discerned there was the same reason for after twenty mens lives as after one and so then it was held and agreed that so long as the Limitation exceeded not Lives in being at the creation of the Estate it should extend so far That came to grow upon them then and now if this be admitted no man can foresee what an ill Effect such an ill Allowance might have there might such Limitations come in as would incumber Estates and mightily entangle Lands This is certain such an allowed Limitation would adde a greater check to Estates than ever was made by Limitations of Inheritance For when an Estate of Inheritance was limited to a man and his Heirs Males of his body with Remainders over and a Term was limited accordingly to wait upon the Inheritance In that Case he that had the first Estate-tail had full power over the Term to alienate it if he pleased for it is not an Estate within the Statute De Dominis and I doubt not that had a great Influence upon the Judges when they made the difference between Terms for years in Gross and Terms attendant upon the Inheritance For Terms in Gross they could not be aliened in such a Case but Terms attending upon the Inheritance though under such Limitations the parties could alien them But now if this Limitation in question were good then Henry could not part with it because it is to him and his Heirs Males of his body under a collateral Limitation of his brothers dying without Issue and the Earldom descending to himself and then his Estate was to determine and so it would fetter that which if it had been a Term attendant c. would have been alienable I have seen the time often when they have refused to carry Cases further than the Precedents have been in former times and peradventure it would be dangerous if we should do so here and it seems to me to be an odd kind of Estate as this Limitation makes it and if such a construction as the Plaintiff would have should be made it would bring it under a great uncertainty To take this Estate as it stands in Henry and the Heirs Males of his body it is by this Limitation made and so indeed I think it is a Term that waits upon the Inheritance But if this that is contended for be admitted to be a good Limitation upon the Contingency of Thomas's dying without Issue Male then the Estate in Charles would be a Term in Gross for it hath no Inheritance to attend upon Then suppose Henry had died without Issue Male in Charles's life-time then it is a Term attendant upon the Inheritance again If Charles die in the life of Henry it goeth to the Executors If Henry in the life of Charles it goes to the Heirs Therefore I think that this Estate being limited in another way and being it would endure a strain further than any yet has been attempted and it being to commence upon Thomas's dying without Issue Male and not attendant upon any Inheritance it is such an Estate as the Law cannot allow of but void in Limitation and Creation and so I take it the Plaintiffs Bill ought to be dismissed THE Lord Chancellor NOTTINGHAM'S ARGUMENTS The First Argument THIS is the Case The Plaintiff by his Bill demands the benefit of a Term for two hundred Years in the Barony of Greystocke upon these settlements Henry Fredericke late Earl of Arundel and Surry Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant had Issue Thomas Henry Charles Edward Francis and Bernard and a Daughter the Lady Katharine Thomas Lord Maltravers his eldest Son was Non compos Mentis and care is taken to settle the Estate and Family as well as the present circumstances will admit And thereupon there are two Indentures drawn and they are both of the same date The one is an Indenture between the Earl of Arundel of the one part and the Duke of Richmond the Marquess of Dorchester Edward Lord Howard of Eastcricke and Sir Thomas Hatton of the other part it bears date the Twenty first day of March 1647. Whereby an Estate is conveyed to them and their Heirs To these uses To the use of the Earl for his life After that to the Countess his Wife for her life with power to make a Lease for 21. Years reserving the antient Rents The remainder for 200. Years to those Trustees and that upon such trusts as by another Indenture intended to bear date the same day the Earl should limit and declare and then the remainder of the Lands are to the use of Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body begotten with like remainders in Tail to Charles Edward and the other Brothers successively Then comes the other Indenture which was to declare the Trust of the Term for 200 Years for which all these preparations are made and that declares that it was intended this Term should attend the Inheritance and that the profits of the said Barony c. should be received by the said Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Thomas and any Issue Male of his Body should live which was consequently only during his own life because he was never likely to Marry and if he dye without Issue in the life-time of Henry not leaving a Wife privement Enseint of a Son or if after his death the Dignity of Earl of Arundel should descend upon Henry Then Henry or his Issue should have no farther benefit or profit of the Term of 200 Years Who then shall But the benefit shall redound to the younger Brothers in manner following How is that To Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body with the like Remainders in Tail to the rest Thus is the matter settled by these Indentures how this Family was to be provided for and the whole Estate govern'd for the time to come These Indentures are both sealed and delivered in the presence of Sir Orlando Bridgman Mr. Edward Alehorn and Mr. John Alehorn both of them my Lord Keeper Bridgman's Clerks I knew them to be so This Attestation of these Deeds is a Demonstration to me they were drawn by Sir Orlando Bridgman After this the Contingency does happen for Thomas Duke of Norfolk dies without Issue and the Earldom of Arundel as well as the Dukedom of Norfolk descended to Henry now Duke of Norfolk by Thomas his death without Issue presently upon this the Marquess of Dorchester the surviving Trustee of this Estate assigns his Estate to Marryot but he doth it upon the same Trusts that he had it himself Mr. Marryot assigns his interest frankly to my Lord Henry the now Duke and so has done what he can to merge and extinguish the Term by the signing it to him who has the Inheritance To excuse the Marquess of Dorchester from cooperating in this matter it is said there was an absolute necessity so to do Because the Tenants in the North would not be brought to renew their Estates while so Aged a
a Life viz. the Honour of A. descend to H. H. which must be to him in his lifetime or not at all To which I answer that though a Contingency be remote in it self and not likely to happen within a Life the time within which it ought to happen or not at all doth not alter the case and therefore in Child and Bayly's Case reported in 2d of Coke and by Jones and Palmer the failure of Issue was limited to be within a Life viz. a Term was devised to one and his Assigns and if he die without Issue of his body living at the time of his death then to another this was adjudged no Remainder unto that other and though 't was objected that the Contingency must happen within the compass of life or not at all yet no regard was given to that This Case seems to me in reason to be the same with ours I do observe that no Case can be found whether limitation either by way of Trust or Devise of a Term hath been allowed to take effect upon a failure of Issue or after death of the party to whom the first Estate was limited without Issue And as in Child and Bayly's Case the Judges say as I have often heard them say in other Cases that if Matthew Maning's Case was now to be adjudged it would not be so adjudged and that case is a Term is demised to one for life and after his death to another which is allowed good and that they would not go a step farther so I say in this Case it must go further than Manning's Case or any other Case that adjudged to make it void William Jones The Case is new and without any express President and Serj. M d' s opinion 20 Nov. 1680. therefore not capable of so certain a determination as would be expected in case advice were to be given whether a Purchaser should deal in the buying of a Lease or not Yet though there be no President in point yet such-like Cases have been determined as guide my Judgement and Opinion to be scilicet that as this Case is circumstantiated Charles hath not nor can have a right to the Trust of the Term the Reasons and ground of my Opinion is as followeth First The Trust of the term for years in gross and separate from an Inheritance cannot be intailed in Possession or Remainder but yet where there is a Term for years in being if the Inheritance of the Land be intailed with Remainders over there the Term may be limited to wait upon the Inheritance according to the several Intails and such limitation is good so long as nothing intervenes to interrupt or disturb it But I conceive is not capable of such Priviledges of Intail as Inheritance is for the Intail is confirmed by the Statute of Westm 2d de bonis but the attendance of the Term upon the Inheritance intailed is not within the Statute de bonis c. but is a Creature of the Chancery and in several Cases may be destroyed and barred though no Fine and Recovery or other bar be made of the Inheritance I conceive such case if the Tenant intail Alien without Fine or Recovery for valuable Consideration the Issue Intail shall avoid the Inheritance the Chancery shall never help him to avoid the Lease In this particular Case it is clear that neither Charles nor any in Remainder can recover this Term at Law but onely by suit in Chancery and in Chancery shall never recover where the limitation of such a Term in being is not supportable in Common Law which in this Case it is not as I conceive for take the Case without the Contingency that Henry was Tenant Intail Remainder to Charles Intail c. the Recovery suffered by H. would have bar'd Charles and the rest of the term as well as of the Inheritance But the sole Objection here is that the trust of the term to Henry is expressed that it shall determine quo ad Henry and his Issue in case Tho. Duke of Norfolk dye without Issue living Charles as in this case he did The strength of this Objection lies in this First That the Cessor of the Trust is to be upon the death of a Stranger without Issue scil on Tho. Duke of Norfolk on whom the Lands were not Intailed And secondly The term is not to cease but upon the death of Tho. Duke of Norfolk without Issue in the life of Henry As to the first it will make no difference in Reason and in the pollity of the Law where the Cessor is limited on the death of a Stranger without Issue or of the Tenant Intail without heir of his body For first In both Cases the possibility is remote and not regarded in Law where a term is so limited and so were the resolutions in Childs and Bayly's Case and divers others This would be a way to set up a perpetuity as strongly as that it was limited upon the death of the Tenant in tail without Issue Put the case there be Father and several Sons A. B. and C. and the Father is seized in Fee of the reversion of Lands after a Lease of 200 years he settles the Inheritance upon his eldest Son in tail with Remainders in tail to his other Sons and this Lease being in Trustees for him at the same time causes the Lease to be setled in Trustees in Trust for the Sons to wait on the Inheritance in Trust accordingly provided that the second Son dye without Issue in the life of the Father or Son the Trust of the eldest Son to cease I conceive this would not be maintained in Equity if the second Son should not alien by Fine and Recovery As to the Second Objection that the Cessor is on the Death Mic. 17. Jac. R. B. of Tho. without Issue in the Life of Henry whereby the Contingency is reduced to happen in the Life of one person viz. Henry and not at large viz. of the death of Tho. without Issue I conceive no difference made thereby and it is in effect the point adjudged in Child and Bayly's Case which was thus French a Termer for 76 years demises to his Wife for Life Remainder of the Term to W. his Son and his Assigns Provisee That if his Son W. dyed without Issue of his body then living That T. his Son should have the Term or Interest Adjudged then in B. R. which was three years after affirmed Mic. 20. Jac. in the Exchequer Chamber by Hobart Winch Denham Hutton and Jones that the Demise to Tho. was void In that Case the Contingency did expect during the life of W. onely as here it is on the life of H. and the Reasons of their Judgments both in the Kings Bench and Exchequer-Chamber in effect of all the Judges of England at that time was because it might tend to make a perpetuity and that this new-invented way of Intailing of Terms in no sort to be favoured in Law. In Child's
in possession it had been the stronger but as this Case is I conceive the Trust will wait upon the Estate of H. H. for so long as Tho. lives and hath Heirs Males of his body and until the Earldom come unto him and the Trust of Henry determines and then a new Trust springs up to the younger Children which is a future contingent trust so as a common Recovery can bar this Trust so long onely as they did wait upon the Estate of H. H. which is now determined by a collateral Limitation and the Recovery cannot enlarge the Trust to H. H and make that to continue which in its Creation was to end when such a Contingent happens which hath now hapned if H. H. had not suffered a common Recovery he had had an Estate-tail yet no Trust this is a future contingent Trust to the younger Children which cannot be barred by a common Recovery W. Ellis 8 Martii 1677. 1. The Surrender or Grant of the Lease for 200 years to Serj. M d for the Brothers Henry nor the extinguishment of the legal Interest of the term doth not prejudice the equitable Trust of the term so long as the Lands comes not into other hands viz. of a Purchaser without notice of the Trust which is not in this Case 2. An Intail cannot be made of a term in Gross as if a Lease for 1000 years be made in trust for J. S. and the Heirs of his body with Remainders over J. S. may dispose of the whole term and such disposal is good against his Issue and those in Remainder and if he die without such disposition made by him his Executors shall have the benefit of the Trust and not his Issue or the Remainder 3. But a Term may be limited to attend and wait on the Inheritance by way of a trust as if a long term of years be the Reversion in Fee if the Reversion be purchased in Fee or setled in tail the term may be setled to the use of the Fee or Tenant intail and in that case if the Tenant intail die or the Tenant in Fee die the Heir or Issue shall have the benefit of the trust and not the Executors c. 4. But in that Case if the Tenant in Fee die in debt and no other sufficient Assets to pay the debt in that case the Executor shall be preferred before the Heir although the debt be such as the Heir is not bound or liable unto 5. And I conceive that in that case if the Tenant intail that hath the Equity of a term waiting on it do purchase the term and alien or obtain the Trustee of the term to make an alienation of the term it shall bind the Issue intail and him in Remainder though the Alienation be by Deed without Fine or Recovery because the term in Law is well aliened without Fine c. And the Statute of Westm 2d de bonis extends not to a Case of a term 6. Yet it is true this doth not absolutely determine the Case in question upon three accounts First It is a new Case not yet brought in question Secondly Because here is a springing and a new trust by accident subsequent and alters the Trust and changes the Intail of the term to other persons from Henry to the younger Children and on such accident takes away the Trust wholly from Henry the first Tenant in tail And Thirdly the Change seemeth to be grounded on great reason for the Lord Maltravers being in such condition as he was in there was great reason to disable him and provide for the younger Children as is done by Case and if Henry should come to be Earl and have addition of Estates that the other younger Children should also have accession of Estate to them and so it is by this Deed of trust provided But notwithstanding these reasons and this difference of the Case in these circumstances from other Cases already resolved and the contrary Opinions that I have seen I am rather of the opinion that in this Case the younger Brothers are bound by the Recovery suffered by Henry than convinced that they are not bound for I find that the Reasons given e contra touch not my doubt fully The Reasons of my Opinion are viz. 1. For the Recovery suffered and the time when it was suffered to wit before the Lord Maltravers dyed for till he dyed Henry was Tenant in tail and had power by a Recovery to bar and dispose of the whole Inheritance as well of his his own Estate tail as of those in Remainder The term of years was but accessary to serve and attend the Inheritance which was principal 2. And the onely reason that made such intailing or limitation of the term good was because it was to wait on the Inheritance first to Henry in tail and so successively to the other Brothers or else as it is abovesaid the limitation had not been good And when that reason fails and the cause why it was a good limitation ceaseth and is taken away the effect of it doth likewise cease 3. The change of the term into thirds doth not change the Estates tail of the younger Brothers and cannot stand with the intention of the Deed of Trust For I think it clear if Charles admitting he come to the Inheritance as owner or if in the life of Henry he could get a Tenant of the Freehold of all or any part of the Land to joyn with him should then suffer a Recovery it would bar Edward Francis and Bernard of so much of the third part whereof such Recovery should be suffered viz. of the whole Inheritance and a third of the term and the residue to wit the other two parts would respectively cease and be intailed as to the term and be wholly in the respective disposition of Edward and the rest and go to their Executors not to their Issues or the Remainders And yet upon long consideration of the Case there is another and a further ground of my doubt of what hath been said viz. not onely because it is a new Case and concerneth a Great and Noble Family but on another and further ground observed and insisted upon by such great Opinions contrary to what I have above observed viz. that it is not onely a springing and contingent use to the younger Brothers respecting them but because the Original Trust to Henry viz. that the Trust to him and his Issue is as to him and them under a Limitation and that not so long as he the Tenant in tail shall have Issue but so long as the Lord Maltravers shall have Issue Male and on that reason the Case is more doubtful M d. 1. I agree that if a man have a term for a 1000 years and Sir W. Ellis he grants and demiseth this to one and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to another and his Heirs that this term cannot be intailed nor a Remainder limited upon it and that
Lord Chief Baron Montague Charles Howard is Plaintiff and the Duke of Norfolk and others are Defendants The Plaintiff by his Bill seeks to have Execution of a Trust of a term of 200 years of the Barony of Grastock which was made by Henry Frederick Earl of Arundel and upon the Bill Answers Deeds and other Passages in this Cause contained is this Henry Frederick Earl of Arundel by Lease and Release of the 20th and 21th of March 1647. did settle the Barony of Grastock and of Burgh and several other Lands to himself for Life then to the Countess Elizabeth his Wife for life and then there is a term created for 99 years which we need not mention in this Case because it is determined and after the death of the Countess there is a term for years limited to my Lord of Dorchester and other Trustees for 200 years under a Trust to be declared in a Deed of the same date with the Release and the limitation of the Inheritance after this term of 200 years is first to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body then to Mr. Charles Howard the now Plaintiff Brother of the said Henry and so to all his Brothers successively intail Male with the last Remainder to the Earl of and his Heirs then by a Deed 21 of March 1647 the Earl declares the Trust of the term of 200 years reciting first the uses of the former Deed and therein says it was intended that the said term should attend the Inheritance and the Profits of the Barony of should be received for 200 years by Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his body so long as Lord Thomas eldest son of the said Earl of Arundel or any Issue Male of his body should be living but in case he should die without Issue Male in the life of Henry Howard not leaving his Wife ensient with a Son or in case after the death of Thomas without Issue Male the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel should descend to Henry Howard then he and his Issues to have no benefit of this term of 200 years but it was to descend to the other Brother Charles Howard the now Plaintiff as hereafter is mentioned and then comes Now this Indenture witnesseth and therein the Earl declares that it should be under the Limitations after specified viz. if Thomas Lord Howard had any Issue Male or Heirs Male of his body living Henry Howard then the Trustees should have the commencement of the term in trust for the said Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body till such time as the Earldom should come to Henry Howard by the death of Thomas without Heirs Males of his body and after to the other Brothers successively and the Heirs Males of their bodies and then doth divide the other Mannors with cross Remainders to the five Brothers then the Case goes on thus the Earl of Arundel dies in time in 1652 Elizabeth the Countess dies in 1673 then in 1675 my Lord of Dorchester the surviving Trustee assigns the Term to one Marriot he assigns it to the now Duke of Norfolk and the Duke the 24th of Octob. 1675 by Bargain and Sale makes a Tenant to the Precipe and then a Recovery is suffered and the Uses of that Recovery 25th of October are declared to be to the Duke and his Heirs Then Thomas Howard the former Duke died without Issue having never been married and that is in the year 1677 whereby the Honour came to the now Duke and so the Plaintiffs Bill is to have execution of the Trust of the term of the Barony of to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his body This I conceive was opposed by the Counsel for the Defendant upon these grounds 1. That by the Assignment made by Marriot to my Lord Duke Henry the Term was surrendred and quite gone 2. The second ground was the common Recovery suffered which they say barred the remainders which the other Brothers had and so also would be a bar to the Trust of this term 3. And the other ground was that the Trust of a term to Henry and the Heirs Males of his body until by the death of Thomas without Issue the Earldom should descend upon him and then to Charles is a void Limitation of the Remainder As to the first that by the assignment of Marriot to Henry Howard the whole Term was surrendred and being so surrendred hath no existance at all that I find but was barely mentioned and I think cannot be stood upon for this the term by the surrender is gone indeed and merged in the Inheritance yet the Trust of that term remains in Equity and if this Trust be destroyed by him that had it assigned to him this Court has full power to set it up again and to decree the term to him to whom it did belong or a recompence for it therefore I think that stands not at all as a point in the Case or as an objection in the way As to the next thing the common recovery now suffered by the now Duke that doth bar the remainders to the other Brothers And so also the trust of this term that I conceive to be so in case this can be interpreted to be a term to attend the Inheritance and indeed in the reciting part the Deed doth seem to say that it was intended to attend the Inheritance But by that part of the Deed which followeth after now this Indenture witnesseth there it is limited that the term should be to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body until such time as the Honour of the Earl of Arundel by his elder Brothers death without Issue should come to him then to the Plaintiff which doth convey the Estate of the term in a different Channel from that in which the Inheritance is setled and taking this Deed altogether it doth limit this term in such various Estates that it can no way be construed to be a term attending the Inheritance and then I conceive the recovery doth not bar the trust for the recovery would bar the incident to any Estate as this would do here if it attended the Inheritance but being onely a term in Gross and a collateral thing I conceive the recovery has no operation to bar the trust in the term Then the Case singly depends upon the third point whether the Trust of a term thus limited to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body until his Brother die without Issue whereby the Honour came to him with such contingent Remainders over be a good Limitation this is the Question and so in short the Case is but thus A Term of Two Hundred years is granted in trust that Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body shall receive the Profits until Thomas die without Issue Male of his body and then to Charles Howard and the Heirs Male of his body And in this case I am