dying of Thomas without Issue whereby the Earldom shall descend this shall go over to Charles that cannot be for it hath no Freehold to support it and so it s a Term in gross further there cannot by the Rules of Law or Equity be a Remainder for years of a Term limited after an Estate Tail neither directly nor upon Contingency as in Burges's Case but the Law will allow a remainder directly upon an Estate for life so likewise upon a Contingency if that were to happen during the Continuance of the particular Estate But this case is a step further and not to be allowed they relied chiefly upon Child and Bayles Case which was put thus by Chief Baron Mountague a Devise by A. of a Term to William his Eldest Son and his Assigns and if he die without Issue then to Thomas his youngest Son It was Judged in the Exchequer Chamber to be a void remainder because thereby a perpetuity would ensue though it was argued in that case that it was given upon a Contingency to the younger Son which would soon be Determined and end in a short time Chief Baron Mountague put this for Law a Term may be limited to one and the Heirs Males of his Body upon a Contingency to happen first with Limitation over if that Contingency do not happen it is a good Limitation as if a Term be limited to the Wife for Life and then to the Eldest Son if he over-live his Mother and the Heirs Males of his Body the remainder over to a younger Son if the Eldest Son dye in the life of the Mother the Limitation to the second Son may be good but if there be an Instant Estate Tail created of a Term tho there be a Contingency as to the expectation of him in remainder yet this is such a Total Disposition of a Term as after which no Limitation of a Term can be and so the Judges were of Opinion that the Plaintiff had no Right to the Term but the decree ought to be for the Defendant The Lord Chancellor Nottingham differed from the Judges and Decreed for the Plaintiff He put some steps or Preliminaries which he agreed with them and which were clear 1. That the Term in question though it were attendant on the Inheritance at first yet upon the hapning of the Contingency it s become a Term in gross 2. That the Trust of a Term in gross can be limited no otherwise in Equity than the Estate of a Term in gross can be limited in Law 3. The legal Estate of a Term for years whether it be a long or a short Term cannot be limited to any Man in Tail with the remainder over to another after his death without Issue this is a direct perpetuity 4. If a Term be limited to a Man and his Issue and if that Issue die without Issue the remainder over the Issue of that Issue takes no Estate and yet because the remainder over cannot take place till the Issue of that Issue fail that remainder is void too Reeves Case 5. If a Term be limited to a Man for his life and after to his First Second and Third Son in Tail Successively and for default of such Issue the remainder over though the Contingency never happen yet the remainder is void though there were never a Son born to him that looks like a perpetuity Sir William Buckhursts Case 6. One Case more and that is Burgesss Case A Term is limited to one for life with Contingent remainders to his Sons in Tail with remainder over to his Daughter though he had no Son yet because it was foreign and distant to expect a remainder after the death of a Son to be born without Issue that having a prospect of a perpetuity was adjudged void 7. If a Term be Devised or Trust of a Term limited to one for life with twenty remainders for life Successively and all the Persons in Esse at the time of such limitation these are all good remainders 8. A Term is Devised to one for 18. years after to C. his Eldest Son for life and then to the Eldest Issue Male of C. for life though C. had not any Issue Male at the time of the Devise or death of the Devisor but before the death of C. it s good being a Contingency that would speedily be worn out Cotton and Heaths Case for there may be a Possibility upon a Possibility and a Contingency upon a Contingency and in truth every Executory devise is so and therefore the contrary Rule given by Lord Popham in the Rector of Chedingtons Case is not Reason These things were agreed by all But the Point is The Trust of a term for 200 years is limited to Henry in Tail provided if Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry so that the Earldom shall descend upon Henry then to go to Charles in Tail and whether this be a Limitation to Charles in Tail is the Question My Lord Chancellor conceived it a good Limitation as a springing Trust to arise upon a Contingency and which is not of a remote or long Consideration As for the Legal Reasons of this Opinion they were these 1. Many Men have no Estates but what consist in Leases for years Now it would be absurd to say That he who has no other Estate than what consists in Leases for years should be uncapable to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family though they are directly in his immediate prospect he shall not make provisions for Wife and Children upon Marriage 2. It was the Opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton That had it been thus Penned it had been good If Thomas die without Issue Male living Henry so that the Earldom descend upon Henry then the 200 years limited to him and his Issue shall cease but then a new Term of 200 years shall arise and be limited to the same Trustees for the benefit of Charles in Tail Now what difference is there why a man may not raise a new springing Trust upon the same Term as well as a new springing Term upon the same Trust It is true in 6 Ed. 6. in the time of Lord Chancellor Rich all the Judges delivered their Opinion If a Term of years be devised to one provided if Devisee die living I. S. then to go to I. S. is absolutely void But in 19 Eliz. Dier fo 277 328. it was held by the Judges to be a good Remainder Executory Remainder and that was the first time that an Executory Remainder of a Term was held to be good As for Child and Bayles Case the Case is truly Reported by Crook A Term of 70 years is devised to Dorothy for life then to William and his Assigns all the rest of the Term provided that if William die without Issue living at the time of his death then to Thomas which is in effect the present Case but there was more in it William had the whole Term to him and his
the raising their Portions to 1500 l. apiece having as is recited made provision by his Deed dated the last of December 1651 for advancing their Portions to that Value And he doth by his Will declare and appoint that such Portions should be paid unto them the said Susan and Martha severally at the respective Ages of 21 years A Deed and a Will construed as one entire provision or limitation how Portions should be raised or sooner if they should be married and both of them dying unmarried before they or either of them attained the Age of 21 in the life time of William the Grandson And the said Deed of Decemb. 1651. relating to the Will and both of them making one entire provision and limitation of the said Portions how the same shall be raised and what time paid His Lordship and the Judges were all clear of Opinion there was no ground for the former Decree made by the Master of the Rolls or pretence of Claim to either of the said Portions of 1500 l. by the Plaintiff as Administratrix to Susan and Martha and discharged the Decreed and dismist the Bill Beauchamp contra Silverlock 20 Car. 2. fo 765. THat William Beauchamp Orphans Mony the Plaintiffs Father being a Freeman and Citizen of London by his last Will gives a Third part of his Lands and Tenements whatsoever and wheresoever to the Plaintiff and appointed Dorothy his wife Guardian to his Children and made her sole Executrix and Richard Cambden Robert Cheslyn John Pace and Hogan Hovell Overseers and the said Dorothy makes her Will afterwards and gave the greatest part of her Estate to the Plaintiff and Willed her Brother Hogan Hovell and her Sister Margaret Cheslyn and the Survivor of them to be Guardian to her Children and made the said Hogan Hovell and Margaret Lovell her Executors and died That by Articles of Agreement between Hogan Hovell Robert Cheslyn and Margaret his wife reciting the Will of Dorothy Beauchamp whereby they agreed to administer the Estate to the best benefit of the Children and exhibit a true Inventory into the Prerogative Court and that they should with the consent and not without the consent and knowledge of each other use their best endeavours to get in the Estate and not to release any part of it without each others consent and that if Hogan Hovell should die and Margaret survive then the Executors or Administrators of Hogan Hovell to make a true account to Margaret of all the Estate which he should receive of the said Testators and pay the same to Margaret or to such person who shall by the consent of the said William Beauchamp the Plaintiff be chosen as Guardian to receive the fame or to such person to whom by Right or Law the same ought to be paid and the same Agreement and Covenant is if the said Margaret should die and Hovell survive That Robert Cheslyn died and the said Margaret married the Defendant James Silverlock And Hogan Hovell possest himself of the greatest part of the personal Estate of the Plaintiffs said Father and Mother and received the profits of the Lands of the said Margaret receiving only Title as Executor That Hogan Hovell made his Will and Mary his wife Executrix and afterwards the Guardianship of the Plaintiff the Orphan is at his Friend's Decree committed to Sir William Bateman That the said Mary Hovell the Executrix of Hogan exhibited an Account into the Orphans Court of the Mony received by her Husband belonging to the Plaintiff out of which Allowances being made there rested due to the Plaintiff 933 l. and that afterwards the Defendant Silverlock and Margaret his Wife the Surviving Executrix of Dorothy did by their Deed impower Sir William Bateman then reputed a Man of great Estate to receive of Mary Hovell Executrix of Hogan Hovell who was the other Executor of the said Dorothy the said 933 l. to the use of the Plaintiff and to give a discharge for the same that Sir William Bateman received it accordingly and gave a Discharge for it in the Name of Silverlock and his Wife and gave Security after that to the Court of Aldermen to pay the Plaintiff 800 l. That Mary Hovell died and made Executors Executors paying in Orphans Mony by consent of Friends and Trustees into the hands of Sir W. B. Guardian who gave Security to the Court of Aldermen not to be charged upon the Insolvency of Sir W.B. That the Plaintiff did several times after he came of Age own Sir William Bateman to be his Debtor for the 933 l. that the Plaintiff received of Sir William Bateman 440 l. and gave Acquittances for it the first was on the 4th of January 1663 the last on the 25th of July 1666 that the Plaintiff came of Age in Decemb. 1663 and the said Sir William Bateman became Insolvent at Christmass 1666. The Question touching the said 933 l. claimed by the Plaintiff and whether the same should be charged on the Defendant Silverlock and surviving Executor of Dorothy Beauchamp or on the Defendant Sir William Bateman who had given Security to the Chamber of London as aforesaid for the Plaintiffs use This Court as to the Executors of Mary Hovell declared there was no reason to charge him therewith but that they ought to be discharged and dismist from being accountable for the same And as to the Defendant Silverlock the Case being as aforesaid declared that there was a clear Intention of all parties to perform the parties aforesaid and that the said Defendant Margaret never received any Estate during Hogan Hovell's Life and that Sir William Bateman being chosen by the consent of the Friends of the Plaintiffs and by the Order of the Court of Orphans appointed Guardian to the Plaintiff she the said Margaret gave in an Account to the Court and impower'd Sir William Bateman to receive the Mony who before had given Security to answer the same or the greatest part thereof and when the Plaintiff came of Age he admitted and owned Sir William Bateman to be his Guardian and received several Sums of Mony from him and Sir William proved not Insolvent till three years after and so there being no default in the said Defendant Margaret there was no reason to charge her the said Margaret with the same but that she ought to be dismist and discharged from the same But Sir William having given Security to the Court of Orphans for 843 l. part of the said 933 l. by him received by Order of the Defendant Margaret and that for the residue being 90 l. 10 s. there was no Security given by the said Sir William This Court Declared That the Defendant Margaret ought to be charged with the same and Decreed accordingly but not with Interest for it Windham contr Love 20 Car. 2. fo 100. 21 Car. fo 741. THe Bill is Executory Devise That the Dean and Chapter of Winchester June 17 Jac. granted the premisses to Gilbert Searle his Heirs or
hundred Pounds and Damages Rowley contra Lancaster 21 Car. 2. fo 993. THat Matthew Lancaster bequeathed to John Creeke 100 l. thus viz. Will. 50 l. Devise of Mony to be paid at a Day to come Devisee dies before the Day yet payable to his Administrator in one Month after the Expiration of his Apprenticeship and the other 50 l. within one whole year after the Expiration of the said Apprenticeship and made the Defendant Executor That the Apprenticeship expired 29 Sept. 1664. but John Creeke dying before the Legacy was paid the Defendant refuses to pay it to the Plaintiff the Administrator of the said John Creeke The Defendant insists That he paid the 50 l. due within a Month after the Expiration of the Apprenticeship and that the said John Creeke died before the whole year after the Expiration of his Apprenticeship was expired and therefore the other 50 l. was not due to the Plaintiff This Court being assisted with Judges were clear of Opinion That the said Legacy was Debitum in praesenti solvend in futuro and decreed the said 50 l. to be paid to the Plaintiff with damages Fry contra Porter 21 Car. 2. fo 568. THat the Earl of Newport Will. deceased by his Will devised to the Plaintiff the Lady Ann the Messuage called Newport House with the Appurtenances thus viz I do give and bequeath unto the Lady Ann Countess of Newport my Dear Wife all that my House called Newport-House and all other my Tenements and Hereditaments whatsoever in Middlesex for her Life and after her decease I do give and bequeath the said House and all other my Tenements and Hereditaments as aforesaid to my Grandchild the Lady Ann Knowles the Daughter of Nicholas Earl of Banbury by the Lady Isabella my late Daughter and to the Heirs of her Body lawfully to be begotten Provided always and upon Condition that my said Grandchild the Lady Ann Knowles do marry with the consent of my said Wife and of Charles Earl of Warwick and Edward Earl of Manchester or the Major part of them And in case the said Lady Ann Knowles do and shall marry without the consent of my said Wife and the Major part of my Trustees aforesaid or shall happen to depart this Life without any Issue of her Body then I will and bequeath all the said premisses unto my Grandson George Porter Son of my deceased Daughter the Lady Ann late Wife of Thomas Porter Esq and to his Heirs for ever The Bill is to be Relieved against the Forfeiture of the said Estate for not performing the said Condition in the Will and Marrying against the consent of the Trustees and the Mother Yet the said Mother was told That the Plaintiff was about to marry and said nothing to the contrary whereupon the Plaintiff married and hath Issue The Plaintiff insisting That if any Error were committed in Marrying it was through Ignorance and not Obstinacy she the Plaintiff being very young and knew not of the Proviso or Condition in the said Will and it would be very unreasonable to make the happiness of the Plaintiff to depend upon the consent of Strangers in point of Marriage to put it into their power to keep her during her life either from Marrying or from her Estate and thereby make them Masters of her Affection or Fortune and to disinherit her and her Children But the Defendant insists That the Reason of inserting the said Proviso into the said Will was that the Plaintiff the Lady Ann might be disposed of in Marriage without disparagement and therefore that she should marry with the consent of the said Countess and the two Earls or the Major part of them and of that other Clause viz. That if she married without such Consent then he gave the said House and Premisses to the said Defendant George Porter the Infant and his Heirs for ever and that the said Lady Ann having Married a person very unequal to her Fortune and without such Consent as aforesaid having little or no Estate had made a wilful breach of the said Proviso or Condition in the said Grandfathers Will Lands devised on Condition the Devisee marry with consent and limitation over Devisee marries without Consent she shall not be relieved but the Land decreed to the remainder Man and the said George Porter claims the said House to him and his Heirs by virtue of the said Condition and Limitation over to him by the said Will the construction whereof is to be made out of the Will it self and not otherwise and the said Lady Ann had notice of the said Will before marriage there being discourse of it by the Trustees to her and so the Lady Ann ought not to be relieved against the said Forfeiture or Limitation aforesaid This Court with the Judges and on perusal of Presidents are clear of Opinion and fully satisfied That the Plaintiff ought not to be relieved against the said Forfeiture and that the same was such as ought not to be relieved in Equity and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Vide this Case in Mod. Rep. p. 300. with Councels and Judges Arguments seriatim Shalmer contra Tresham 21 Car. 2. fo 560. THe Bill is to discover the Deeds of several Lands and whether they were not made in Trust and whether the Debt demanded by the Plaintiff were not mentioned in a Schedule thereunto annex'd The Defendant pleaded Bill to discover Settlements in Trust Plea That the Defendant is a Scrivener and had taken Oath not to discover the Secrets of his Clients Overruled That he was a Scrivener by Profession and hath taken the accustomed Oath that Scriveners do before they are made Free in London whereby he is obliged not to discover the Secrets of those persons business that employ him in that Trade without their leave and that he was employed by and assisted Sir John Langham in the purchasing of the said Lands and the Writings concerning the premisses he drew and hath the Keeping thereof by the said Sir Johns Direction and so ought not to discover the said Writings contrary to his Trust nor any thing relating to this Matter This Court declared That the Oath of a Scrivener doth not oblige from a discovery more than the Oath of any other Free man of London And if it had been in the case of a Counsellor at Law the said Plea had been Insufficient in this case and Overruled the Plea saving he is not to Answer to whom he paid the Purchase Mony Alford cont Pitt 21 Car. 2. fo 181. THe Plaintiffs Suit is Demurrer Remedy at Law Award to have the benefit of an Award To which the Defendant demurred and says That the Plaintiff ought to take his Remedy at Law This Court Overruled the Demurrer Langton al' contra Tracy Astrey 21 Car. 2. fo 376. THe Bill is to have the several Debts due to the Plaintiffs being Creditors of the Defendant Roberts paid The Case is viz. That Thomas
and that this differs from ordinary Mortgages the Lease being to commence after failure of Payment by the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Alexander and there was no Proviso therein and that the said Lady Ann in all probability hath paid many Hundreds of Pounds and Elizabeth might have lived many years longer and tho' the Lady Ann had paid treble the value yet she must have been contented with her Security and the said Robert Brett did not think the same worth Redeeming and tho' the Reversion in Fee was Extended in 1646 yet the said Robert Brett and the Defendant Ewens continued possession till Judgment on the Writ of Partition and from thence till 1662. which was 20 years after the Plaintiffs Judgment and the Lady Ann was to continue possession till the Children attained 21 years of Age which was in 1636. when the said demise to them made did commence This Court being assisted with the Judges were of Opinion and declared themselves fully satisfied That the Plaintiff ought not to have any Relief against the Defendants but that the Bill ought to be dismissed for that his Lordship doth take a difference betwixt the Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent Difference betwixt a Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent and the rather in this case for that the breach was in the failure of payment of 250 l. per Annum which the said Lady was thereby obliged to pay for a young Life and so might have been paid for many years and if it had been paid in the Casualty for 20 years the Heirs would never have redeemed it and therefore no Reason why the Plaintiff should take advantage thereof and also the Agreemant before mentioned between the said Dame Ann and Kirkham weighed much in this Court to which Agreement Robert the Heir by his Enjoying of the premisses so assigned together with the Defendant Ewens and his Wife after he came of Age consented and there was no disturbance during the Tenancy in Common as to the Right but to as perception of Profits only and the Heir permitting the Defendant Ewens and his Wife to have Judgment on the Writ of Partition was a Consent of the whole Redemption after a long time and in this Consent it is not the Heir but a Stranger who seeks to redeem and no man that puts himself after so long a time into a condition to redeem Plaintiff not relieved upon a Judgment entred into 60 years ago and no Consideration proved shall have any Relief here and it is the stronger against the Plaintiff that no Consideration is proved for the said Judgment which was entred into so long since as the Year 1640 and after 60 years this Court will not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Boulter contra Chester al' 22 Car. 2. fo 60. THe Question being Bail Whether the Plaintiff Boulter who was a Surety for one Ree should pay any more than the Sum of 40 l. for which he was Bail for the Appearance of one Roger Ree at the Defendants Suit the Ac etiam Bill being only for 40 l. whenas the Defendant demands 55 l. for a years Rent for the premisses and 10 l. damages for want of Repair of the premisses besides Costs and would fix the same on the Plaintiffs the Bail but the main Question being Whether the Bail ought to answer or pay any more than what was exprest in the Writ which is 40 l. Bail to answer no more than what is exprest in the Ac etiam Bill or whether he ought to answer or pay what might have been recovered in case the said Ree for whom the Plaintiff was Bail had appeared and defended the Action This Court conceived that the Desendant Stretton ought to have no more than what was expressed in the Writ and Ac etiam Bill for which the Plaintiff was only bail but his Costs in the same already taxed at Law and by the Master and ordered the same accordingly Floyer contra Hedgingham 21 Car. 2. fo 809. THat no Copyholder ought to be admitted to any Copyhold Estate by Letter of Attorney Copyholder not to be admitted by Letter of Attorney for that he ought to do Fealty at the time of his admittance which cannot be done by an Attorney but ought to be done in person by reason that no man can swear by Attorney Hunt contra Jones 22 Car. 2. THe Bill is That the Defendant Jones who is the surviving Trustee may assign and convey all his Interest and Estate in Brockley in Com Worcester to the Plaintiff Limitation of a Lease the said Plaintiff Intituling her self thereto as Administratrix to Edward Palmer the Plaintiff setting forth by the Bill That Edmund late Bishop of Worcester did by two Indentures of 30 31 Eliz. demise the premisses to the late Queen and her Assignee during the several Terms and Rent therein expressed that the several Estates Terms and Interests being come and vested in the said Edward Palmer for the Remainder thereof he the said Palmer by Deedin 1652 in Consideration of a Marriage then to be had between him and the Plaintiff Mary assigns the said premisses unto Giles Palmer and the Defendant Jones and their Executors for the residue of the said Terms upon Trust to permit Elizabeth Palmer Mother of the said Edward to enjoy the said premisses for life and then to the said Edward for his life and after their Lives then to the Plaintiff Mary for her life and after their deceases then to heirs Males of the Body of the said Edward Palmer and the Plaintiff Mary and for default of such Issue then upon Trust for the right Heirs of the said Edward to their own use benefit and dispose as by the said Deed c. That the said Edward and Elizabeth Palmer being dead Letters of Administration were granted to the Plaintiff Mary by virtue whereof she is well Intituled to the said premisses and to the trust and benefit thereof for the Remainders of the said Terms to come and that the Defendant Jones as the surviving Trustee ought to assign to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff insists that all the Remainders after her death are void in Law and Equity The Defendant Jones insists That the Trust extends to the Child or Children of the said Edward Palmer and the Defendant Elizabeth Palmer an Infant being his Daughter she may question him for the same in case he should Assign as aforesaid and prays the Court will take care for the Infants But the Plaintiff insisting That both in the cases of Executors and Administrators the Point hath been frequently Adjudged Limitation of a Term in Trust for heirs Males c. void in Law and the Limitation to the heirs Male or heir General being a void Limitation in Law where there is no Executor the Trust shall come
Dower claimable by the Plaintiff and also devised the said Farms unto the Defendant Mary his Grandchild To have and to hold immediately after the death of the Plaintiff his Wife and by a subsequent Clause in the Will he devised all the Lands not therein before disposed of to the Defendant Thomas Kemp the Father for life Remainder to Thomas his Son for life with remainder over and also gave the Plaintiff his Coach Horses Plate and Jewels c. and one Third part of his clear Personal Estate And the Plaintiff conceived that she ought by the Will to have both the Rent-charge and the Farms for her life by the aforesaid devise 200 l. Rent-charge devised in lieu of Joynture and by the same Will an implicit Devise of the Lands to her Decreed she shall have only the 200 l. per Annum viz. where the same are devised to the Defendant Mary To have and to hold after the Plaintiffs death so to have the same by the said implicit Devise without Extinguishment of the said Rent charge is the Plaintiffs suit This Court declared they saw no Cause to decree both the Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum and the Farms aforesaid to the Plaintiff but the Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum to the Plaintiff only Boucher contra Antram 23 Car. 2. fo 97. THe Bill is Will. That Alice Lowman the Plaintiff Katherines late Mother did in Decemb. 1669. by Will give and dispose unto the Plaintiff Katherine a Legacy of 160 l. and made the Plaintiff who married another of the Daughters Executor The Defendant insists That the Testatrix made her Will in these words viz. Item I give unto my Daughter Katherine Boucher the sum of 160 l. for her to have the use of it during her life and her Child or Children to have it after her decease but if she happens to dye leaving no Child surviving her I Will that the said 160 l. shall be to and for the sole benefit and use of my Daughter Elizabeth Antram and her Children which Elizabeth is the Defendants Wife and the Defendant is willing to pay the said 160 l. to the Plaintiffs or either of them he being secured against the title and claim of the surviving Child or Children of the Plaintiff Katherine and if she should die leaving no Child or Children behind her then against the Title of said Elizabeth and her Children This Court decreed the Defendant to pay unto the Plaintiff 160 l. with full Interest Personal Estate devised to one for life and after to her Children and if they have no Issue the Remainder over is a void Devise as to the Remainder but as to the Clause on the Will which directs That for want of Issue by the Plaintiff Katherine the said 160 l. after her decease shall be to and for the benefit and behoof of the Defendants Wife and her Children His Lordship declared it being a Personalty is in the nature of a Perpetuity and so a void devise and therefore the Defendant nor his Wife and Children ought to have any benefit thereby but be debarred from the same and that the said 160 l. ought to be absolutely vested in and come unto the Child or Children of the Plaintiff Katherine and decreed the same accordingly Chambers contra Greenhill 24 Car. 2. fo 288. A Bill of Review brought by the Plaintiff Bill of Review because the Plaintiff can now prove a Tender and Refusal which he could not prove before dismist to Reverse the Decree in this Cause the Plaintiff would now Examine to a matter of Tender and Refusal which he could not prove before the Hearing but since the Decree signed and inrolled he can prove it The Court ordered Presidents to be searched which being produced by the Plaintiff his Lordship declared the said Presidents seemed of no weight to the Plaintiffs purpose and dismissed the Bill of Review Croster contra Wister 24 Car. 2. fo 688. THe Defendant insists Bill of Reviver The Plaintiff ought not to have brought a Bill of Reviver in this Case but to have taken out a Subpoena in the nature of a Scire facias to revive the Decree the same being signed and inrolled in the life time of the Plaintiffs Testator therefore the Defendant demurs to the said Bill The Plaintiff insists It is at the Plaintiffs election to revive the said Decree inrolled and to have Execution thereof by Bill or Subpoena in the nature of a Scire fac ' And as this Case is the whole Proceedings could not be revived by Subpaena Revivor by Bill or by Scire fac ' when proper in regard several Proceedings have been relating to Costs since the Decree which proceedings can be only revived by Bill and therefore the most proper course was to revive all things by Bill This Court held the said Bill to be well brought and held the Demurrer insufficient Stoell contra Botelar 24 Car. 2. fo 390. THat a Writ of Supplicavit of the Peace Supplicavit of the Peace on Petition and not on Motion nor any Indorsement on the back thereof yet good issued against Sir Oliver Botelar upon a Petition and Articles exhibited by the said Stoell The Defendant insists The said Writ issuing on Petition and not on a Motion in Court nor any Indorsement made on the back of the Writ as by the form of the Statute is required and but three of the said Articles are sworn to by the Articulate so it is irregular This Court on reading Presidents notwithstanding the Objections aforesaid of Botelar was fully satisfied that the Supplicavit was well granted and warranted Monnins contra Dom ' Monnins 24 Car. 2. fo 85. 178. BILL is to have the Defendant to discover Demurrer to a Bill for discovery whether the Defendant be married or not good for that if she be married it would be a forfeiture of her Estate and the Bill dismist whether she be married since the death of Sir Edmond Monnins her late Husband The Defendant demurred for that in case she was married since the death of her said Husband the same amounts to a forfeiture of her Estate and Interest in several goods and things devised to her by the Will of her said Husband to be held and enjoyed by her during such time as she should continue her Widowhood and so ought not to discover as aforesaid This Court held the Demurrer good unless the Plaintiff produced Presidents which the Plaintiff could not so the Bill was dismissed with Costs Warren contra Johnson 24 Car. 2. fo 543. THat Mary Warren Mony in Trust for the Children of I. S. it shall be for the benefit only of the Children that he then had and not born afterward the Plaintiffs Grandmother put 60 l. into the Defendants hands in trust for the benefit of the Children of Mark Warren her Son who at that time had but three Children whereof the Plaintiff was one but now hath six
not having made an Appointment it ought to be taken for her Intention that the Plaintiff should have the Mony and therefore decreed the Defendants the Trustees to convey to the Plaintiff and deliver to him 1400 l. and the Securities for the 2000 l. Green contra Rooke 31 Car. 2. fo 351. THat Lawrence Rooke Devise Father to the Defendant Heyman Rooke and to the Plaintiff Mary being seised in Fee or Fee-tail or other Estate of Lands by Deed of the 26th of August 1650. granted the premisses to Edward Scot and others for 80 years if he so long lived and afterwards conveyed the sameon the 27th of the same Month unto Sir Henry Heyman and Peter Heyman and their Heirs for the term of his life and by Deed the 20th of October then next following and by a Recovery in pursuance thereof the said premisses were setled on the said Sir Henry and Peter Heyman and their Heirs for the life of the said Lawrence Remainder as to part to the use of Barbary Wife of the said Lawrence for her life for a Joynture and after as to part to the said Sir Henry and Peter Heyman for 99 years in Trust to raise 1000 l. for the portion of the eldest Daughter of the said Lawrence and then to the use of the first Son of the said Lawrence in Tail Male with the Remainder over That the said Lawrence and Barbara are dead and the Defendant Heyman Rooke is his first Son and the Plaintiff Mary is his eldest Daughter and the Portion of 1000 l. is due to her and the same being unpaid Peter Heyman the surviving Trustee assigned the term of 99 years to the Plaintiff Greene to enable him to raise the Mony and the Defendant Heyman Rooke hath mortgaged the same premisses to the other Defendants so the Question is Who hath the right or equity of Redemption and the Bill is also to have the Plaintiff Maries Portion paid or the equity of Redemption foreclosed The Defendant Heyman Rooke by Plea insisted That George Rooke his Grandfather by Will in 1647. devised the premisses unto Lawrence Rooke his eldest Son and Father to the Defendant Heyman Rooke for life only Remainder to the first second third and fourth Sons of the said Lawrence in Tail Remainder to John Browne and others for their lives in Trust for the better securing and preservation of the several Remainders limited unto the several Sons of the said Lawrence Rooke with Remainders over That the said George Rooke died without revoking or altering the said uses limited in his Will and so Lawrence Rooke could not by the said Deeds or Recovery bar or cut off the Remainder limited in and by the said Will in regard the said Browne and the other Trustees for preserving of the contingent Remainders were living since 1650. in which year the term of 99 years was created This Court declared Devise to Father for life Remainder to the first Son c. Remainder to Trustees for 99 years to support the Remainders it s a good term to support the Remainders notwithstanding the same is limited and inserted after the limitation to the first Son it being in the case of a Will That the term limited to the Trustees in the Will for their Lives for the preservation of the contingent Remainders to the several Sons of the said Lawrence Rooke was a good Term and a State to support the said contingent Remainders notwithstanding the same is limited to the said Trustees and inserted in the said Will after the limitation to the first and other Sons of Lawrence Rooke in Tail Male for the same being in the Will and the intent of the Testator plainly appearing so in the Will they held the said Plea and Demurrer to be good and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Trethervy contra Hoblin 26 Car. 2. fo 114. THe Plaintiff being a Purchaser of the premisses Bill to discover a Title calls the Defendant to discover his Title who insists on a long Lease of a 1000 years which was found by Verdict for the Defendant And the Defendant insists for Cost Costs for that the Plaintiffs Suit in this Court was causlesly and vexatiously brought by the Plaintiff The Plaintiff insists 〈◊〉 That he being not able to try the validity of the said Lease at Law during the life of Oliver one of the Defendant This Court is satisfied Suit for discovery and to preserve Testimonies and the Plaintiff to pay no Costs that the Plaintiff had good ground to bring this Suit for a discovery and relief and to preserve the testimony of his Witnesses it falling out to be a severe Case upon the Plaintiff so no reason for the Plaintiff to pay any Cost either at Law or in this Court Boughton contra Butter 32 Car. 2. fo 379. THis Cause was referred to Sergeant Rainsford to certifie touching the Inclosure whether advantagious and whether the Parties had consented thereunto who had drawn up a Certificate Certificate ordered to to be filed though not delivered in the life of the Certifier all written with his own Hand but he dying before he had declared the same It was prayed by the Plaintiff that the said Certificate might be filed and taken to be authentick as if he had delivered the same to either party The Defendant insisted That the said Certificate had no date and that the Sergeant never intended to deliver the same This Court Ordered the said Certificate to be filed notwithstanding the Objections made thereto by the Defendant Tucker contra Searle 31 Car. 2. fo 423. THat John Bassano the Plaintiff Frances Father by deed 20 July 1640. Marriage Settlement in consideration of a Marriage between him and Elizabeth the Plaintiff Frances Mother and a Marriage Portion Covenanted to stand seized of Lands to the use of the said John and Elizabeth for their lives and after to the first Son of the said John and Elizabeth and so to the second third and other Sons and the Heirs of their Bodies remainder to the right Heirs of the said John Bassano the Elder for ever on Condition and Limitation that if the said John Bassano should have Issue Female and not Issue Male by Elizabeth then his Right Heirs to pay the first and second Daughters of the said John by the said Elizabeth 300 l. a piece to be chargeable on the said Lands and if more than two Daghters then the said Lands for the full value of them to be sold should equally be divided amongst such Daughters that the said Bassano had no Issue Male by Elizabeth but had Issue Female viz. Elizabeth their Eldest Daughter the Plaintiff Frances their Second and another Elizabeth their youngest that Elizabeth the Eldest died in the life of her Father and Mother and that at the death of John the Father there being only the Plaintiff Frances living but the said Elizabeth the Mother being ensient with Elizabeth the youngest Daughter of the said John Bassano
Joynt Creditors That there can be no division of the Joynt Estate whereby to charge any part thereof with the private debts of either party and till the Joynt debts are paid and till division be made of the Surplus both parties are alike interessed and every part of the said Joynt Estate that the Commissioners have no power by the Commission to Administer an Oath to the Plaintiffs for proof of their debts they claiming debts from the said Widdows only and the Commission is against Widdows and Berman Joyntly and not severally and therefore cannot admit of the Plaintiffs Creditors This Court declared That the Estate belonging to the Joynt Trade as also the debts due from the same ought to be divided into Moieties and that each Moiety of the Estate ought to be charged in the first place with a Moiety of the said Joint debts and if there be enough to pay all the debts belonging to the Joynt Trade with an Overplus then such Overplus ought to be applied to pay particular debts of each Partner but if sufficient shall not appear to pay all the Joynt debts and if either of the Partners shall pay more than a Moiety of the Joynt debts then such Partner is to come in before the said Commissioners and be admitted as a Creditor for what he shall so pay over and above his Moiety and decreed accordingly Charles Howard contra le Duke de Norfolk al' 34 Car. 2. fo 722. THe Plaintiff by his Bill seeks to have Execution of a Trust of a Term of 200 years of the Barony of Grostock The Case was this The Earl of Arundel the Duke of Norfolks Father by Lease and Release Perpetuities or Entailing a Term for years with Remainders over Anno 1647. setled the Barony of G. and other Lands to himself for life then to the Countess Elizabeth his Wife for life and after her decease there is a Term limited to the Lord 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 the 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 in Tail Male remainder over Then by the said other Deed the Earl declares the Trust of the Term of 200 years and that deed in the reciting part declares that it was intended the said Term should attend the Inheritance and the profits should go to such persons and in such manner as was therein after limited viz. to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Lord Thomas Lord Maltrevers Eldest Son of the said Earl of Arundell or any Issue Male of his Body should be living but in case he should die without Issue Male in the life-time of Henry Howard not leaving his Wife enseint 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 Henry Howard and his Heirs to be excluded of the Trust and then it should be to Charles the Plaintiff and the Heirs Males of his Body remainder in like manner to other Brothers After this the Contingency doth 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 Assigns the Term to one Marriott he Assigns it to the now Duke of Norfolk and the Duke suffers a Recovery to the use of him and his Heirs and the Plaintiffs Bill is to have execution of the Trust of this Term to the use of himself and his Heirs Males of his Body The Defendants insist That by the Assignment by Marriott to my Lord Duke Henry the Term was Surrendred and quite gone that the Common Recovery which barred the remainders which the other Brothers had would also be a Bar to the Trust of this Term and 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 after that to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body was a void Limitation of the remainder to Charles The Plaintiff insists Though the Term by the Survivor is gone and Merged in the Inheritance yet the Trust of that Term remains in Equity That this is not a Term that attends the Inheritance but it s a Term in gross and so not barred by the Recovery and that the Limitation of the remainder in Contingency is good in Law and Relief ought to be had in this Court The Lord Chancellor Nottingham the Case being of great Consequence calls the Judges to his Assistance viz. the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton the Lord Chief Justice North and the Lord Chief Baron Mountague and they made one single point in the case Whether this Contingent Trust of a Term limited to the Plaintiff Charles and the Heirs of his Body upon the dying of Thomas without Issue Male whereby the Honour did descend to Henry be good in point of Creation and Limitation for as for the Recovery if this be not a good Limitation in point of Creation the Recovery will do nothing so that supposeth it to go along with the Inheritance and if this take effect then it will suffer no prejudice by the Recovery And as for the Assignment by Marriott to the Duke if this Court decree it for the Plaintiff then it is a Breach of Trust and then he must answer for it and so must the Duke for it is a Surrender to a person who had notice of the Trust If for the Defendant then it is of no weight So that the whole rests upon the first single point viz. whether it be a good Limitation upon the Contingency to Charles or as they call it Springing Trust a springing Trust And the said three Judges were all of Opinion that it was a void Limitation and that it ought to be Decreed for the Defendant They said Term in gross and a Term attending the Inheritance the difference there is great difference as to the Limitation of Terms that are in gross and Terms that attend the Inheritance as to Terms in Gross they are not capable of Limitation to one after the death of another without Issue but in Termsattendant upon an Inheritance there may be such a Limitation if the Inheritance be so limited and not else Now the Term is capable of a Limitation to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body because it hath an Inheritance to support it But now to put another limitation upon it that upon the
Assigns Dorothy was Executrix and granted the Lease to William And the Record goes further After the death of Thomas without Issue it was to go the Daughter which was a plain affectation of a Perpetuity but however this Case is contradicted by other Resolutions Cotton and Heath before cited and Wood and Sanders in this Court which was this a long Lease is limited and declared thus To the Father for 60 years if he lived so long then to the Mother for 60 years if she lived so long then to John and his Executors if he survived his Father and Mother and if he died in their life time having Issue then to his Issue but if he die without Issue living the Father or Mother then the Remainder to Edward in Tail John died without Issue in the life time of the Father and Mother It was Resolved by Lord Keeper Bridgman assisted by two Judges That the Remainder to Edward was good The whole Term had vested in John if he had survived yet the Contingency never hapning and so wearing out in the compass of two Lives in being the Remainder over to Edward might well be limited upon it Object Where will you stop if not at Child and Bayles Case Resp Every where where there is apparent danger of a Perpetuity but so is not this Case The Equitable Reasons were 1. It was Prudence in the Earl to take care that when the Honour descended upon Henry a little better support should be given to Charles who was the next Man and trod upon the Heels of the Inheritance 2. It was very probable and almost morally certain that Thomas would die without Issue he being not of a good state of Body or Mind and while such they were circumspect that he should not Marry 3. It s an hard thing for a Son to tell his Father That the provision he has made for his younger Brothers is void in Law But it is much harder for him to tell him so in Chancery for there no Conveyance is ever to be set aside where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction The Law doth in many Cases allow of a future Contingent Estate to be Limited where it will not allow a present Remainder to be Limited A man hath an Estate Limited to him his Heirs and Assigns this is a Fee-simple but if he die without Issue living I.S. or in such a short time to I. D. this is good Though it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet it s not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee Pell and Brownes Case If a Lease comes to be limited in Tail the Law allows not a present Remainder to be limited thereupon yet it will allow a future Estate arising upon a Contingency only and that to wear out in a short time The Limitation in Wood and Sanders Case is after an express Entail and yet Adjudged good because it was a Remainder upon a Contingency that was to happen during two Lives which was but a short Contingency and the Law might very well expect the hapning of it But our Case is stronger because it is only during one life It was decreed the Plaintiff should enjoy this Barony for the residue of the Term and the Defendants to make him a Conveyance accordingly and to account with the Plaintiff for the Profits received since the death of Duke Thomas and which they or any of them might have received without wilful default The Duke of Norfolk exhibited a Bill of Review in Chancery to which Charles Howard put in a Plea and Demurrer which was Argued before Lord Keeper North and he Over-ruled the said Plea and Demurrer and Reverst the Lord Chancellors Decree But afterwards this Decree was Reverst in Parliament and the first Decree affirmed in behalf of Charles Howard Turner contra Crane 34 Car. 2. fo 668. THat Robert Newell and his Wife Copyhold Mortgage for 220 l. paid by the Plaintiffs Wife Susan then a Widow did Surrender the Copyhold Premisses to the use of the said Susan and her Heirs on condition that the said Robert Newell and his Wife 's paying to the said Susan her Executors and Assigns 230 l. in March next after then the Mortgage to be void and the Mony not being paid the said Susan was admitted to the premisses and afterwards Marryed the Plaintiff and they received the profits of the premisses and afterwards Susan died Intestate no ways indebted leaving Susan her Daughter by the Plaintiff her Heir an Infant and the said Susan the Infant was admitted by the Plaintiff her Guardian Admittance of Guardian as Heir to Susan the Mother who received the profits and died leaving the Defendant Jane Crane her Aunt as Heir and she was admitted and the Plaintiff on Susan the Daughters death took Administration of Susan the Mothers Estate and claims the Mortgaged Lands insisting That though the Defendant Jane was Heir to Susan the Daughter who was Heir to Susan the Mother yet the premisses being a Mortgage belonged to him as Administrator to Susan the Mother This Court would consider of this Case and of Cases of Mortgages in Fee where no Covenant is made for the payment of the Mortgage-Mony to the Executor or Administrator and no debts owing by the Mortgagee whether the Heir or Administrator of the Mortgagee shall have the Lands This Court upon reading Presidents declared The Heir of the Mortgagee in Fee there being no debts owing shall have the Redemption Mony and I not the Administrator That he was fully satisfied that the Plaintiff as Administrator to the said Susan ought not to have the mortgaged premisses from the Defendant Jane Crane the Heir of the Heir of the said Mortgagee but the said Jane ought to enjoy the same and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Dowse contra Percivall 34 Car. 2. fo 186. THe Plaintiffs Father John Dowse Lessee purchased the Inheritance in Trustees Names and dies Intestate This Lease shall attend the Inheritance took a Lease of the City and afterwards purchased the Inheritance in Trustees Names for him and his Heirs and the said Dowse died Intestate the Defendant his Wife as Administratrix claims this Lease to belong to his personal Estate This Court decreed it to attend the Inheritance Magistr ' c. Vniversit ' Colleg ' in Oxon ' contra Foxcroft 34 Car. 2. fo 522. THe Bill is to Revive a former Decree made against the Defendants Father whereby the said Defendants Father was decreed to pay the Plaintiff 2000 l. and Interest To which the Defendant demurs A Decree and Sequestration against one who dies this shall not be Revived against his Heir or Real Estate though it were for Mony payable on the behalf of a Charity for that the said Defendants Father against whom the said Decree and a Sequestration is had is dead whereupon the Sequestration being granted purely for his Contempt of a Decree which was for a personal duty only
the same could never by any subsequent Act come into the Administration of the Estate of Sir Martin What Act amounts to an Assent of a Legacy and that every Act of the Defendant Robinson was a plain Assent to the Legacy to the Plaintiffs and it is plain the premisses were devisable and so the Plaintiffs Title plain and undoubted and the Plaintiffs ought to have a Decree against the Defendant to Account to them for the said Estate and ought to have the benefit of the said Lease The Defendant further insisted That by such imprudent Act as aforesaid he ought not to be Devested of the Estate but it ought to go to pay Sir Martins debts This Court declared That by the said Clause in the Lease to Worsam the Defendant had Assented to the Plaintiffs Legacies given them by the Will of their Father and that the Devise by the Will was a good Devise Devise of a Plantation in Barbados and that the premisses did well pass thereby and that the said Act of the Defendant Robinson being voluntary had put the Estate out of the power of the Creditors of Sir Martin or out of the power of any Administrator de bonis non of him Decree the Plaintiffs to have the benefit and the Defendants to assign and decreed the Plaintiffs to have the benefit of the premisses and of the Lease to Worsam and the Defendants to Assign their Interests to the Plaintiffs accordingly But the said Defendant desiring a re-hearing of the Cause which was on the 20th of Nov. 1682. when the Defendant insisted That the said Lease could not be an Assent for that the Defendant Robinson then claimed the premisses not as Executor or otherwise than only as Trustee for the Devisees whose Inheritance he then took the same to be and not as personal Estate upon which and other grounds the Defendant insists the said Rent and Reversion of the premisses expectant on the Determination of the Lease was and ought to be of the Testators personal Estate and to go in the ordinary course of Administration and to an Administrator de bonis non and be lyable to debts His Lordship notwithstanding what was now urged by the Defendant declared Decree by Finch he saw no cause to alter the former Decree but confirmed the same This Decree reversed by the Lord Keeper North The Decree reversed by North. and in 1683 fo 168. he heard this Cause upon the whole merits and ordered an Account And in 1686 Finch his Decree confined by Jefferys The Lord Chancellor Jefferys reheard this Cause upon the Merits and confirmed my Lord Chancellor Finch's Decree and discharged my Lord North's Decree Benson contra Bellasis 34 Car. 2. fo 848. THis Cause having received a hearing before the Lord Chancellor Nottingham 11 July 33 Car. 2. who made a Decree for excluding the Defendant Dame Dorothy Administratrix of Robert Benson the Plaintiffs Father from having any part of his personal Estate and the said Cause being heard 10 July 35 Car. 2. before the Lord Keeper North who decreed the said Defendant Dame Dorothy to retain to her own use one third part of the said personal Estate of the said Robert Benson and the said Cause being again reheard this day by the Lord Chancellor Jefferys The Case being that the said Robert Benson on his Marriage with the Defendant Dame Dorothy for the setling of a Joynture on the said Dorothy in full of all Joyntures Dowers and Thirds which she might claim out of his real and personal Estate conveyed Lands to the use of himself for life and after to the said Dorothy for life in full of all Joynturs c. as is aforesaid with this Proviso Settlement on Marriage That if the said Dorothy should after the death of the said Robert Benson have or claim to have or should recover any other part of the Lands or Tenements or any part of the personal Estate of the said Robert by the Custom of the Province of York or by any other means whatever other than what the said Robert Benson should give Bequeath or Settle upon or to her That then the Feoffees therein named should be seised of all the premisses setled in use upon the said Dorothy to the use of Sir Henry Thompson and Mr. Grayham their Executors Administrators and Assigns for 60 years to commence from the death of the said Robert if the said Dorothy should so long live Upon Special Trust that the said Thomson and Grayham should receive the profits of the premisses limited in the Joynture and they should dispose thereof to such persons and their uses as should be damnified by the said Dorothys perception of the profits of any other Lands of the said Robert or the taking or recovery of any part of the personal Estate other than what should be given or bequeathed until the respective values of the Profits or values of such Personal Estate should be fully satisfied and the residue of the said Profits to remain to the said Dorothy That the said Robert dying intestate and the said Dorothy Administring at York and in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury as Guardian to the Plaintiff Robert possessed the Real and Personal Estate prerends a Right to some part of the Personal Estate by the said Administration notwithstanding the said Marriage agreement The Lord Chancellor Nottingham declared the said Dorothy was bound by the said Marriage Agreement Marriage Agreement provided if the Wise claim any of the personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York then the Estate to other use Decreed she is bound by the said Settlement and ought not to claim any part of the personal Estate by Finch and the Administration ought to have been granted to her and that however the same ought not any ways to avail her for that it would be contrary to the said Settlement and Agreement and that the said Dorothy ought not to claim any part of the Real Estate other than what was Setled on her by the said deed or any of the Personal Estate and decreed accordingly But the Defendant Dorothy insisted Reversed by North. That the Lord Keeper North had adjudged one third of the Personal Estate to belong to the Defendant by virtue of the said Administration and was an accrewing Right not barred by the Marriage Agreement The Lord Chancellor Jefferies Confirmed by Jeffreys on reading the said Marriage Settlement and the said two former Orders declared That the said Order for the Excluding of the said Defendant Dorothy from having any part of the Personal Estate was a just Order and ought to stand and be pursued and that the said Order of the Lord Keeper Norths before mentioned ought to be set aside and Decreed accordingly Stapleton contra Dom. Sherwood 34 Car. 2. fo 732. THat Sir Phillip Stapleton the Plain tiffs Father Bill for Distribution of the personal Estate on his Marriage with his first Wife Setled
said Francis Pawlet and the other Trustees Executors Will pursuant to a Settlement for raising Portion That Vere Pawlet one of the said Daughters died and the Plaintiff her Mother took Administration to her Estate and thereby intitles her self to the said Portions of 4000 l. appointed to be paid to the said Vere at her Age or day of Marriage And the Question now being Whether the Plaintiff by virtue of such Administration is intituled to the Portion of her said Daughter Vere who died before her Age or day of Marriage and the Trustees should be compelled to raise the same out of the Trust of the Term of 500 years which was granted out of the Defendant the now Lord Pawlet the Infants Inheritance This Court upon perusal of Presidents declared Difference between a Legacy and a Trust they did not find any of the Presidents that came up to this Case and conceived there was a great difference between a Legacy and a Trust for that a Trust is expounded according to the intent of the party but a Legacy is governed by the Rules of Common Law and an Executor who is to have the residue in one case is not of so great regard as the Heir who is to have the residue in the other Settlement for the raysing of 4000 l. Portion to two Daughters to be paid at Age or day of Marriage one dye before her Portion shall not go to her Administrator but the Heir shall take profits That this case is of general concern to all Families for it was grown a thing of course to charge the younger Childrens Portions upon the Heirs Estate which would not have been charged but for these occasions of providing for Children And in this case the time of payment never hapning but becoming impossible by the death of the Child before the Portion was payable the Plaintiff has no right to demand it And it were hard for this Court to make a Strain against the Heir where the consideration failes for which the Portion was given viz. the advancement of the Children and altho' there were a Will in the case yet it refers to the Deed and was made at the same time so that it does not at all alter the consideration of the Case and it would be hard to decree the payment presently for that were to wrong the Heir who is to have the proceed of the Mony beyond the maintainance until the time of payment This Court saw no ground to take it from the Heir at Law to give it to an Administrator who might have been a Stranger and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill The Presidents used in this Cause for the Administrators were Rowley contra Lancaster Brown contra Bruen Clobery contra Lampen The President for the Heir Gold contra Emery This Cause was heard in Parliament and the dismission confirmed Woodhall contra Benson al' 36 Car. 2. fo 314. THat John Wirley deceased Settlement Will. being possessed of divers Mannors and Lands for 320 years that the said Term came to the Defendants Adams and Shagburgh in Trust for payment of Monies and after in Trust for Edward Colley Grandson of John Wirley for his life and after his decease to the Plaintiff Ann late Wife of the said Edward Colley and the said Plaintiff Ann to have 130 l. per Annum for her life which Settlement was made in consideration of Marriage and after the death of Edward Colley the Trustees were directed to permit the Heirs Males of Edward on the Plaintiff Ann to be begotten to receive the residue of the profits and in case of no Issue Male of her there is provision for Daughters and Limitations over to the said Edward Colley's Heirs Males and it was also declared that in case the Plaintiff Ann should Survive the said Edward then she to have the moiety of the Mannor house for her life that the Trust limited to the Heirs Males of Edward and the Remainders thereupon depending are void and the benefit of the whole Trust was in Edward for that the Trust would not be Intailed That by another Deed it was declared by the said Edward Colley and his said Trustees that in case the Plaintiff Ann should have no Issue she should have the whole Mannor house above the 130 l. per Annum and by another Deed the said Edward Colley by consent of his said Trustees declared in case the said Edward should die leaving the Plaintiff Ann no Issue and should not otherwise dispose of the residue of the profits of the premisses over and above the Rents and Charges payable as aforesaid then his said Trustees after his death should by Sale or Leases of the premisses pay all debts and after all debts paid to permit the Plaintiff to receive the residue of the profits for her life and after her death to permit the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same That the Trust for the right Heirs of Edward was void and reverted and the said Edward did afterwards declare that in case he had no Issue he intended to leave his whole Estate to the Plaintiff Ann. That the said Edward 22 Jan. 26 Car. 2. made his Will in writing reciting the Agreement in the last Deed touching payment of his debts and after some small Legacies devised to his said Trustees all the rest of his personal Estate in Trust that they should pay his debts as aforesaid and declared his meaning to be that his Executors after his debts paid should deliver the overplus to the Plaintiff Ann deducting 5 l. a-piece for their pains and all charges That Edward soon after dying the overplus belonged to the Plaintiff and the said Trustees possessed the premisses and the personal Estate and the Plaintiff Ann having since intermarryed the Plaintiff Woodhal whereby the whole belongs and remains unto him in right of his Wife and the said Trustees ought to Assign to the said Plaintiff But the said Trustees pretend the Trust and Term aforesaid doth after the Plaintiff Anns death belong unto the Defendant Gabriel Ciber and Jane his Wife she being the only Sister and Heir at Law of the said Edward Colley That the Defendant Benson knowing of the Will and Settlement aforesaid purchased the premisses of the Defendant Ciber and his Wife and the Trustees Assigned to him The Defendants the Trustees insisted That their names were used in the Marriage Settlement of Edward Colley upon his Marriage with the Plaintiff Ann in which Settlement was recited a Conveyance made by John Wirley whereby he did demise the Trusts therein mentioned and the premisses in Trusts as to Clark's Farm for such persons as he or his Executors should by Will or otherwise direct and several other persons upon several other Trusts and as to several parcels of the said premisses which the said Defendant conceived was the Estate lately enjoyed by Edward Colley in Trust for such persons as the said John Wirley should direct and for want of such appointment to
Jane his Daughter for her life and after to John Colley her Son and Heir and his Issue Male and for want of such Issue in Trust for the Daughters of the said Jane and after the death of Jane and John Edward was intituled and he together with Sir John Wirley the Surviving Trustees upon Edwards marrying with the Plaintiff did Demise to the said Defendants the Trustees the Mannor-house c. for the Term of 20 years in Trust to pay certain Annuities therein mentioned and to permit Edward Colly for his life to receive the profits of the residue and in case the Marriage took effect and the Plaintiff Ann Survived him then to pay her 130 l. per Annum for her life and after Edwards death to permit the Heirs males of their two Bodies to receive the residue of the profits and for default of such Issue male there is provision for Daughters and supposes the residue of the profits may be limited to any Issue male of Edwards and for want of such Issue to permit the Defendant Jane and Ann since deceased Sister of the said Edward to receive the profits of the Estate as the Deed expresses and that he remembred no other Agreement than what is mentioned in the said Deed and sets forth the Deed of 21 Jan. 26 Car. 2. whereby the said Defendants the Trustees were intituled by Sale or Leases to pay debts and after payment thereof if the Plaintiff Ann should be then living should permit her to receive the residue of the profits for her life and afterher decease the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same that after the time of executing the last mentioned Deed the said Edward made his Will and after some Legacies took notice of the said Deed bearing date the day before and it was declared thereby that the Defendants the Trustees should out of the profits pay all his debts and being fearful those profits should not do did Devise to them all the rest of his personal Estate and made them Executors and after debts paid the residue to the Plaintiff Ann. That Nov. 1676 Edward Colley died after which the said Defendant proved the Will and entred on the Estate But the Defendants Ciber and Jane his Wife insisted That the said Defendant Jane being the only Sister and Heir to Edward Colley are after his debts intituled to the premisses for a long Term to commence after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and have sold their interest to the Defendant Benson Upon reading the said Deed and Will A Term in gross and not to be Entailed the Lord Keeper North was of opinion that the said Term so as aforesaid Created was a Term in gross and so not capable of being intailed and therefore it could not descend to the Heir of Edward Colley but that the same should be liable to the payment of his Debts and that the Plaintiff Ann should hold the 130 l. per An. for her life and after the said Debts paid the Plaintiff Ann should receive the profits of the whole Estate for her life charged with the said Annuity and the said Plaintiffs were to redeem the Mortgage to the Defendant Woodward But as to the Residue of the said Term after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and debts paid how the same should be disposed a Case was ordered to be made A Case being Stated this Cause came to be heard thereon before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies and all the former pleadings being opened as also the Defendant Cibers cross Bill which was to this effect viz. to have the said Term of 820. years to attend the Inheritance and the Case stated appearing to be no otherwise than before is set forth His Lordship on reading the said Deed and Will A Residue of a Term after debtspaid and a life determined Decreed not to the Residuary Legatee but to the Heir the Question being who shall have the remainder of the Term in the said Lease whether the Plaintiff Ann as Residuary Legatee or whether she shall have only an Estate for life his Lordship declared that the Deed and Will do make but one Will and by them there was no more intended to the Plaintiff Ann than an Estate for her life and that she ought to enjoy the whole Mansion House cum pertin ' during her life and also the overplus of the profits of the Residue of the said Estate after Debts and Legacies paid and the Defendant Benson who purchased the Inheritance of Ciber to enjoy the same discharging all things as aforesaid Hall contra Dench 36 Car. 2. fo 799. THat the Plaintiff Grace Hall Will. Revocation being Daughter of William Knight deceased who was Son of Susanna one of the Sisters and Coheirs of Thomas Bridger deceased which said Thomas Bridger being seized in Fee of Lands in Binstead and Middleton and having no Children made his Will in 1663. by which he gave to Tho. Knight Son of the said Willi. Knight all his Lands in Binstead to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such issue then to the Plaintiff Grace and the Heirs of her Body with Remainders over and by the same Will Devised one Moiety of the Lands in Middleton to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body with the like Remainders over and sometimes after the said Will the said Thomas Bridger Mortgaged the said Lands in Binstead to John Comber and his Heirs for 500 l. and the said Bridger repaid the 500 l. and had the Mortgage delivered up and Cancelled but no Reconveyance of the Lands and that the said Comber after that was but a Trustee for Bridger the Mortgagee who in 1682. declared that the Will he made in 1663. should stand and be his last Will and then denied But the Defendant Dench having got the Cancelled Deed in his Custody and the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment under the Title of the Will and got a verdict for the Lands in Middleton but the Defendant at the Tryal setting up a Title in the Defendant Comber upon the Cancelled Mortgage for the Lands in Binstead a Verdict passed for the Defendant so to have the said Mortgage deed delivered up and the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses according to the said Will is the Bill The Defendants as Co-heirs at Law to Bridger insist That the Testator Bridger never intended that the Estate should go as that Will directed in regard he soon after the said Will Mortgaged the same to Comber and besides the Legatees and Executors in the said Will were most of them dead before the said Bridger and the Mortgage money was not paid till after the Estate forfeited and that the Mortgage to Comber was an absolute Revocation of the said Will and upon an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiff under the said Will the Defendants obtained a Verdict for the Lands in Binstead wherein the validity of the said Will was in issue The Plaintiffs insist That the Verdict obtained
did intermarry with Sir John Lloyd in the Doctors life time with his consent who upon a Settlement made on the said Mary was to have 2000 l. Portion 1500 l. whereof was to be laid out in Lands for increase of Marys Joynture and that she had Issue by him the Plaintiff Ann. That Sir John Lloyd died and the said Dame Mary intermarryed with one Hutchinson without the consent good likeing or privity of the said Doctor Smalwood her Father That in 1683 the said Doctor Smalwood died having by his Will in 1683 made the Defendant James Smalwod and others Executors and thereby devised and settled his Estate real and personal viz. according to his Settlement formerly made he gave his said Daughter Dame Mary all his Lands during her life if his Executor should so think sit and in case they should not to his Granchild Ann Love and in case of failure to his Grandchild Theophania Hutchinson during her life and in case of failure to his Nephew the Defendant James Smalwood for ever And his personal Estate as Mony Books Plate c. to be divided amongst his said Daughters Grandchildren and Nephew James Smalwood at the discretion of his Executors so to have the said 1500 l. which rested in Dr. Smalwoods Hands being part of the 2000 l. Portion Covenanted by Dr. Smalwood to be laid out in Lands by the said Doctor for increase of Mary's Joynture aforesaid to be laid out according to the Doctors Covenants and to have the benefit of the said Settlement in 1672 is the Plaintiff Bill The Defendant James Smalwood pleads and claims a right to the Estate of Doctor Smalwood by his Will and by the said Deed of 1672 the said Dame Mary having by her Marriage with the said Hutchinson in the Doctors life time without his privity or consent broke the Condition by which she was to have enjoyed the Lands in that Settlement and prays the Judgment of this Court the Estate being limited to him as aforesaid And he further pleads and insists That Dame Mary ought not to have any discovery of the Writings of the Doctors Estate because he the said James Smalwood and the other Defendant Woodroff have not yet consented that she should have any part of the Doctors Estate which power was given them by the Doctors Will as aforesaid and whether he and the other Defendant ought to consent as aforesaid submits to this Court But the Plaintiffs insist Lands setled on a Daughter provided she Marry by consent and she Marries by consent after she Marries a second Husband without consent this second Marriage is no breach of the proviso That they admit such proviso in the Deed of 1672 that in case the said Dame Mary should Marry in the life time of the Doctor without his privity consent and liking then all and every the Limitations therein should cease and be void But insist That the Marriage between Sir John Lloyd and Dame Mary was concluded by the Doctor himself as appears by the said Articles and that they married with the Doctors good liking privity and consent according to the said Condition and insist That Dame Mary's second Marriage with Hutchinson was not without the consent privity and good liking of the said Doctor and insist also that the said proviso by Dame Marys first Marriage was fully performed and the Estates in and by the said Settlement granted absolutely vested according to the Limitation declared and contained so as the said second Marriage of Dame Mary with the said Hutchinson if it had been without such consent could not have divested the same and therein crave the Judgment of this Court The Court declared That the first Marriage of Dame Mary being by her Fathers consent her second Marriage though it had been without his consent could be no breach of the Proviso or Conditon in the first Settlement and decreed the Defendants the Executors of Doctor Smalwood to account for all the personal Estate of the said Doctor Monies decreed to be laid out in Land according to Marriage Agreement and the Rents and profits of the real Estate and if personal Estate sufficient after debts to pay the 1500 l. then they are to pay the same to the Trustees which they are to lay out in a purchase of Lands according to the Deed of the 18 Aug. 1683. Com' Winchelsey al' contra Dom ' Norcloffe al' 1 Jac. 2. fo 1026. THat Katherine Act of Parliament for the Settlement of Intestates Estates late Countess of Winchelsey the Plaintiff the Earls late Wife had three Husbands Successively viz. Lister her first Husband by whom she had Issue the Defendant Christopher Lister Sir John Wentworth her second Husband by whom she had Issue Thomas Wentworth since deceased and the Defendant John Wentworth and the Plaintiff the Earl her third Husband by whom she had Issue the said Lady Catherine and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth That the said Wentworth had a Real Estate by discent from his Father out of which after his Fathers death there was payable to or to the use of the said Thomas several Sums of money for Rents Fines and Profits That in 1684. the said Thomas died Intestate leaving no Wife or Child but leaving the Defendant Christopher Lister John Wentworth the Lady Katherine and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth his Brothers and Sisters who being the next of Kin in equal degree his Mother the said Countess dying in his lifetime they by Virtue of the late Act of Parliament for selling Intestate Estates became Intituled to the surplus of the said Thomas his Personal Estate to be equally distributed and divided amongst them viz. to each of them a fourth part thereof that before any Distribution made the Lady Katherine died Intestate and Administration of her Estate was granted to the Plaintiff the Earl her Father who by Virtue thereof and of the said Act of Parliament ought to have the said Lady Katherines fourth part of the said Personal Estate of the said Thomas Wentworth her Brother and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth ought to have another fourth part but the Defendants pretend that part of the said Thomas his Personal Estate was in his Life-time Invested in the purchase of Lands which were Conveyed to him and his Heirs and ought to Discend to the said John Wentworth as his Brother and Heir and the said money ought to be accounted as part of his Personal Estate whereas if any such Purchase were made the same were without his Consent and during his Minority when he had no power to direct the laying out thereof and the Lands in Equity ought to be accounted part of his personal Estate of which the Plaintiff seeks to have their shares The Defendants insist That the Defendant John Wentworth only was of the whole Blood the rest being but of the half blood to him only and leaving the Defendant Dame Dorothy his Grandmother by the Mothers side viz. Mother of the said
of his Real Estate on Trustees and thereby made a provision for the Maintenance of William the younger during his Minority and therefore they opposed the Plaintiff Frances getting Administration of William the Elder The said Plaintiff Frances Whitmore insisted That by the Will of William the Elder there was no joynt devise made to the said William the Son and the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Father but a several devise to William the Son with Remainder to the Sisters Issue and that the said William the Son having an Interest vested in him by the Will of his Father and being 18 years Old when he died and he having then a power to have proved his Fathers Will the Earls Executorship during his Minority being determined might have spent or given away the said Estate in his life-time he might surely give away the same by his Will which he having done to the Plaintiff Frances she is thereby well Intituled to the same and that the remainder over to Issue Male and Female of the Sisters the Estate being purely personal is absolutely void This Court hearing several Presidents quoted Devisee Infant lived to 18 years and makes his Will and Executors and dies the Executor shall have the Legacy for that an Interest was vested in the Infant declared That by the Will of the Father there was an Interest vested in William the Son and the remainder over to the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Elder was void and that William the Son living to 18 years and making his Will as aforesaid and the Plaintiff Frances his Executrix she is thereby well intituled to the surplus of the said personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly Whitlock contra Marriot 1 Jac. 2. fo 700. THis Case being upon a Scandalous Answer Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 I for putting in a Scandalous Answer His Lordship declared the said Answer to be very Scandalous and Impertinent and that the expressions taken by the Defendant to the Masters Report were not only more scandalous but also Malicious and that it appearing that Ryley the Defendants Solicitor had put Mr. Lynn a Councellors Hand to the Exceptions without his Knowledge This Court Ordered the said Ryley to be taken into Custody of the Messenger and declared the Answer and Exceptions were not pertinent to the Cause but meerly to defame the Plaintiff His Lordship Ordered the Defendant Marriot to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. for his Reparation and Costs for the abuse and scandal aforesaid and the said Ryley to pay 20 l. and to stand committed to the Prison of the Fleet till payment thereof be made Ash contra Rogle and the Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls 1 Jac. 2. fo 154. THis Case is upon a Demurrer Bill to enforce the Lord of a Mannour to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a common Recovery demurred to and the demurrer allowed the Plaintiffs Bill is to inforce the Defendant the Lord of the Mannour of Barnes in Surrey to receive the Plaintiffs Petition or Bill in the Nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a Common Recovery suffered of some Copyhold Lands in the Mannour by Susan Râ—gle Widow which the Defendant Râ—gle holds under the said Recovery the Bill setting forth that Katherine Ferrers by the Will of her Husband or by some other good Conveyance was seized in Fee of Free and Copyhold Lands in Barnes formerly her said Husbands in Trust to Convey 200 l. a year thereof upon William Ferrers her Eldest Son and the said Susan his then Wife and Heirs Males of the Body of William Remainder in Tail to Thomas Ferrers the Plaintiffs Father second Son of Katherine and the Heirs of his Body Edward being obliged by Articles upon Susans Marriage with his Son William to settle Lands of that value on Susan for her Joynture That Katherine on that Trust in 1642. surrendred the premisses to the value of 100 l. per Annum to the use of the said William and Susan and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten remainder to the Right Heirs of William which was a Breach of the Trust in Katherine in limiting an Estate Tail to Susan when it should have been but an Estate for life That William died before the Admittance leaving Issue only his Son William and in 1652. Susan surrendred to one Mitchell against whom the Common Recovery in question was then obtained wherein one Walter was Demandant the said Mitchell Tenant and Susan Vouchee to the use of her self the said Susan for life the Remainder to William Ferrers and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of them the said Susan and William her Son That William the Son died soon after and Susan died in 1684. and the Plaintiffs Father Thomas being dead without Issue Male in case the Common Recovery had not been suffered the premisses would have come to the Plaintiff being the youngest Daughter to her Father as Couzen and Heir both of William Ferrers the Father and William the Son the premisses being Burrough-English and so the Plaintiff was well Intituled to prosecute the Lord of the Mannour in the Nature of a Writ of False Judgment to Reverse the said Recovery wherein there are manifest Errors and Defaults but the said Lord refuses to receive the said Petition and combine with the Defendant Rogle who is Son and Heir of the said Susan by a second Husband who pretends that his Mother Susan surviving her Son William Ferrers the premisses are discended to him by virtue of the use of the said Recovery limited to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of Susan and her Son William so the Plaintiffs Bill is to examine the defects of the said Recovery The Defendants demur for that the Relief sought by the Bill is of a strange and unpresidented Nature being to avoid and reverse a Common Recovery had in the said Mannour 30 years ago and that upon a bare Suggestion generally that the Recovery is erroneous without instancing wherein which may be said in any case The Master of the Rolls declared That as that part of the Bill which seeks to impeach or reverse the said Recovery for any errours or defects therein or compel the said Lord to receive any Petition for reversal thereof or any ways to impeach the same his Honour declared That this Court being the proper Court to supply the defects in Common Assurances and rather to support than to assist the avoiding or defeating of them and there being no presidents of such a Bill as this is he thought not fit to admit of this nor to introduce so dangerous a president whereby a multitude of Settlements and Estates depending on Common Recoveries suffered in Copyhold Courts for valuable Considerations would be avoided and defeated through the negligence or unskilfulness of Clerks and therefore conceived the said Common Recovery ought
should Marry in his Fathers life time then he should from such Marriage during his Fathers life pay the Defendant Interest for the 2500 l. And the Defendant insists That if the said Plaintiff dyed before his Father the Defendant had lost all his Mony This Cause being first heard by my Lord Finch 9 Feb. 33 Car. 2. who then upon reading the said Defezance declared That as this Cause was he could not releive the Plaintiff otherwise then against the penalty and decreed the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant 2500 l. with Interest This Cause was Re-heard by my Lord Chancellor Jeffreys the Plaintiff insisted That he had by order of this Court 5300 l. upon the said Judgment and that the late Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper had frequently releived against such fraudulent and corrupt bargains made by Heirs in their Fathers life time and that there was not any real difference where the contract is for Mony and where it is for Goods This Court on reading the Defezance declared it fully appeared The Heir relieved against a concontingent contract made in his Fathers life time because it seemed unconscionable That these Bargains were corrupt and fraudulent and tended to the destruction of Heirs sent hither for Education and to the utter Ruin of Families and as there were new Frauds and subtle contrivances for the carrying them on so the relief of this Court ought to be extended to meet with and correct such corrupt Bargains and unconscionable practices and decreed the former order to be discharged and the Plaintiff to be restored to what he hath paid over and besides the Principal Mony and Interest Durston contra Sandys 2 Jac. 2. fo 108. THat the Defendant being Patron of the Rectory of Messenden in Com' Gloucester The Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation and the former Incumbent having Resigned the same the Defendant told the Plaintiff he would present him to the said Rectory worth about 100 l. per Annum and the Plaintiff coming to the Defendant for the said Presentation the Defendant drew a Bond of 300 l. penalty with Condition That the Plaintiff should resign the said Rectory at any time within six Months Notice which the Plaintiff sealed and thereupon the Plaintiff was Instituted and Inducted and was ever since a constant Resident on the place and hath been at charge of Repairs and the Plaintiff demanded Tithes of the Defendant who refuses to pay the same but gave the Plaintiff Notice to resign who Resigned the said Rectory into the Hands of the Bishop of Gloucester but the Bishop refused to accept the said Resignation and ordered the Plaintiff to continue to serve the Cure declaring That he would never countenance such Unjust practices of the Defendant but ordered his Register to enter it as an Act of Court That the Plaintiff had tendred his Resignation and that the said Bishop had rejected it That the Defendant Arrested the Plaintiff on the said Bond for not Resigning so to be relieved against the said Bond is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant insisted That the Plaintiff demanded more than his just due for Tithes whereupon the Defendant refused payment and that the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to resign according to the Condition of the said Bond the Defendant Arrested him which he hopes is Just for him to do and that this Court will not hinder the prosecution and that the Plaintiff hath no colour of Relief in this Court against the said Bond and insist That the Reason of his Arresting the Plaintiff on the said Bond was his Non-residence and litigious Carriage to the Parishioners This Court declared That such Bonds taken by Patrons from their Clerks to Resign at pleasure may be good in Law yet ought to be enjoyned and damned in Equity whensoever they are used to any ill purposes And the Defendant making ill use of the said Bond his Lordship decreed That a perpetual Injunction be awarded against the Defendant to stay proceeding at Law upon the said Bond. Knight contra Atkyns 2 Jac. 2. fo 604. THat the Plaintiff is Brother and Heir as well of John as Benjamin Knight Marriage Agreement to have Monies laid out in Lands for a Joynture to such uses the Remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband The Mony is not laid out the Husband dies without Issue the Mony decreed to the Plaintiff being right Heir and also Executor of the said Benjamin and the said John Knight being seised of a Plantation in Barbadoes of 1000 l. per Annum by his Will declared his debts to be paid and gave several Legacies and made his Brother Benjamin sole Executor and gave him the residue of all his real and personal Estate and the said Benjamin proved the Will and afterwards a Treaty of Marriage was between the said Benjamin and Sir Johnathan Atkyns on behalf of Frances the Daughter of Sir Jonathan upon which Treaty it was agreed that Sir Jonathan should give the said Benjamin 1500 l. as a Portion with the said Frances and for a Joynture in case Frances survived Benjamin was to add 1500 l. and the said Sums to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled upon Benjamin and Fraâ—â—â—s for life and for a Joynture for Frances in lieu of her Dower and after their decease to the Issue between them and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Benjamin and until such purchase the said respective Sums of 1500 l. to be paid into the hands of the Feoffees and the increase thereof to the uses aforesaid but in regard such a purchase could not be speedily found out Sir Jonathan and Benjamin became mutually bound to each other by Bonds of 3000 l. penalty with Condition reciting That there being suddenly a Marriage to be had between the said Benjamin and Frances and for setling a future Maintenance upon Frances in case she survived and upon the Issue between them If therefore Sir Jonathan his Heirs Executors c. should pay as a Marriage portion with the said Frances into the hands of two Feoffees to be joyntly appointed between them 1500 l. which with the like Sum to be paid by Benjamin was to be laid out upon good Security real or personal and the increase thereof for the uses aforesaid and in case the whole was not provided within a short time then so much as either party should deposit and the Remainder with all convenient speed then the said Bonds to be void That such provision was sufficient and in full of any Dower the said Frances might have to Benjamin's Estate That no Feoffees being appointed the 1500 l. still remains at Interest in Sir Jonathans hands And the said Benjamin for payment as well of his own as his Brother Johns debts and legacies and to oblige his real and personal Estate for performance of the Marriage Agreement did by Deed in 1681. convey unto Trustees all his Plantations Houses
c. upon Trust to himself for life and after his death to satisfie the said Bond of 3000 l. for payment of 1500 l. to Sir Jonathan for the future Maintenace of the said Frances according to the said Marriage Agreement and in full of Dower and to do all things according as he by his last Will should direct That the said Benjamin by Will 10 Dec. 1681. therein reciting the Condition of the said Bond gave his Wife 1000 l. unpaid of Sir Jonathans Bond and his Trustees to pay 1500 l. with 500 l. he had received of Sir Jonathan in part of his Wives portion which Sums made in all 3000 l. and was to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled to the uses aforesaid and made Hulkot and Fowler Executors in Trust to manage for the Plaintiff whom he made his sole Executor who afterwards took upon him the Execution of the said Will and claims the said 3000 l. to be laid out in Lands to be setled according to the said Marriage Agreement which was in case Benjamin died without Issue the said Lands so to be setled were to come to Benjamins right Heirs and the Plaintiff is Instituted as Heir and Executor of Benjamin The Defendant Pierce confesses the Marriage Agreement and Bonds as in the Bill and that the Marriage between the said Henry and Frances took effect and the said Benjamin is since dead and that since his death the said Defendant Pierce hath married the said Frances and is thereby intituled to the benefit of the Bond entred into by the said Benjamin to Sir Jonathan and the Monies due thereon and to the Third part of Benjamins Lands The Plaintiffs insist That the said Frances dying without Issue the Mony in Sir Jonathan Atkyns his hands ought now to be paid to the Plaintiff This Court upon reading the said Bond and Condition and the Deed and Will of Benjamin declared That by the Marriage Agreement and Condition of the Bond it was very clear that the said Frances having no Issue by the said Benjamin could only have an Estate for life or the Interest of the Mony for her Maintenance and that the Plaintiff is well intituled to have the said 3000 l. paying the Defendant Pierce Interest for the 1500 l. which the said Benjamin the Plaintiffs Testator was bound to lay out and decreed accordingly Kettle by contra Lamb 2 Jac. 2. fo 1064. THat on a Treaty of Marriage between Richard Kettleby the Plaintiffs younger Brother Monies to be laid out in Lands for a Joynture by Marriage Articles and the Defendant Ann now Wife of the Defendant Atwood Articles were entred into and made between Thomas Laud Father of the Defendant Ann of the first part and the said Richard Kettleby of the second part and the Plaintiff and others Trustees of the third part whereby the said Lamb Covenanted to pay 1500 l. to the said Trustees as a Marriage-portion with the Defendant Ann his Daughter and the said Richard Kettleby Covenanted to pay 500 l. more which being 2000 l. was agreed to be laid out in the purchase of Lands to be setled upon the said Richard for life and after on the said Trustees and their Heirs during the life of Richard to preserve the contingent Remainders and after to the use of the said Ann his Wife during her life for her Joynture and after to their first and so to their seventh Son of their two Bodies and their Heirs successively and for want of such Issue to the Daughters and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Richard Kettleby for ever and that by the said Articles it was agreed that before such purchase could be made the said Trustees should place out at Interest the said 2000 l. and from time to time pay over the Interest to such person to whom the Lands are intended to be purchased was limited as if the same had been purchased and setled accordingly and there was a Proviso in the Articles That if the said Richard died before a purchase should be made leaving no Issue of his Body on the Body of the said Ann his intended Wife and Ann survived him that in that case the 2000 l. or so much thereof as was not laid out in Lands should either be laid out in the purchase of Lands to be setled upon the said Ann for life with Remainder to the right Heirs of Richard or else Three parts thereof the whole to be divided into Four parts of such Moneys as should be paid to the said Ann her Executors c. at her Election so as she made such Election within six Months after the said Richards death otherwise at the Election of Richards right Heir That afterwards the Marriage took effect and 1500 l. of the 2000 l. placed with the said Lamb by the Trustees who paid the Interest thereof to the said Richard Kettleby during his life and before the Mony was laid out in a purchase Richard died Intestete leaving Issue one Daughter named Ann who likewise died in a Month after the said Richard whereupon the Right of the 2000 l. or Lands to be purchased therewith after the death of Ann the Wife accrued to the Plaintiff Edward Kettleby as right Heir of the said Richard Kettleby so to have the 2000 l. invested in Lands and setled according to the said Articles for the benefit of the Plaintiff is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant Atwood who hath married the said Ann the Relict of the said Richard Kettleby insists That the said Ann his Wife is Administratrix to Richard her first Husband and the said Ann her Daughter and thereby well intituled to the personal Estate and that according to the Proviso in the said Articles the said Ann had made her Election to have 1500 l. of the 2000 l. to be at her own disposing and that she was well intituled to the other 500 l. as Administratrix to Richard and Ann her said Daughter and that the Marriage Articles being meerly for the benefit of the said Defendant Ann Atwood and her Issue and the Plaintiff no way intituled under the Consideration thereof there was no ground in Equity to compel a performance so as to give the Plaintiff the Defendants portion This Case being heard by the Lord Keeper North he declared That the 2000 l. did belong to the Administratrix of the said Richard Kettleby and ought not to be setled upon his Heir and dismissed the Plaintiffs Bill which dismission being signed and inrolled the Plaintiff brought his Bill of Review against the said Defendants and for Error Assigned that whereas it was declared by the said Lord North that the 2000 l. did belong to the Administratrix of Richard Kettleby and not to be setled upon his Heir That the same ought to be Decreed to be laid out in Land to be setled upon the said Ann only for life Remainder to the Plaintiff as Right Heir of Richard and his Right Heirs for ever according
should joyn with the Countess from time to time in the disposing thereof as she should appoint and the Defendant Mr. Powle thereby Covenanted that if the Marriage took effect Mr. Powle his Execuecutors or Administrators without the consent of the Countess in writing would not incumber the premisses or receive the Rents and Profits to their own use but from time to time would upon request Authorize such persons after receiving the same for the Countess's separate use as she should think fit so as he might have nothing to do therewith either in Law or Equity and that upon request he would make reasonable Leases of the premisses for such Considerations and Terms and under such Covenants as the Countess should think fit and gave such Acquittances for the Rents as should be requisite and convenient and at the Charges of the Countess and her said Trustees should Commence and Prosecute any Suit necessary for the Recovery of any part of her Estates and in defence of her Right thereto and that the said Countess might dispose of the premisses and receive the profits according to the true intent and meaning of the said Indenture Tripartite without the Interruption of Mr. Powle his Executors or any claiming under him or them And by another Indenture Tripartite 28 June 31 Car. 2. between the Countess of the first part Sir Thomas Littleton and Mr. Brett of the second part and Mr. Powle of the third part reciting that where as there was a Marriage to be had between Mr. Powle and the Countess and that by agreement she was to have and dispose to her own use and at her pleasure all her Jewels Plate Goods and Chattels both Real and Personal and the benefit thereof so as Mr. Powle his Executors or Administrators were not to intermeddle therewith the Countess by Mr. Powles consent did make a Bargain and Sale to the said Littleton and Brett of all her Jewels Plate Houshold-stuff Money Goods and Chattels Real and Personal upon Trust that they should dispose of the same and the proceed thereof to such persons and such uses as the Countess by any writing or by her Will should appoint so as Mr. Powle might not have any power or interest in Law or Equity to Sell Charge or Dispose of the same or any part thereof and for want of such appointment upon Trust to deliver the same or such part thereof as should be undisposed of by the said Countess to her Executors or Administrators and Mr. Powle by the last Deed covenanted not hinder the same and also that they should be free from all debts and ingagements of the said Powle That Mr. Powle and the Countess intermarried and afterwards the said Countess according to the said agreement and power as long as she lived disposed of all the Rents and profits of her real Estate and without Powle's intermedling That aftewards the said Trustees dying Mr. Powle by Deed with the said Countess transferrd the said Trust to other Trustees and also covenanted not to intermeddle but the said premisses to be solely in the power of the said Countess And it was agreed that the receipts of the Countess should be sufficient for the premisses or the preceed thereof notwithstanding tthe Coverture That the Countess by her self and the Trustees received the rents and profits of the premisses and disposed thereof without Mr. Powle That the said Countess by Deed of appointment in 1682 and by her Will in 1684 whereof she made the Plaintiff the Earl of Dorset her Son Executor to whom she after some Bequests and appointments to other persons Bequeathed and appointed all the rest of her personal Estate and also gave to him all her Monies and Rents and all Arrears of Rents in her Steward and Tenants Hands to all which the Plaintiff the Earl the said Countess being dead is intituled The Defendant Powle insists that as to the Rents and Profits of the Real Estate he claims the same and that he was so far from not intermedling therewith that he would not permit the Stewards to receive the Rents without Warrant from himself and that he passed all the Accounts thereaf and rectified them after the Countess had signed them This Court declared Feme Coverts disposing of her personal Estate according to Agreement at Marriage decreed good But not as to the Rents and Profits of her real Estate There was an absolute Power in the said Countess of disposing all her personal Estate that she was possest of at the time of her Marriage and the proceed thereof and that she had pursuant to such Power well disposed of the same and decreed the Defendant Powell to confirm the said Will and Appointment But as touching the rent and profits of the real Estate upon Consideration of several Clauses of the Deed relating to the said Estate and different Penning of the same from the other Deeds that concerned the personal Estate This Court declared the said Countess had no power to dispose of the same and all the Arrears thereof to be accounted for to the said Mr. Powle THE CASE OF The Duke of Albemarle With the Arguments thereon Com' Mountague al' contra Com' Bath al' 4 W. M. fo 90. THe Plaintiffs Revocation Will. after a Trial at Law directed out of this Court wherein the Point in Issue was Whether a Settlement was well made and executed and a Verdict for the Defendant that it was good and valid in Law They come into this Court to seek Relief upon the Equity reserved against the said voluntary Settlement wherein was a power of Revocation by virtue of a Will afterwards made the Question being Whether in Equity the said Will was a Revocation of the Deed tho' not strictly pursued The Bill was That Christopher Bill late Duke of Albemarle being seised of several Mannors Lands and Tenements in several Counties having married the Duke of Newcastle's Daughter and being possest of a considerable personal Estate frequently declared That he would make ample provision for the Dutchess who then had but 2000 l. per Annum Annuity setled on her for a Joynture by George Duke of Albemarle upon her Marriage with Duke Christopher for the support of her Dignity in case she survived him and that if he should have no Issue Male he would leave to her for her life at least 8000 l. per Annum out of his real Estate and in pursuance of such his Resolutions and likewise for the setling of the Remainder of his Lands upon his dying without Issue on Colonel Monk and others made and published his last Will in writing dated 1 July 1687. Whereby He gives to his Wife Coaches Jewels Plate c. and for advancing her living and support if he have no Issue Male and in full of her 2000 l. per Annum Rent-charge and Dower he gives her his Lands in Essex Stafford Lancaster York Lincoln Surrey Devon Hertford Middlesex Berks and Southampton for her life and if she accept
not to be shaken yet nevertheless the Case being new and great referred it to the Opinion and Determination of the Lord Chancellor His Lordship held the Demurrer good and Order to stand Skinner contra Kilby 2 Jac. 2. fo 72. THe Bill is to have the benefit of a Bequest by the Will of Robert Kilby The Will being viz. Will. If my Son Richard Kilby should behave himself towardly and undertake the payment of my debts and Legacies then he to have all my Lands in Tredington The Son Devisee of Lands upon good behaviour for his mis-behaviour decreedagainst him if he behave himself otherwise or to neglect to pay my debts and Legacies as aforesaid then he to have but 5 s. and left it to the direction of his Executrix Jane Kilby the Defendants Mother and also Mother of the said Richard Kilby the Plaintiffs Father That the said Richard waving the said Devise made to him and neglecting the payment of his said Fathers debts and Legacies the said Jane undertok and paid the same being intituled by the said Will and by her Will Bequeathed to the said Defendant the premisses This Court upon reading the said Will of Robert Kilby the Testator which being as is aforesaid declared that according to the said Will the said Jane was well intituled to the premisses and that the Defendant ought to enjoy the same and could not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Nayler contra Strode 2 Jac. 2. fo 473. THe Surrender of a Copyhold Estate by an Infant of 4 or 5 years of Age allowed of by this Court Surrender of a Copyhold by an Infant of 5 years of Age. Yet the Lord of the Mannor insisted he never heard of any admittance in that Mannor at such an Age. Cloberry contra Lymonds 2 Jac. 2. fo 1069. LAnds extended in 1 Car. 1. and held in Extent and a Bill exhibited to redeem and being not redeemed the Bill dismist in 16 Car. Upon the buying the Equity of Redemption of Lands in Extent Account decreed from the time of the purchase 1. and afterwards he who had the Extent by virtue of the said dismission sold the said premisses to the Defendant But the Plaintiff having since bought the Equity of Redemption seeks a Redemption This Court notwithstanding the dismission and length of time ordered an account from the time of the Purchase but no account from any time before but the profits to go against the Interest to that time Newte contra Foot 2 Jac. 2. fo 695. THe Defendant insists Depositions suppressed because the Sollicitors Clerk in the Cause did write as a Clerk in the Execution of the Commission That the Depositions in this Cause are irregulerly taken and ought to be suppressed for that Mr. Samuel Vnderwood who was Clerk to Mr. Edward Gibbon Sollicitor for the Plaintiff in this Cause did write as Clerk in Execution of the said Commission under the said Commissioners and the said Vnderwood confessed the same and solicited the Matter for which Reasons the Defendants Commissioners refused to joyn in the Execution of the said Commission it being of great mischief for Solicitors or their Clerks to be privy to the taking of Depositions in such Causes as they Solicite This Court was well satisfied that the said Depositions were for the Reasons aforesaid irregularly taken and doth order that the same be hereby suppressed and that the Six Clerks Certificate for the regular taking of the Depositions be discharged Griffith al' contra Jones al' 2 Jac. 2. fo 353. THat Peter Griffith being seised in Fee of Lands Will. and possest of a personal Estate of 20000 l. in 1681. by his Will devised to his Brother the Plaintiff 200 l. to the Plaintiff Shonnet Price and Dorothy Parry the Daughters of his Sister Shonnet 150 l. apeice c. and to the Sons and Daughters of his Brother and Sisters not mentioned by name in his Will 10000 l. equally between them which said Legacy doth belong to the Plaintiffs John Lloyd and Alice Williams being the only Nephew and Neece not named in the Will and the overplus of his Estate he obliged the Executors should pay and and distribute amongst his Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and the rest of his poor Kindred according to his Executors discretions and the Plaintiff claims the overplus of the said Estate as being all the Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren of the Testator and poor Kindred that can take by the Will The Defendants the Executors insisted That they conceive the distributing and apportioning the said surplus is left to them by the express words of the Will and that they ought to distinguish the Grandchildren of the Testators Brothers and Sisters whose Fathers and Mothers were dead before the Testator and had no particular Legacies by the Will and consider the Condition and number of Children of the said Kindred and give most to those that most want and conceived that such of the Plaintiffs as have particular Legacies ought to have but a small one if any part of the surplus and the Defendants crave the directions of this Court how far the words Poor Kindred shall Extend to what Degree of Relation This Court decreed Legacies to Poor Kindred how far to be extended That the surplus of the said Estate be distributed to and amongst the Testators Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and as to the rest of the poor Kindred according to the Act of Parliament for distributing Intestates Estates and no further and to be distributed in such shares and propotions as the Executors in their discretions should think fit and whereas there are debts owing to the Testators Estate and the debtors poor but propose to pay as far as they are able This Court decreed Poor Debtors to the Testator who left a great Estate the Executors left at liberty to compound any debt That the Executors be at liberty to compound any debt owing to the said Estate if they should think fit Creditors on Judgments and Bonds decreed Creditors on Judgment and Bonds decreed to redeem Mortgages to redeem Mortgages towards satisfaction of their debts fo 843. Bernry contra Pitt 2 Jac. 2. fo 373. THe Bill is That the Plaintiffs Father being only Tenant for life of a real Estate which after his death would come to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs Father allowing the Plaintiff but a small subsistance and the Plaintiff borrowed of the Defendant 1000 l. in 1675 and entred into Judgment of 5000 l. Defezanced for the payment of 2500 l. after the Plaintiffs Fathers death which hapned in 1679. The Defendant insists That he lent the Plaintiff 1000 l for which the Plaintiff gave Bond and Warrant of Attorny to confess Judgment to the Defendant of 5000 l. which was Defezanced that in case the Plaintiff should out-live his Father and in one Month after his Fathers death pay the Defendant 2500 l. and if the Plaintiff