in the Negative doth amount to it viz. that he shall continue no longer especially when the Act recites the Mischief to be a Continuance during Life It implies that the Clerkship of the Peace should be never granted for a longer Interest than the Custos had in his Office The 3 and 4 Edw. 6. doth indeed repeal part of the 37 Hen. 8. not by express words but by a very strong Implication by giving the Chancellor a power to nominate the Custos But the Office of Clerk of the Peace is not toucht by that of Edw. 6. and continues as settled by 37 H. 8. which is during the continuance of the Custos Then 't is the new Statute which gives the occasion of the present Dispute and there 's nothing in this Act which can make such an Alteration in the Law as was below contended for The words So long only as he shall well demean himself are not enlarging of his Estate but Restrictive and whensover 't is considered how to make a Grant for Life to be good you must consider the power and capacity of the Grantor and how the thing is capable of being so granted as in Case of Tenant in Tail or Fee and each make a Lease for Life in the latter Case 't is for the Life of the Lessee and in the former for the Life of the Tenant in Tail because of the different Capacities of the Grantors and so the thing it self is considerable here 's an express Statute that saith it shall be only during the continuance of the Custos now that Provision is to be pursued 'T is said that a Grant quam diu se bene gesserit is for Life but the words themselves do not import any such thing 't is indeed a restrictive Condition which the Law imposes upon all Offices for Misbehaviour in any Office if in Fee is a Forfeiture but the chiefest Consideration is if it be an Office that is capable of being granted for life if it be so these words may amount to a Grant for Life as expounded by usage and the nature or capacity of the Office it self but otherwise if the Office be not grantable for Life such words will not give an Estate for Life These words seem only to be an Expression of what the Law always implieth tho' not particularly expressed If it operate any thing it seems only to have reference to the power of the Grantor as a Restirction on him and not as an Enlargement of the Estate of the Grantee especially where by a Law in being there 's an incapacity upon the very Office not to be granted for life Then it was urged that the Statute of 37 H. 8. was not repealed the 3 and 4 Edw. 6. doth not alter this Matter at all and where it did make any Alteration the same is expresly repealed by this last Act in question It is a settled Rule that if there be two Statutes and both consistent and not contradictory the latter can never be said to repeal the former and so is Dr. Foster's Case 11 Rep. 5 6. so it is in Wills Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. This last Act of Will. et Mar. is consistent with the 37 Hâ—n 8. the one says He shall continue during the time that the Custos doth remain such so as he demean himself well the other says He shall enjoy his place so song only as he demeans himself well in it Now take the Office to be by the 37 Hen. 8. only granâ—able to hold during the continuance of the Custos then suppose in the same Act it should be said to hold so long only as he demean himself well where is the inconsistency or contradiction And if none then this last Act doth not Repeal the former as to this Matter And Mr. Fox's Grant is pursuant to the Statute of Hen. 8. and Mr. Harcourt's hath no relation to it Then 't was argued That 't was unreasonable that a Custos should have an Officer under him of anothers choice when himself is responsible for the Records which such Officer is concerned with The primary Intent of this last Act was only to settle the Doubts about the Keepers of the Great Seal not to alter the Estate of the Office of Clerk of the Peace The Offices of the Judges in Westminster-hall determine with the King's Life who grants them tho ' they are granted to hold during good behaviour In this Act the reason of using these words was for Caution to advertise them that Misbehaviour should forfeit their Places If an Alteration of the Law had been intended they would have said for Life so as he demean himself well especially when as was said before he was removable for Misbehaviour by the former Laws in being Wherefore upon the whole Matter it was prayed that the Judgment might be reversed On the other side it was argued with the Judgment That 't is clear and apparent that this Act of W. M. was made not only to satisfie Doubts and prevent Questions about the Office for the Custody of the Great Seal but to settle the manner of naming the Custos and Clerk of the Peace and that 't is in part introductive of a new Law and in part a reviver of the old But the general end was that that Office of Clerk should be filled and executed by a learned able honest Person because it concerns the Administration of Justice He is the King's Attorney in many respects he not only writes the sense of the Justices in their Orders but draws Indictments and upon Traverses he joyns Issue as one qui pro Domino Rege in ea parte sequitur and prays Judgment for the King in many Cases joyns in Demurrer when occasion requires and is in the Sessions the same as the Clerk of the Crown is in the King 's Bench. Now to accomplish this end of having a Person well qualified and to encourage and oblige him to his good Behaviour it requires a Residence in the County it enjoyns that the Person named be able it subjects him to the Jurisdiction of the Justices who have a daily observance of his demeanour it gives them a power to remove him upon a just Complaint which they could not before it frees him from the usual Temptation to Fraud and Corruption by introducing him gratis sine pretio and to provoke his Care and Diligence it gives him a more durable Estate in his Office then he had before when he bought it viz. Freehold an Estate for his Life That it should be so is convenient because then he will be encouraged to endeavour the increase of his Knowledge in that Employment which he may enjoy during Life whereas precarious dependent Interests in Places tempt Men to the contrary That this is an Estate for Life appears from the words of the Act they do direct how long he shall enjoy his Office so long only as he shall behave himself well If the word only had been omitted
there could be no colour for a Doubt By 1 Inst 42. 'T is an Estate for Life determinable upon Misbehaviour for during good Behaviour is during Life 't is so long as he doth behave himself well i.e. If he behaves himself well in it so long as he lives he is to have it so long as he lives during Life and during good Demeanour are therefore synonymous Phrases the same thing when used with relation to Offices the Condition annexed if observed continues it during Life the contrary determines it This is the Rule and Law in case of Offices in general and must hold in this for this is an Office 2 Hen. 7.1 He is called Att ' Domini Regis 'T is capable of being enjoyed for Life and consequently of being granted so especially when an Act of Parliament declares it shall be so There 's nothing in the nature of the Employment that hinders it and there can be no doubt but that a Statute may impower a Custos in possession who hath only an Estate at will to name a Clerk to hold during Life or good Behaviour The Justices are at pleasure Suppose then the Act had said That they should name him in this manner he must have continued tho' they had died or had been removed the Case is the same here he is as much intrusted with the Acts of the Justices as with the Records belonging to the keeping of the Custos Then there 's nothing in the Act that savours of an Intention to make him dependent on the Custos's Office The Custos is to name him but the Justices have the controul over him he is an Officer to the Sessions and the Justices only can remove him The Limitation of the Interest of the Custos in his Office and that of the Clerk are different and that shews that the duration of the one was not to depend on the other Besides the Custos is to name not when he shall be made Custos as it would have been worded if the intention advanced on the other side had been true but whensoever it shall be void It doth not say Every new Custos shall or that every Custos shall name but generally when 't is void he shall c. Then as to the Objection That this new Act is consistent with the 37 Hen. 8. and therefore that is still in force 'T was answered That by the former Act he was intirely placed under the Custos who had power to displace him upon Miscarriage the Sessions then could not do it tho' a Court and a Court of Record they might suspend him but could not deprive him of his Office even for ill Demeanour This was that Act. Now the present Law abridges the power of the Custos he must name a Resident before he might appoint any able Person the Person was then removable by the Custos now only by the Justices Care is taken that nothing is to be given for the Office and now he may make a Deputy without the approbation of the Custos Here 's plainly a different Jurisdiction over him and a different Estate vested in him this express Limitation of the Interest to him is an Exclusion of the former Estate as dependant upon that of the Custos And besides this is a Substantive distinct enacting Clause of it self and no ways relating to the Statute of Hen. 8. Why was this Limitation penned differently from that unless to give another sort of Interest As to the Cases of new Laws which repeal former 't was said That the Rule was certain that whatsoever Statute is introductive of a new Law tho' penned in the affirmative is a Repeal of the former as implying a negative i. e. the latter ought to be observed if it concerns the same Matter The Statute of Edw. 6. controuled the Statute of Hen. 8. One directed the Keeper to name the other the King and both are in the affirmative yet the latter must be observed And if this be a new Estate as it hath been adjudged below then the Party ought to enjoy it And for this was cited 1 Sid. 55. Plowd 113. and other Books Then 't was said That the Clerk of the Peace named by the Justices in default of the Custos would have an Estate for Life and by the same reason it ought to be so here Tho' the Custos be to be named according to the Statute of Hen. 8. yet he is not to execute his Power of Custos according to that Act but is tied to a Resident hath not the Approbation of a Deputy and cannot remove By the Statute of Hen. 8. the Clerk had but an Estate at the will of the King the Custos having no other This is so long as he doth well in his Office these are different and when the Custos hath named him he is in by the Statute If what they on the other side contend for had been intended there was no need of these words of Limitation at all and the words in like manner as by the former act had fulfilled the intention if such had been As to the word only that would make no Alteration in the Case of any other Office Suppose an Office granted to a Man quamdiu tantum or solummodo se bene gesserit would that give less then an Estate for Life The word only was added not to abridge the Estate of the Clerk but rather to restrain the Power of the Custos that he should have Authority only to limit it during good Behaviour and not for a less Interest or Estate The Custos is confined that he shall not grant it for Years or at Pleasure Besides only is but just so long and no longer or so long as and 't is the same thing with the word as without it Dummodo sola vixerit is during all her Widowhood Suppose a power to make Leases to hold only for and during the term of 21 Years the same would be good for the whole Term. Then 't is no Objection That the Estate of the Clerk is greater than his is who names him for that may be by Custom as in the Offices in Westminster-hall Hobart 153. and the Clerks of Assize where usage fixes the Estate And the like in Case of Power to make Leases upon Family Settlements to Uses where Tenant for Life grants larger Interests then his own 'T is true the Powers and Estates raised by them issue out of the Inheritance but the Tenant for Life only names them as the Custos doth here tho' the Statute gives the Interest As to the Inconvenience That dependent Offices should continue against the will of their Superiours that can be no Objection since there are few great Officers in the Realm but have many Substitutes and Inferiours under them which were named by their Predecessors and are not removable almost every Bishop in England is under these Circumstances with respect to the Register of his own Court who notes and records his Acts c. This is an
Disorder and most Proceedings informal and in the English Tongue in such a mean Court where are few Precedents to guide them where the Parties themselves are not empowered to draw up their own Proceedings as here above but the whole is left to the Steward who is a Stranger to the Person concerned and therefore 't is hard and unreasonable that Mens Purchases should be prejudiced by the Ignorance Unskilfulness or Dishonesty of a Steward or his Clerks that there is scarce one Customary Recovery in England which is exactly agreeable to the Rules of the Common Law that the questioning of this may in consequence endanger multitudes of Titles which have been honestly purchased especially since there can be no aid from the Statutes of Jeofailes for they do not extend to Courts Baron 'T was further urged That there was no Precedent to enforce Lords of Mannors to do as this Bill desired that the Lords of Mannors are the ultimate Judges of the Regularity or Errours in such Proceedings that there 's no Equity in the Prayer of this Plaintiff that if the Lord had received such Petition and were about to proceed to the Reversal of such Recovery Equity ought then to interpose and quiet the Possession under those Recoveries That Chancery ought rather to supply a Defect in a Common Conveyance if any shall happen and decree the Execution of what each Party meant and intended by it much rather than to assist the annulling of a Solemn Agreement executed according to Usage tho' not strictly conformable to the Rules of Law For which Reasons it was prayed that that Appeal might be dismissed and the Dismission below confirmed and ' was accordingly adjudged so The Countess of Radnor versus Vandebendy al. APpeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery the Case was to this effect The Earl of Warwick upon Marriage of his Son settles part of his Estate upon his Lady for a Jointure and after failure of Issue Male limits a Term for 99 years to Trustees to be disposed of by the Earl either by Deed or Will And for want of such Appointment then in trust for the next in Remainder and then limited the whole Estate in such manner as that a third part of a Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn the Appellants late Husband in Tail general with the Reversion in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs The Son died without Issue the Earl by his Will appoints the Lands to his Countess for so many years of the Term as she should live and to her Executors for one year after her Death and charges the Term with several Annuities some of which remain in being The Respondent's Father purchased part of these Lands from the Lord Bodmyn after his Marriage and had the Term assigned to him The Lord Bodmyn dyes the Appellant brings her Writ of Dower in C. B. the Respondent pleads the Term for 99 years and she Exhibits her Bill praying that she may after the discharge of the Earls Incumbrances have the benefit of the Trust as to a third of the Profits of this Term and upon hearing the Cause the Lord Chancellor saw no cause to give Relief but dismissed her Bill There were many Particulars in the Case and many Proceedings before both in Law and Equity but this was the whole Case as to the general Question Whether a Tenant in Dower shall have the benefit of the Trust of a Term which is ordered to attend the Inheritance against a Purchaser after the Marriage The Lord Chancellor Jeffryes had been of opinion with the Appellant but the Cause coming to be heard again a Dismission was decreed and now it was argued against the Decree on behalf of the Appellant that Equity did entitle her to the Thirds of this Term that a Tenant by the Curtesie is intitled to it and br the same reason a Tenant in Dower that the Term created by the Settlement was to attend all the Estates limited by that Settlement and in Trust for such Persons as should claim under it which the Appellant doth as well as the Respondents that it was in consequence to attend all the particular Estates carved or derived from the others the Term was never in its creation designed for this purpose to prevent or protect against Dower that in the Case of Snell and Clay the Tenant in Dower had it in Chancery against the Heir at Law and that this was the same Case a Purchaser with notice of that Incumbrance of Dower the Vendor being then married this was an Estate of which the Husband was full Owner and received the whole Profits that in proportion 't is as much a Trust for her for her Thirds during Life as it is a Trust for the Respondents for the Inheritance she claims under her Husband who had the benefit of the whole Trust If there be a Mortgage by an Ancecestor upon the whole Eqinty will permit her to redeem paying her proportion according to the value of her Thirds for Life and the same reason holds in this Case and there 's no Precedent in Equity to the contrary And many Precedents in favour of Tenant in Dower were cited and much Reason well urged from parallel Cases to entitle the Lady to her proportion of the Trust of this Term. On the other side 'T was said that Dower is an Interest or Right at the Common Law only that no Title can be maintained to have Dower but where the Common Law gives it and that is only to have the Thirds of that which the Husband was seized of and if a Term were in being no Feme was ever let in but after the determination of that Term that this is the first pretence set up for a Dower in Equity the Right is only to the Thirds of the Rent reserved upon any Term and 't is a new thing to affirm that there shall be one sort of Dower at Law and another in Chancery that 't is and always hath been the common received Opinion of Westminster-hall and of all Conveyancers that a Term or Statute prevents Dower that if a Purchaser can procure it the same becomes his Defence that this is what the Wisdom of our Forefathers thought fit to use and tho' some Mens reasoning may render it in appearance as absurd yet the consequence of an alteration will be much more dangerous than the continuance of the old Rules that tho' this Lady's Case be unfortunate yet the multitude of Purchasors who have bought upon full consideration and have been advised and still conceive themselves safe under this Law will be more unfortunate if the Law be broken Then ' was argued That there could be no Equity in this Case for it must be not only from the Party Appellant but also against the Respondent and that 't is not because he bought the whole Her Portion her Quality and her being a Wife create no Equity as to the Purchaser 't would perhaps be prevalent against an Heir but
Denbigh and Montgomery leaving three Daughters and Coheirs Mary Penelope and Susan Susan married Sidney Godolphin one of the present Appellants In July 1674. Mary and Penelope in consideration of 4000 l. paid to the said Mary by Richard Carew Esq and in consideration of a Marriage to be had and which was afterwards had between Penelope and the said Richard Carew by Lease and Release convey all those their two Parts of the said Lands in Denbigh Salop and Montgomery to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of Richard Carew for Life then to Penelope for Life for her Jointure then to the said Trustees and their Heirs during the Lives of Richard and Penelope to preserve contingent Remainders then to the first and other Sons of Richard and Penelope in Tail-Male successively And in default of Issue-Male to the Daughters of Richard and Penelope in Tail And in default of such Issue as to one Moiety of the said two Parts to the first and other Sons of the said Penelope by any other Husband in Tail the Remainder of all and singular the Premisses to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs for ever subject to this Proviso That if it should happen that no Issue of the said Richard upon the Body of the said Penelope should be living at the decease of the Survivor of them and the Heirs of the said Penelope should within Twelve Months after the decease of the Survivor of the said Richard and Penelope dying without Issue as aforesaid pay to the Heirs or Assigns of the said Richard Carew the Sum of 4000 l. that then the Remainder in Fee-simple so limited to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs should cease and that then and from thenceforth the Premisses should remain to the use of the right Heirs of the said Penelope for ever After this Mary intermarried with the Appellant Sir Evan Lloyd and a Partition was made of the Premisses and the same had been enjoyed accordingly ever since and Mr. Carew and his Lady levied a Fine to Mr. Godolphin and his Lady of his part who did thereupon by their Deed dated 23 Sept. 1676. covenant to levy a Fine of Mr. Carew's two Parts to such uses as he and his Lady should limit and appoint but have not yet levied the said Fine Richard Carew and Penelope his Wife to avoid all Controversies that might happen whereby the Estate of the said Richard Carew or his Heirs might be question'd or incumbred by the Heirs of Penelope and to the End to extinguish and destroy and barr all such Estate Right Title Equitable or other Interest as the said Penelope then had or her Issue and Heirs might have or claim to the same by any Power Settlement or Condition on payment of 4000 l. or otherwise to the Heirs of Richard Carew by the Heirs of the said Penelope and for the settling of the same on the said Richard Carew and his Heirs did in Michaelmas Term 1681. levy a Fine of the Share and Part allotted to them and by Deed of 10 Decemb. 1681. declare that the said Fine should be to the use of the said Richard for Life Remainder to Penelope for Life the Remainder to the said Richard Carew his Heirs and Assigns for ever And do further declare That the Fine agreed to be levied by the Appellants Sidney Godolphin and Susan his Wife by their Deed dated the 23 Sept. 1676. should be to the same uses and then direct the Trustees by the first Settlement to convey to those uses Penelope died without Issue in 1690. Richard Carew made his Will in Aug. 1691. and devised the said Lands to Sir John Carew Baronet his Brother subject to pay all his Debts and Legacies and made Sir John Carew his Executor In Decemb. 1691. Richard Carew died without Issue and Sir John Carew entred and was seized and possessed of the Premisses and paid 4855 l. for the Debts of Richard Carew Sir John Carew died and the Respondent Sir Richard Carew an Infant is his Son Heir and Executor The Appellants Mary and Susan claiming the Lands as Heirs to Penelope by virtue of the said Proviso in the first Settlement upon payment of the 4000 l. exhibited their Bill in Chancery to compel the Trustees to convey the Estate to them upon such payment Upon hearing of this Cause on Bill and Answer the Court ordered a State of the Case to be drawn which was as above and afterwards the Court assisted by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice Rooksby seeing no Cause to relieve the Plaintiffs dismissed their Bill And now it was argued on behalf of the Appellants That such Dismission ought to be set aside and amongst other things it was insisted on in favour of the Appeal that this Proviso was not void that it was within the reason of the Contingent Limitations allowed by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk and there were quoted several Paragraphs in the Argument made by the said Lord Chancellor as that future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory Remainders that are to emerge or arise upon Contingency are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the Reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long Consideration but such as by a natural and easie Interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to the right Channel again That tho' there can be no Remainders limited after a Fee-simple yet there may be a Contingent Fee-simple arise out of the first Fee that the ultimum quod sit or the utmost Limitation of a Fee upon a Fee is not yet plainly determined that tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet 't is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee that no Conveyance is ever to be set aside in Chancery where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction especially where 't is a Family Settlement Then these Paragraphs were applied and further urged That there could not in reason be any difference between a Contingency to happen during Life or Lives or within one year afterwards that the true reason of such Opinions which allowed them if happening within the time of the Parties lives or upon their deceases was because no Inconvenience could be apprehended thereby and the same Reason will hold to one year afterwards and the true Rule is to fix Limits and Boundaries to such Limitations when so made as that they prove Inconvenient and not otherwise That this Limitation upon this Contingency happening was the considerate Intention of the Family the Circumstances whereof required Consideration and this Settlement was the Result of it and made by good Advice That the Fine could not barr the Benefit of this Proviso for that the same never was nor ever could be in Penelope who levied the Fine As to the Pretence That if the
Appellants were relieved Richard Carew who married Penelope would have no Portion with her 'T was answered That that could not alter the Case the Agreement and Intention of the Parties being the most considerable Matter and besides Richard enjoyed the Estate during his Life without impeachment of Waste And as to the Debts 't was answered That those were no Ingredients in the Question however there would be 4000 l. paid towards it and the Personal Estate was more than enough to pay the residue For which and other Reasons 't was prayed that the Dismission might be Reversed On the other side it was insisted on with the Decree 1. That the Limitation by the Settlement in July 1674. to the Heirs of Penelope upon payment of 4000 l. by them to the Heirs of Richard Carew within Twelve Months after the death of Richard and Penelope without Issue at the time of the decease of the Survivor of them is a void Limitation the Fee-simple being before limited to Richard and his Heirs and so not capable of a further Limitation unless upon a Contingency to happen in the Life of one or more Persons in being at the time of the Settlement which is the furthest that the Judges have ever yet gone in allowing these Contingent Limitations upon a Fee and which were the Bounds set to these Limitations by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk that tho' there were such Expressions as had been read on the other side yet the Bounds set by him to these Limitations were only dependent upon Life or Lives in being and never as yet went any further And if they should be Extended and allowed to be good upon Contingencies to happen within Twelve Months after the Death of one or more Persons they may be as well allowed upon Contingencies to happen within a Thousand years by which all the Mischiefs that are the necessary Consequents of Perpetuities which have been so industriously avoided in all Ages will be let in and the Owner of a Fee-simple thus clogged would be no more capable of providing for the Necessities and Accidents of his Family then a bare Tenant for Life 2. If this Limitation were good 't was urged That the Estate limited to the Heirs of Penelope was virtually in her and her Heirs must claim by Descent from her and not as Purchasors and by Consequence this Estate is effectually barred by the Fine of Penelope the design of limiting this Power to the Heirs not being to exclude the Ancestor but because the Power could not in its nature be executed until after the decease of the Ancestor it being to take effect upon a Contingency that could not happen till after that time and this Bill and Appeal was not only to have the said Richard Carew who married Penelope to have not one Farthing Portion with his Wife but to make the now Respondent Sir Richard Carew to lose the 4855 l. which his Father Sir John Carew paid as charged on the Lands in question For which Reasons and many others well urged about the Mischief and Danger of Perpetuities and their Increase of late years to the intangling and ruine of many Families it was prayed that the Decree of Dismission might be affirmed but the same was Reversed Sir William Morley Knight of the Bath Plaintiff Versus Peter Jones Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment in B.R. in Ejectment upon the Demise of Bellingham upon a Special Verdict which finds That Anne Bowyer Spinster was seized in Fee of the Mannor of Frencham that the said Anne and Edward Morley Esq and Sir William and J. Wells ante tempus quo c. viz. 22 July 1664. did make and as their Deed deliver a certain Indenture with their Seals sealed whereby the said Anne demises the Mannor aforesaid to Sir William and Wells and their Executors for one Month from the Day next before the Day of the Date that Sir W. and Wells entred and were possessed that they the 23d of July in the said Year sealed and as their Deed delivered another Indenture with their Seals sealed whereby the said Anne reciting a Marriage intended between Anne and Edward and that Edward had agreed to settle a Jointure out of his Lands to the value of 300 l. per Annum and that the said Anne had agreed in case the Marriage took effect and a Jointure were made as aforesaid to settle the said Mannor on him and his Heirs and to particular Trusts after-mentioned until the same be performed She the said Anne in consideration of the Marriage and in performance of the Agreement on her part Bargains Releases and Confirms to Sir W. and Wells their Heirs the said Mannor and all her Right c. and the Reversion c. in Trust for the said Anne and her Heirs until the Marriage take effect and assurance of a Jointure be made as aforesaid and after such Marriage and Assurance of such value as aforesaid then to the use of Edward and his Heirs c. Then the 1st of August 1664. a Marriage was had then the 29th of Jan. 1665. a Deed is Executed between the said Edward and Anne of the first part and Young and Truster as Trustees on the other part reciting that a Fine is already acknowledged and agreed to be levied in due Form of Law next Hillary Term between the said Young and Truster Plaintiffs and the said Edward and Anne his Wife of the said Mannor of Frencham and thereby declared that the said Fine should be to the use of Edward and his Heirs Two days after the Execution of that Deed and before the Fine levied viz. 31 Jan. 1665. another Writing indented was made and executed under Seal between the said Edward of the one part and the said Anne of the other part whereby they both in Consideration of the said Marriage and other good Causes did Covenant Consent and Agree to revoke all former Grants Bargains Contracts Writings Covenants and Obligations made or done between them or any other for them until the said Edward had performed the Agreements in the said Marriage Settlement on his part both in Law and Equity and that in default thereof it might be lawful for the said Anne and her Heirs to enter into the said Mannor and Land conveyed by the said Settlement without the lett of the said Edward and his Heirs Afterwards the Fine was levied Octabis Purificationis which was the 9th of February in that Term And afterwards by Indenture between the said Edward Morley of the one part and one Henry Doble of the other part dated 9 July 1666. the said Edward in consideration of 600 l. Mortgages the said Mannor to Doble and his Heirs Then the Money not being paid by Edward Morley to Doble Doble did 2 June 1676. in consideration of 600 l. with Interest paid by Sir William Morley conveys the said Mannor to one Thomas Young that Edward Morley did never convey the Lands agreed
is aliud testamentum i.e. a general Testament The 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is directly thus The Defendant pleads one Will the Plaintiff replies another and exception taken because he did not traverse the former but held needless to do so quia per ult ' testamentum ut placitatur generaliter primum testamentum revocatur in omnibus and it cannot be pretended that this might be the same Will written over again for if so it could not be aliud it would be the same these are not quibbles upon words for can it be said that this is a Devise by the last Will of Sir H. when there 's another Nor is it an Objection that the Contents do not appear for the Will belongs not to the Heir to keep and consequently not to shew in pleading he is not bound to a profert 't is enough that there was a subsequent Will And as the latter may confirm or be consistent with the former so it may not be so and the consistency is not to be presumed especially against an Heir at Law and in possession In the Case of Coward and Marshal 3 Cro. 721. the Substance of both are declared and thereby they appeared to be consistent and consequently no Revocation here Eadem mens sic testandi the same intent of disposing his Estate the same way can never be thought to continue for then there had been no occasion of making another Will If this be not a Revocation 't is an act void and to no purpose which is never to be intended Then 't was insisted on That the bare act of making and publishing another Will is a Revocation and the finding of the Contents unknown is void If this be not a Will 't is a Codicil and that is contrary to the finding of the Jury for the Verdict mentions a second Substantive independent Will without reference to the former which second Will is a Revocation and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed It was argued on the other side in behalf of Mr. Nosworthy That this was no Revocation that here had been a great stir about nothing for that nothing appeared against his Title that a Man may make a Will of several things at several times and they both shall stand that a deliberate Will being made the Contents whereof are known shall never be revoked by that which is not known nothing can be judged upon that which doth not appear and consequently it can never be judged to be a Revocation Here 's another Will and nothing is given by it nothing is found to be given by this subsequent Will The form of entring the ancient Judgments was Quibus visis lectis auditis per Curiam plene intellectis now what is here read to make a Revocation 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is with the Judgment for there 't is replied that he made another Executor there are the Contents pleaded sufficient to maintain his Count and answer the Defendant's Bar the Book is per hoc quod alius Executor nominatur Then was cited 1 Cro. 51. the Reason given is quia in dubiis non presumitur pro testamento and here being a good Will at the most the other is doubtful 1 Cro. 114 115. Several Wills of several things may be made And the same Book 595. 10 Car. 1. which Refolution Serjeant Maynard in arguing this Case below said that he heard in that Court of Kings Bench 'T is the Subject Matter of the Wills and the Repugnancy which makes the Revocation In this very Case in the Exchequer upon an English Bill 't was held by Hale to be no Revocation 't is in Hardres 375. Coke upon Littleton which hath been quoted Comments upon these words several Devises and if there be no Devise in the second there can be no sense or meaning in it and consequently unless some meaning appear it can never be an Evidence of a change of his Mind as it might be a Revocation so it might be otherwise and he that will have it to be a Revocation must prove it to be such No Man can affirm that every Will must necessarily be a Revocation of a former for the second Will might be of another thing as Goods or of another parcel of Land or in confirmation of the former If in these and many other like Cases a latter Will is no Revocation of a former how can it possibly with justice be concluded that a latter Will without Contents Purport or Effect shall be a Revocation of a former And tho' the Jury have in this Case believed the Witnesses and found that another Will was made it may be of dangerous Consequence to encourage and construe this a Revocation without knowing the Contents for no Will can be secure against the swearing of a new Will if there be no necessity of shewing it or proving what it was For which and other Reasons it was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed and it was affirmed Sir Simon Leach al' Plaintiffs Versus J. Thomson Lessee of Charles Leach Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in B. R. upon a Special Verdict on a Trial at Bar in Ejectment brought by Thomson on the Demise of Charles Leach the Special Verdict finds that Nicholas Leach was seized of the Lands in question in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seized 9 Nov. 19 Car. 2. he makes his last Will and thereby devises the Premisses to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to Simon Leach his Brother for his Life and after his Decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon lawfully to be begotten and the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the second c. and so on to the eighth Sons of all and every other Sons c. and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach his Kinsman Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in Com' Devon ' Esq deceased and the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of him the said Nicholas for ever Then they find That the Lands in the Declaration and those in the Will are the same that afterwards viz. 10 Apr. 20 Car. 2. Nicholas died seized without Issue of his Body that after his Death the said Simon his Brother and Heir Entred and was seized in his Demesne ut de libero tenemento for term of his Life Remainder to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon the Brother and the Heirs of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such to the second c. Remainder to Sir Simon in Tail Remainder to the said Simon the Brother and his Heirs belonging That Simon Leach the Brother being so seized afterwards viz. 20 Aug. 20 Car. 2. took to Wife Anne the Daughter of Vnton Crook that
the rest of the Shares to be enjoyed according to his Will and discharge the Fee-Farm Rent with which they are charged And in case he shall not do so he gives the said Shares he should otherwise enjoy by the Will to and amongst all other his Children and their Heirs equally to be divided amongst them Simon Middlâ—ton died seized the 20 July 1679. and after his death Rebecca having attained her Age of 21 Years died Hezekiah after seisin of his Share died under 21 Years and unmarried Anne one of the Five younger Children which Five claimed the said Hezekiah's Share by Lease and Release settles the fifth part of the Share late her Brother Hezekiah's upon her self and the Plaintiff Bennet Swayne whom she afterwards married and after to the Children that should be between them Remainder to the right Heirs of the Survivor of them two Anne died without Issue and Bennet Swayne after her death received the Profits of that fifth part of Hezekiah's Share to the value of 20 l. That Benjamin Middleton was the only Brother of the whole Blood and Heir of Hezekiah Et si c. Upon the arguing of this special Verdict the Court below was of Opinion That Benjamin was intituled to Anne's Share of Hezekiah's Part as he was Brother and Heir of Hezekiah viz. That by the Will the Fee-simple and Inheritance of a Thirty-sixth Part or Share of the New-River Water was given to and vested in each of the youger Children and that on the Death of Hezekiah one of the younger Children unmarried under One and Twenty Years of Age by the Clause whereby the Shares of the youger Children dying before Twenty One and unmarried are given to the surviving Children Share and Share alike the five Survivors became Tenants in Common and each was seized of a fifth part only for Life and not in Fee That the Reversion of Hezekiah's Share expectant on the deaths of the younger Children descended to the said Benjamin his Brother and Heir and that he on the death of Anne ought to have enjoyed that Fifth-part in Possession and therefore the Profits of it received by Swayne were due to Benjamin and Judgment accordingly given there for Benjamin And now it was argued That this Judgment was erroneous for that by Virtue of the said Devise the said Anne had an Inheritance in her part of Hezekiah's Share for these Reasons 1. It is well known and agreed That a Part or Share in the New-River is an Inheritance and therefore the Devise of all that Part or Share to any Person is a Devise of that Part and Share to such Person and his Heirs and is as much as if a Person being seized in Fee of Lands should say in his Will he devises all his Estate in those Lands to J. S. it could be no question but such a Devise would convey the said Lands to such Devisee and his Heirs 2. The Share of Hezekiah was given to him and his Heirs proportionably charged with the payment of the Fee-Farm Rent to his Majesty and with 100 l. per Annum to Henry M. and his Heirs and also with 150 l. to his Brother Benjamin and being thus charged upon his dying before Age or Marriage his Share with the Profits thereof thus charged is given to his younger Brother and Sisters the Survivor and Survivors of them Share and Share alike Then 't is observable that the Fee-Farm Rent payable to the King his Heirs and Successors is 500 l. per Annum upon which account 't would be very difficult to conceive that the Testator by this Devise of the deceased's Part to the Survivors Share and Share alike did intend to such Survivors only an Estate for Life when at the same time he subjects and charges it to and with the proportionable payment of the said yearly Fee-Farm and the 100 l. to H. M. and his Heirs which are Rent-Charges in Fee and cannot reasonably be understood to be charged on Estates given barely for Life Besides The Point here is upon the Construction of a Will and the Testators true Intent and Meaning in any part that is obscure ought to be collected out of any other part or words of the Will that may explain it Now it being plain that Hezekiah's Part was a Fee-simple and thus charged it seems to be as plain that the very Inheritance of that Part should upon his death go and remain to the Survivors Share and Share alike that is to say That they should be Tenants in Common in Fee-simple of that Part the same being thus chargable with the two Rents and with the 150 l. to Benjamin for otherwise this Devise over which was designed in their favour and for their benefit might have turned to some of their Losses and Prejudice for they might have paid the 150 l. to Benjamin and have died before they were re-imbursed out of Hezekiah's Share had the same been only an Estate for Life and it cannot easily be supposed that he intended his youngest Children by the second Wife should have a better Estate in his Shares of the New-River Water devised as aforesaid then the younger Children by the first Wife had but that their Shares in it should be equal but by this Construction Benjamin by the second Venter must carry away Anne's Share from her Sisters and Brother of the first Venter here 's no need of the common Care in construing Wills not to disinherit an Heir by general words for Hugh is disinherited by this Will whether this surviving Interest be a Fee or for Life The Intention here was to make an equal Provision for all the younger Children the Part and Share of the Person dying is the Inheritance in the Part and Share of the Person dying in the New-River Water The three Sisters were to have their Shares discharged of the Fee-Farm Bent but if this be only an Estate for Life then those who were designed to have the least benefit by the Will are to have the greatest for they are Heirs to Hezekiah whereas the Children by the first Venter seem to be most favoured by the Will because they are to have their Bequests free from those Incumbrances The Testator recites his own Scisin in Fee of so many Parts and Shares and then devises those Parts in Fee how can this Clause of Limitation to Survivors be construed to mean otherwise then that the whole Fee of that proportion should survive The Cases cited in Rolls on the other side are only Devises of the Land and not of his Share Then 't was said That here was no Tenancy in Common that 't is true equally divided and equally to be divided make a Tenancy in Common but 't is upon the account of the word divided that to two equally will not be so construed 1 Aâ—d 29. and if the words equally will not why should Share and Share alike these words do not shew any partition of the Estate in Fact nor in the Intention of the Testator