that he heard in that Court of Kings Bench 'T is the Subject Matter of the Wills and the Repugnancy which makes the Revocation In this very Case in the Exchequer upon an English Bill 't was held by Hale to be no Revocation 't is in Hardres 375. Coke upon Littleton which hath been quoted Comments upon these words several Devises and if there be no Devise in the second there can be no sense or meaning in it and consequently unless some meaning appear it can never be an Evidence of a change of his Mind as it might be a Revocation so it might be otherwise and he that will have it to be a Revocation must prove it to be such No Man can affirm that every Will must necessarily be a Revocation of a former for the second Will might be of another thing as Goods or of another parcel of Land or in confirmation of the former If in these and many other like Cases a latter Will is no Revocation of a former how can it possibly with justice be concluded that a latter Will without Contents Purport or Effect shall be a Revocation of a former And tho' the Jury have in this Case believed the Witnesses and found that another Will was made it may be of dangerous Consequence to encourage and construe this a Revocation without knowing the Contents for no Will can be secure against the swearing of a new Will if there be no necessity of shewing it or proving what it was For which and other Reasons it was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed and it was affirmed Sir Simon Leach al' Plaintiffs Versus J. Thomson Lessee of Charles Leach Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in B. R. upon a Special Verdict on a Trial at Bar in Ejectment brought by Thomson on the Demise of Charles Leach the Special Verdict finds that Nicholas Leach was seized of the Lands in question in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seized 9 Nov. 19 Car. 2. he makes his last Will and thereby devises the Premisses to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to Simon Leach his Brother for his Life and after his Decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon lawfully to be begotten and the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the second c. and so on to the eighth Sons of all and every other Sons c. and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach his Kinsman Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in Com' Devon ' Esq deceased and the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of him the said Nicholas for ever Then they find That the Lands in the Declaration and those in the Will are the same that afterwards viz. 10 Apr. 20 Car. 2. Nicholas died seized without Issue of his Body that after his Death the said Simon his Brother and Heir Entred and was seized in his Demesne ut de libero tenemento for term of his Life Remainder to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon the Brother and the Heirs of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such to the second c. Remainder to Sir Simon in Tail Remainder to the said Simon the Brother and his Heirs belonging That Simon Leach the Brother being so seized afterwards viz. 20 Aug. 20 Car. 2. took to Wife Anne the Daughter of Vnton Crook that
and yet ' t is there in the power of the Ancestor by good Pleading to have supported the Patent and by bad pleading to destroy it and therefore when the Foundation which is the Patent fails the Honour and whatever it be that is erected upon it shall fail also Every Estate by the consent of all Persons interested and concerned in the thing may be taken away for the Law is so set against Perpetuities that a Clause intimating it is void and tho' an Honour is not Jones Rep. 109 123. assignable yet it may be extinguished It 's true if a Man hath but a part of an Estate as only an Estate for Life he can't alone pass away the whole Estate but none who hath the Inheritance in Tail or in Fee but he may destroy the whole and tho' any one have but part yet by the concurrence of all that are concerned the whole may be destroyed It is admitted if he commit Treason and is attainted thereof he loseth the Honour for himself and his Posterity now 't was in his power to do this act overt and if by an act unlawful he hath power to defeat the descent of the Intail upon his Issue there is the same reason that by a lawful act he should part with it there are two Acts of Parliament in force which fortifie the Fine it must be granted that those Honours are within the Statute de Donis and then there can be no reason they should not be within the Statutes of Fines 4 Hen. 7. 34 H. 8. which say that Tenant in Tail may levie a Fine of all things that are intailable within the Statute de Donis whatever therefore is within the one is within both and it is not sufficient to alledge that it is inconvenient that it should be within the Statute of Fines for there is an Act of Parliament and without an Act of Parliament to exempt it it can't be exempted It may be proved by great variety of Precedents to have been the practise in former times anciently nothing more frequent than to release Hoours See Selden's Titles of Honours 730. it was as frequent as to grant them In latter times Delaval's Case 11 Rep. 1. it hath been the Judgment of the Lords that Honours may be extinguished which in 1668. was certified by all the King's Counsel Learned in the Law to be good Authority But to go a little higher Andrew Gifford Baron Pomfret in Fee 4 Hen. 3. Rot. 100. surrendred to the King so 23 Hen. 3. Simon Mountford Esq Earl of Leicester having a Mind to take an Honour from his eldest Son and confer it upon his younger and so it was surrendred and regranted accordingly Selden seems to construe this to be by way of Transmission and not Surrender yet others of later Authority as Cambden's Britan. Title Earl of Leicester say expresly that he did Surrender it and Selden himself says it was by Concurrence of the King King Hen. 3. Rot. Cr. 24. men E. 1. created one Earl of Richmond and he surrendred to the King Cambden's Brit. Title Earl of Richmond Roger de Bigod surrendred not only the Office of Earl Marshal but also the Earldom of Norfolk William Duke of Juliers whose Father came in with Edw. 3. was created Earl of Cambridge 40 Edw. 3. m. 21. in Fee his Son surrenders to the King which Record we have here So Edward the Third made his Son John of Gaunt See Cambden's ubi supra Earl of Richmond who surrendred it to the King And lastly in the Years 1639 1679. Roger Stafford whom the King intended to make a Viscount by the Advice of the Learned Men levied a Fine thereof by which 't is now enjoy'd Lastly he argued ab inconvenienti for no Lord in the House will be in safety if it should be other ways there being many sitting in this House by virtue of Surrenders from other Lords in former days and perhaps some of their Heirs are alive and so if these Surrenders be adjudged invalid it would shake your Lordships own Possessions and make it dubitable whether Forreigners and Persons unknown may not come and thrust them out but if not so it may cause Confusion amongst themselves their former Honours having been surrendred to accept of others and perhaps some not thinking their Titles secure will stick to the former and so occasion Dispute and Confusion about Precedency and lastly it will put a great Disgrace upon your Ancestors proceedings who deemed this Course legal and those must show very good Precedents that it hath been disavowed if they will encounter such constant Practises In the next place 't was answered to their Arguments and Objections and as for that first Argument That an Honour is inherent in the Blood he answered That this Inherency in the Blood is not essential to Honours for an Honour may be created for Life and then none of the Posterity or Blood of the Peer is thereby enobled It may be limited to the Heirs Males of the Body so that an Honour may touch and enter far into the Blood and yet not run with it and farther it may be limited to the Heirs by such a Wife there the Issue by the second Venter shall never inherit the Dignity and yet is as near to the Father as those that are by the first so that 't is no true ground that they go upon that Nobility is inherent in the Blood and for what was alledged as to the Inconveniency of Surrendering Dignities he answered That there may be necessary Reasons for the extinguishment of an Honour and it may be for the benefit and advantage of the Party and his Posterity as if it do happen that the Family do fall into Poverty and be not able to support the Honour of Peerage with decency and so this Honour would perhaps be a Disgrace to the rest of the Lords and in a Child's Case it may happen to a Noble Family to have those Afflictions that to continue the Honour would expose the Family to Infamy and therefore some times to prevent the Son of Adultery from his succeeding to the Dignity it may be convenient to surrender it and yet this cannot be without the concurrence of the Prince who being the Source of Honour can best judge of the Reasons for stopping the Stream and it cannot seem an harder Case to disinherit him of the Honour then of the Estate which he may do and if he leave his Honour without his Estate it will be a Burden on his Shoulders which he will be unable to bear and seeing it 's necessary that there be a concurrence of the Prince it is undecent to suppose so vile a thing of the Crown as to comply with the Peevishness and Simplicity of the Parents where there is no reason for it And as for what hath been alledged for the Invalitity of those Precedents that they were in Cases of New Creations and were in nature of Transmissions he answered That when an
that this was never designed to take effect as an use to be vested immediately and it was no more then if the Deed had declared the use to be after the expiration of twenty Years or at other future time to the Heirs of the Body of William Horne and for default of such Issue to his right Heirs and that such time had happened the use would have vested in the Heirs of his Body or in his right Heirs if he had Died before that time That 't is true there must be a person capable of taking at the time when the Contingency happens and so there was here at the time of his Death That it could never be intended that the Heirs should take immediately for that then there was no such person in being there could be no Heirs during his Life That this was like the Case of Webb and Sir Caesar Cranmer where the Trust of the Estate during the Life of the Duke of Southampton was adjudged to remain in the Heirs of the Devisor the Duke himself not being capable to take it That here being no person able to take under this Deed and Fine during the Husband's Life it shall be construed to remain as it was before till that Life ends and then the use ought to take effect for otherwise both the Deed and Fine are to no purpose they are all in vain and the intent of the parties to it is defeated And there were Cited the Lord Paget's Case in 1 Anderson and Woodlett and Denny 2 Crook 439. and 1 Leon 256. On the other side it was argued with the Judgment that this Deed and Fine can raise no use to the Heirs of the Husband according to the Rules of Law It was insisted That if Husband and Wise do levy a fine of the Wife's Land and no uses are declared or such uses are declared as are void and can never take effect such Fine is to the use of the Wife and her Heirs that in such case the Estate remins ' as it was or if the Fine Operates any thing it shall be for the benefit of the party to whom it did belong before Then it was urged That this was designed to raise an use immediately to the Heirs of the c. and that there was no person capable of taking at the time of levying this Fine the common Maxim in the Law proving it quod nemo est heres Viventis that the name and nature of an Heir import a successor after Death that this being designed to raise an use ex presenti and no person being capable of taking at that time the same must be void That this is the case of a Deed executed in the Life-time of the parties and not a Will where large allowances are often made in favour of supposed intentions by reason that persons are often surprized by Sickness and presumed to want the assistance of Counsel but the Rules of Law are always allowed to govern in Construction of Deeds Then it was urged that nothing was ever designed to the Husband himself by this that no words in the Deed can favour such a presumption that this must either work as an Estate in present or by way of remainder if the latter then by the known Rules of Law there must be a particular Estate to support it and such particular Estate must be either expressed or implied here is none expressed and if implied it must be in the Wife and if in her then she dying before the Husband her particular Estate did determine before the remainder could take place and consequently by all the Rules of Law it can never take place and no particular Estate can be implied in or for the Husband for that there is nothing said shewing such intent and if the Construction of Law be to prevail then as was urged before that is in favour of the Wife But here it was plainly designed to take effect immediately and therefore void because there was no person in being capable of taking at the time the Estate was intended to vest and no uses are to be executed by the State which are limitted against the Rules of the Common-Law Chudleigh's Case 1 Rep. 129. if the limitation of an use be at this day to A. for Years and afterwards to the use of the Heirs or Wife of B. which shall be this is void because 't would have been void if limitted in possession Dyer 190. the Earl of Bedford's Case in Popham 3 4. and 82. resolved in like manner to be void because would have been so in an Estate conveyed at Common-Law And all that can be objected is that then this is all void which is no more than may be pretended upon every imperfect conveyance but here the Case is in a Court of Law and the Defendant is a Purchaser who hath been Thirty Years in Possession tho' that doth not appear in the Case And it was said That as to the Notion of a springing contingent use 't is hardly intelligible in it self and by no means applicable to this Case because here are no words in this Deed that carry any relation to a future time or Contingency and the Objection is only this That the Conveyancer was mistaken in his Judgment or that the parties knew not what they meant or that they meant to create such an Estate and in such a manner as the Law will not allow and neither of these are Reasons sufficient to prevail for the Reversing of a Judgment given according to the Rules of Law by which Men's Inheritances have all along been governed and upon which many Estates do now depend 'T was further urged That the contrary Opinion which must be advanced to annul this Judgment would reder the Law and Men's Conveyances as doubtful and uncertain as last Wills and Testaments and submit Men's Titles to the Arbitrary Power and Will of those that shall Judge of them It is to impower them to suppose intentions where not expressed and to raise uses by Implication where they were never designed And in short 't will destroy all the difference between good and bad Conveyances and enable Men to limit uses and raise Estates contrary to and in different manner from what the Law hath hitherto allowed it will render Purchases more uncertain than they are at present and that 's more than enough already and the consequence must be to produce a confusion in property c. wherefore upon the whole it was prayed That the Judgment might be affirmed and it was affirmed accordingly Watts al' versus Crooke APpeal from a Decree in Chancery The Case in short was this That Peter Crooke and Elizabeth his Wife who was Sister of the half Blood to George Watts claimed to have an equal share with John Watts and Elizabeth Camfield who were Brother and Sister of the whole Blood to the Deceased of his Personal Estate and a Decree was made in Chancery in favour of Crooke and his Wife It was argued on
Denbigh and Montgomery leaving three Daughters and Coheirs Mary Penelope and Susan Susan married Sidney Godolphin one of the present Appellants In July 1674. Mary and Penelope in consideration of 4000 l. paid to the said Mary by Richard Carew Esq and in consideration of a Marriage to be had and which was afterwards had between Penelope and the said Richard Carew by Lease and Release convey all those their two Parts of the said Lands in Denbigh Salop and Montgomery to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of Richard Carew for Life then to Penelope for Life for her Jointure then to the said Trustees and their Heirs during the Lives of Richard and Penelope to preserve contingent Remainders then to the first and other Sons of Richard and Penelope in Tail-Male successively And in default of Issue-Male to the Daughters of Richard and Penelope in Tail And in default of such Issue as to one Moiety of the said two Parts to the first and other Sons of the said Penelope by any other Husband in Tail the Remainder of all and singular the Premisses to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs for ever subject to this Proviso That if it should happen that no Issue of the said Richard upon the Body of the said Penelope should be living at the decease of the Survivor of them and the Heirs of the said Penelope should within Twelve Months after the decease of the Survivor of the said Richard and Penelope dying without Issue as aforesaid pay to the Heirs or Assigns of the said Richard Carew the Sum of 4000 l. that then the Remainder in Fee-simple so limited to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs should cease and that then and from thenceforth the Premisses should remain to the use of the right Heirs of the said Penelope for ever After this Mary intermarried with the Appellant Sir Evan Lloyd and a Partition was made of the Premisses and the same had been enjoyed accordingly ever since and Mr. Carew and his Lady levied a Fine to Mr. Godolphin and his Lady of his part who did thereupon by their Deed dated 23 Sept. 1676. covenant to levy a Fine of Mr. Carew's two Parts to such uses as he and his Lady should limit and appoint but have not yet levied the said Fine Richard Carew and Penelope his Wife to avoid all Controversies that might happen whereby the Estate of the said Richard Carew or his Heirs might be question'd or incumbred by the Heirs of Penelope and to the End to extinguish and destroy and barr all such Estate Right Title Equitable or other Interest as the said Penelope then had or her Issue and Heirs might have or claim to the same by any Power Settlement or Condition on payment of 4000 l. or otherwise to the Heirs of Richard Carew by the Heirs of the said Penelope and for the settling of the same on the said Richard Carew and his Heirs did in Michaelmas Term 1681. levy a Fine of the Share and Part allotted to them and by Deed of 10 Decemb. 1681. declare that the said Fine should be to the use of the said Richard for Life Remainder to Penelope for Life the Remainder to the said Richard Carew his Heirs and Assigns for ever And do further declare That the Fine agreed to be levied by the Appellants Sidney Godolphin and Susan his Wife by their Deed dated the 23 Sept. 1676. should be to the same uses and then direct the Trustees by the first Settlement to convey to those uses Penelope died without Issue in 1690. Richard Carew made his Will in Aug. 1691. and devised the said Lands to Sir John Carew Baronet his Brother subject to pay all his Debts and Legacies and made Sir John Carew his Executor In Decemb. 1691. Richard Carew died without Issue and Sir John Carew entred and was seized and possessed of the Premisses and paid 4855 l. for the Debts of Richard Carew Sir John Carew died and the Respondent Sir Richard Carew an Infant is his Son Heir and Executor The Appellants Mary and Susan claiming the Lands as Heirs to Penelope by virtue of the said Proviso in the first Settlement upon payment of the 4000 l. exhibited their Bill in Chancery to compel the Trustees to convey the Estate to them upon such payment Upon hearing of this Cause on Bill and Answer the Court ordered a State of the Case to be drawn which was as above and afterwards the Court assisted by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice Rooksby seeing no Cause to relieve the Plaintiffs dismissed their Bill And now it was argued on behalf of the Appellants That such Dismission ought to be set aside and amongst other things it was insisted on in favour of the Appeal that this Proviso was not void that it was within the reason of the Contingent Limitations allowed by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk and there were quoted several Paragraphs in the Argument made by the said Lord Chancellor as that future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory Remainders that are to emerge or arise upon Contingency are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the Reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long Consideration but such as by a natural and easie Interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to the right Channel again That tho' there can be no Remainders limited after a Fee-simple yet there may be a Contingent Fee-simple arise out of the first Fee that the ultimum quod sit or the utmost Limitation of a Fee upon a Fee is not yet plainly determined that tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet 't is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee that no Conveyance is ever to be set aside in Chancery where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction especially where 't is a Family Settlement Then these Paragraphs were applied and further urged That there could not in reason be any difference between a Contingency to happen during Life or Lives or within one year afterwards that the true reason of such Opinions which allowed them if happening within the time of the Parties lives or upon their deceases was because no Inconvenience could be apprehended thereby and the same Reason will hold to one year afterwards and the true Rule is to fix Limits and Boundaries to such Limitations when so made as that they prove Inconvenient and not otherwise That this Limitation upon this Contingency happening was the considerate Intention of the Family the Circumstances whereof required Consideration and this Settlement was the Result of it and made by good Advice That the Fine could not barr the Benefit of this Proviso for that the same never was nor ever could be in Penelope who levied the Fine As to the Pretence That if the
the Respondents Davenport and Townsend and their Heirs to the use of him and his Heirs till his then intended Marriage should take effect And after such Marriage had then as to part in trust for his intended Wife and her Heirs and Assigns for ever And as to the rest in trust to permit the said Earl to receive the Profits during his Life and after his decease to sell the same for the best price and out of the Money raised by Sale to defray the Funeral Expences and pay his Debts and deliver the surplus as he should by his last Will and Testament in writing attested by three Witnesses or by another Deed in writing so attested appoint and for want thereof to the Executors and Administrators of the Earl with a Proviso That the said Earl by his last will and Testament or any other Deed in writing to be thereafter by him made and executed and attested as aforesaid might alter change determine or make void all or any the Trusts aforesaid and for want of such after to be made will or deed then in trust for the said Earl Edward his Heirs and Assigns for ever Earl Edward died without Issue of his Body and without Marriage The Appellant exhibited a Bill to have the said Deeds of Lease and Release set aside and to have the Will executed The Respondents as Heirs insist upon the Deeds as a Revocation and their Heirship was thus Theophilus Earl had Issue Edward Katharine Arabella and Margaret Edward died in the Life time of Theophilus leaving Issue Edward late Earl of Lincoln Katharine by Sir George Booth had Issue the Respondent Veer Booth Arabella by Robert Roll had Issue Samuel Roll and Margaret married Hugh Buscowen and had Issue the Respondent Bridget Fortescue And the Court assisted with the two Chief Justices and Mr. Justice Powel saw no Cause to relieve the Appellant And now it was argued with the Appeal That the Dismission was Erroneous there being Cause for Relief for that the Marriage never did take effect nor any serious Overture or Treaty was made by the said Earl on that behalf so as the said Earl did continue and at the time of his death was seized of the same Estate in the Premisses he had at the time of making and publishing the Will that if at Law the Deeds of Lease and Release were in strictness a revocation of the Will yet in Equity they ought not to be construed a Revocation of the said Will so often and so solemnly and deliberately made and published and upon so good a Consideration as the support of the Honour that the said Will was the Result of the Earls continued Intentions throughout his Life and the Deeds were only the effect of some sudden Fancy or Passion and even by those Deeds no benefit was designed to the Respondents for the disposition of the Surplus of what should be raised by the Sale was to be to his Executor Sir F. C. the Appellants Father and that did evidence a continued Kindness to him who never had offended him and no regard to the Respondents who tho' they were his Heirs general were related only at a distance and scarcely known by him and very well provided for by great Portions raised out of the Estate for their Mothers Then 't was argued that this Estate was meerly an equitable one and consequently Equity only ought to govern the disposition of it here 's no express Revocation pretended that a Mortgage in Fee is no Revocation for in Equity it doth not make the Estate anothers Here is a Noble Peer who is to sit in the Seat or Place of his Ancestors and therefore no Presumption Intendment or forced Implication ought to be against him or his Interest that this was designed to take effect in case the Marriage was had and not otherwise that here was no intention to revoke but upon the Contingency of his Marriage And there was cited Zouch and Barker's Case 1625. in the Lord Coventry's time Chancery Rep. and the Lord Boucher's Case in Edward the Sixth's time the Case was said to be in Dyer left as a Query and in 1 Rolls Abridg. And for these and many other Reasons and Authorities urged 't was prayed that the Dismission should be Reversed and the Appellant Relieved On the other side 't was insisted That tho' this was not an express Revocation by the use of words declaring it to be such yet 't was a true legal and effectual Revocation that these Deeds of Lease and Release did alter the Estate that here 't was for payment of Debts as well as in consideration of the intended Marriage that here was a manifest change of his Intention that both Will and Deed were voluntary and inconsistent and therefore the latter must stand that here were no Children or Creditors claiming under the Will that tho' the Subject Matter were an equitable Interest yet Equity ought to follow the Rules of Law that the Law made this a good Revocation and Equity ought to judge it the same way unless Fraud were proved to be used in the procuring of the Execution of these Deeds that the reason why a Mortgage even in Fee is not a Revocation is because a Mortgage doth carry upon the face of it a Defeasance 't is not reckoned an Inheritance to the Heir of the Mortgage but shall be Personal Estate and Assets to pay the Mortgagee's Debts This Deed was revocable by an after Will which shews the Party to have no regard for any former Will nor is there any reference to the Will then in being If a Marriage had happened 't would be agreed to have been a Revocation and if so when was the Will revoked by what Act by the Deed or by the Marriage That it was said that it certainly would have been revoked by the Deed and consequently ought to be construed a Revocation tho' no Marriage did ensue Revocations are the same in Equity as at Law and so was it held in the Case of the Earls of Bathe and Mountague The Statute of Frauds never was thought to extend to such Revocations as these Tho' Earl Edward's Intentions were once to support the Honour with the Estate yet it was always in his power to alter it The Lease and Release passed the Equity of Redemption and consequently 't is the same now between the Appellant and Respondents as if there had been no Mortgage in the Case 'T was further urged That a Will is but an imperfect Conveyance inchoate only and ambulatory as the Books term it till the death of the Party and another Will may revoke it and with greater reason may a Deed which alters the Estate and shews a change of the Intention of the Person who was Owner of it There 's no need of a Consideration to warrant the Revocation of a Will there needs no reason to be given for it 't is only the Mind of the Party which both makes and revokes the Will A Will is