good for them and that they had the like Power of Appeals Writs of Error and Impeachments c. and that the Cognizance of such Appeals in England would produce great inconveniencies by making poor people to attend here whereas they might with less trouble and expence have Justice at home that this did agree with the reasons of that Ancient Statute 4 Inst 356. that persons having Estates in Ireland should Reside in that Kingdom else half of their Estates should go to maintain the Forts there That this practice of receiving Appeals here would be vexatious to the people of that place and that no Court could have Jurisdiction but by grant or prescription and that there could be no pretence for either in this place Then was it ordered in these or the like Words Whereas a Petition and Appeal was offered to the House the Day of last from the Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in the Kingdom of Ireland against a Judgment given by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Ireland in Parliament there Assembled on the day of last upon the Petition and Appeal of William Lord Bishop of Derry against the Decree or Orders made in the said Cause in the Court of Chancery there Whereupon a Committee was appointed to consider of the proper method of Appealing from Decrees made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland and that pursuant to the Orders of the said Committee and a Letter sent to the Lords Justices of Ireland by Order of this House several precedents have been transmitted to this House by the said Lord Justices Copies whereof were ordered to be delivered to either side After hearing Counsel upon the Petition of the said Society of London presented to this House praying that they might be heard as to the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Ireland in receiving and judging Appeals from the Chancery there as also Counsel for the Bishop of Derry after due Consideration of the Precedents and of what was offered by Counsel thereupon It is ordered and adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled That the said Appeal of the Bishop of Derry to the House of Lords in Ireland from the Decree or Orders of the Court of Chancery there made in the Cause wherein the said Bishop of Derry was Plaintiff and the said Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in Ireland were Defendants was coram non judice and that all the proceedings thereupon are null and void and that the Court of Chancery in Ireland ought to proceed in the said Cause as if no such Appeal had been made to the House of Lords there and if either of the said Parties do find themselves Agrieved by the said Decree or Orders of the Chancery of Ireland they are at liberty to pursue their proper Remedy by way of Appeal to this House Sir Caesar Wood alias Cranmer versus Duke of Southampton APpeal from a Decree in Chancery the Case was thus Sir Henry Wood the Appellant's Unkle makes a Settlement in Consideration of a Marriage to be had between his Daughter Mary and the Duke c. to the uses following i.e. in Trust to Receive and Pay out of the Profits 450 l. a Year to the Lady Chester for the Education and Maintenance of his Daughter till twelve years of Age then 550 l. a year till Marriage or Seventeen years of Age which should first happen and in Trust to pay the Residue of the Profits to the Duke after Marriage he first giving Security to the said Trustees to provide Portions and Maintenance for the Daughters of the Marriage equal to the Sum he should receive and in case there should be none then the same Money to remain to the Respondent and if the said Mary should die before Marriage or Age of Seventeen years to such Uses as Sir H. W. should appoint And if Mary after Sir Henry's death die under Sixteen the Respondent then unmarried to any other Woman or after and before Seventeen the Respondent then living and unmarried or if before Seventeen she should marry any other or if she should refuse the Respondent then 20000 l. out of the Profits to the Duke But if the said Marriage shall take effect after Mary's Age of Sixteen years and she shall have Issue Male by the Respondent then for the better Settlement of the Premisses upon the Issue Male and a more ample Provision and Maintenance for the Respondent and his Wife and the longest Liver of them in Trust for the said Duke and Mary for and during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them and after their Deaths to the first Son c. in Tail Male and for default of Issue Male to the Daughters And for default of such Issue in Trust for such Persons only as Sir Henry should appoint and in default thereof to the right Heirs of Sir Henry Sir Henry W. at the same time makes his Will tho' dated after the Settlement reciting that he had settled the Premisses upon the Duke and Mary for their Lives and the Life of the Longer liver of them c. and confirms it and in Case the said Martiage should not take effect according to the Limitations of the Settlement or if the said Respondent should die without Issue by Mary or if he have Issue by her and that Issue die without Issue then the Remainder to Mary for Life and afterwards to her first Son and after several mediate Remainders then to the Appellant for Life c. and after to Thomas Webb c. Sir Henry Wood dies the Marriage between Mary and the Duke afterwards takes effect upon her arrival to years of Consent and they lived in that state till she was near Seventeen years of Age and then she dies without Issue The Court of Chancery decreed the Profits of the Estate to the Duke for Life It was argued for the Appellant That here was a precedent Copulative Condition that if the Marriage take effect after Sixteen and there be Issue then to the Duke and neither of these being in the Case the Decree is not consistent with the positive words of the Settlement for that the Duke was to have it upon no other terms That by this Settlement the Duke was thus provided for 1. If the Marriage did not take effect by Mary's refusal or taking another Husband the Duke was to have 20000 l. 2. If the Marriage did take effect and Issue was had then the Duke was to have an Estate for Life but not otherwise that the words are plain and certain that there must not only be a Marriage but Issue Male between them that tho' it should be agreed to be a good Marriage within the intention of the Settlement she living till after Sixteen years of Age yet when a Condition Copulative consisting of several Branches as this doth is made precedent to any Use or
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
be affirmed and it was affirmed Sir Edward Hungerford and John Hill Executors and Devisees of Sir William Basset deceased Plaintiffs versus Edward Nosworthy Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment in B. R. upon a Special Verdict in Ejectment by Hitchins the Lessee of Nosworthy against Sir William Basset Defendant for the Mannor of Lanrock and other Lands in Cornwall wherein upon Not Guilty pleaded and a Trial at Bar the Jury find That Sir Henry Killegrew was seized in Fee of the Lands in question and on the 12th of November 1644. made his Will in writing which follows in these words I Henry Killegrew c. and so they set forth the Will whereby Sir Henry Killegrew devised the Premisses to Mrs. Jane Berkley his near Kinswoman for Life with Remainder over to Henry Killegrew alias Hill Sir Henry's Natural Son in Tail and makes Mrs. Berkley sole Executrix They further find that after the making of that Testament and before the time when c. viz. about the Feast of St. Michael in the Year 1645. Condidit fecit aliud Testamentum in scriptis sed quid fuit content ' in eodem ult ' mentionat ' Testamento vel quale fuit purportum sive effectus inde juratoribus praed ' non constat And that Sir Henry on the 29th of September 1646. died seized of the said Lands that Mrs. Jane Barkley Devisee of the said Will in 1644. by Lease and Release conveyed to Mr. Nosworthy's Father and that the Father died in 1684. that Mr. Nosworthy is Son and Heir to him that Sir William Basset is Cosin and Heir to Sir Henry viz. Son and Heir of Elizabeth Basset Daughter and Heir of Sir Joseph Killegrew elder Brother of Sir Henry the Testator that Nosworthy the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred and made the Lease in the Declaration c. But upon the whole Matter whether the Said Testament made in writing 1645. was a Revocation in Law of the said Devise of the said Lands to Mrs. Berkley they are ignorant and pray the Judgment of the Court Et si And upon this Judgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Ejectment And now it was argued That the Judgment was Erroneous that this last Will could not be taken to be a duplicate of the former but must be deemed a Revocation that no Will is good but the last that every Will is revokable till death that the making of another doth import a Revocation of all former ones tho' it be not so expresly declared in writing for it must be the last or nothing that this Conveyance by Will was anciently a Priviledge by the Civil Law for People in Extremis who had not the time or assistance necessary to make a formal Alienation and chiefly intended for Military Men who were always supposed to be under those Circumstances and therefore the Ceremonies and number of Witnesses required of others were dispensed with as to Soldiers but now the Rules for Military Testaments as they are called are allowed in most Cases that as to Lands by our Law was a Priviledge only given to some Boroughs and Places within the Kingdom and particular Custom gave the liberty of disposing Lands or Houses by Will and that by nuncupative Will or Parol without writing so is Bracton lib. 4. fol. 272. Fleta lib. 5. cap. 5. Potest legari catallum tam hereditas quam perquisitum per Barones London Burgenses Oxon 1 Inst 111. that then came the Statute of Hen. 8. and impowers a Devise by a Man's last Will and Testament in writing but still 't is by his last Will. And so is Littleton sect 168. If divers Wills the latter shall stand and the others are void 1 Inst 112. In truth 't is plain Law the first Grant and the last Testament In Swinb 1 part sect 5. p. 14. no Man can die with two Wills but he may with divers Codicils and the latter doth not hinder the former so long as they be not contrary Another difference there is between Wills and Codicils If two Testaments be found and it can't be known which is first or last both are void but the latter countermands the first tho' there be a Clause in the first that it shall not be revoked and tho' an Oath were taken not to revoke because the Law is so that the very making of a latter doth revoke the former So is Liuwood's Provincial ' de Testamentis Justice Dodderidge's Office of Executor published by Wentworth 29. A verbal Will revokes a former written Will Forse and Hembling 4 Rep. 60 61. Plowd 541. Perkins sect 178 179. and sect 478. The 2 Hen. 5.8 is full to this purpose There 's an Action by an Executor against two Executors and they plead a Testament whereby they are made Executors and the Plaintiff replys that he afterwards made another and himself Executor and held that by the second the first became void Now the meaning of these Books cannot be that a Will expresly revoking is the only Will that can make a Revocation nor is it that a Contrariety or Repugnance between the one and the other is necessary to make a Revocation for tho' there be no new Will made yet a Revocation may be by word of Mouth as 2 Cro. 49.115 1 Cro. 51.3 Cro. 781. nay a void Bequest shall revoke a Will so shall a Deed that hath no effect as Feoffment without livery a Devise to J.S. or to a Corporation when there is no such will do it so that 't is not the Contradiction between the disposal which revokes for that which is no disposition at all will do it wherefore the meaning of the Authors cited is somewhat else and it can only be this That there is somewhat particular in a Will to that Instrument of Conveyance more than to any other that even the making of a new Will is a sufficient Revocation the words are plain by the making a new Will the former are all destroyed for there can be but one last And when a Man makes and declares a new Will that new Will must be presumed to contain his whole Mind concerning the disposition of his Estate declaring his Will imports thus much and excludes all other When a Man would alter part of his Will there 's a proper Instrument for it called a Codicil which is known in the Law as well as that of a Will here 's nothing found of a reference to the former to judge it otherwise would confound the use of Wills and Codicils and the difference between them 'T is true that a Man may make partial Wills of several parts of his Estate and all may stand together but then they must be declared to be Wills concerning particular things and they are but several pieces of the same Will tho' written in different Papers but then in pleading one of them you must not generally say he made ult ' voluntatem but ultimam voluntat ' of such a thing but here 't
is aliud testamentum i.e. a general Testament The 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is directly thus The Defendant pleads one Will the Plaintiff replies another and exception taken because he did not traverse the former but held needless to do so quia per ult ' testamentum ut placitatur generaliter primum testamentum revocatur in omnibus and it cannot be pretended that this might be the same Will written over again for if so it could not be aliud it would be the same these are not quibbles upon words for can it be said that this is a Devise by the last Will of Sir H. when there 's another Nor is it an Objection that the Contents do not appear for the Will belongs not to the Heir to keep and consequently not to shew in pleading he is not bound to a profert 't is enough that there was a subsequent Will And as the latter may confirm or be consistent with the former so it may not be so and the consistency is not to be presumed especially against an Heir at Law and in possession In the Case of Coward and Marshal 3 Cro. 721. the Substance of both are declared and thereby they appeared to be consistent and consequently no Revocation here Eadem mens sic testandi the same intent of disposing his Estate the same way can never be thought to continue for then there had been no occasion of making another Will If this be not a Revocation 't is an act void and to no purpose which is never to be intended Then 't was insisted on That the bare act of making and publishing another Will is a Revocation and the finding of the Contents unknown is void If this be not a Will 't is a Codicil and that is contrary to the finding of the Jury for the Verdict mentions a second Substantive independent Will without reference to the former which second Will is a Revocation and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed It was argued on the other side in behalf of Mr. Nosworthy That this was no Revocation that here had been a great stir about nothing for that nothing appeared against his Title that a Man may make a Will of several things at several times and they both shall stand that a deliberate Will being made the Contents whereof are known shall never be revoked by that which is not known nothing can be judged upon that which doth not appear and consequently it can never be judged to be a Revocation Here 's another Will and nothing is given by it nothing is found to be given by this subsequent Will The form of entring the ancient Judgments was Quibus visis lectis auditis per Curiam plene intellectis now what is here read to make a Revocation 2 Rich. 3. fol. 3. is with the Judgment for there 't is replied that he made another Executor there are the Contents pleaded sufficient to maintain his Count and answer the Defendant's Bar the Book is per hoc quod alius Executor nominatur Then was cited 1 Cro. 51. the Reason given is quia in dubiis non presumitur pro testamento and here being a good Will at the most the other is doubtful 1 Cro. 114 115. Several Wills of several things may be made And the same Book 595. 10 Car. 1. which Refolution Serjeant Maynard in arguing this Case below said that he heard in that Court of Kings Bench 'T is the Subject Matter of the Wills and the Repugnancy which makes the Revocation In this very Case in the Exchequer upon an English Bill 't was held by Hale to be no Revocation 't is in Hardres 375. Coke upon Littleton which hath been quoted Comments upon these words several Devises and if there be no Devise in the second there can be no sense or meaning in it and consequently unless some meaning appear it can never be an Evidence of a change of his Mind as it might be a Revocation so it might be otherwise and he that will have it to be a Revocation must prove it to be such No Man can affirm that every Will must necessarily be a Revocation of a former for the second Will might be of another thing as Goods or of another parcel of Land or in confirmation of the former If in these and many other like Cases a latter Will is no Revocation of a former how can it possibly with justice be concluded that a latter Will without Contents Purport or Effect shall be a Revocation of a former And tho' the Jury have in this Case believed the Witnesses and found that another Will was made it may be of dangerous Consequence to encourage and construe this a Revocation without knowing the Contents for no Will can be secure against the swearing of a new Will if there be no necessity of shewing it or proving what it was For which and other Reasons it was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed and it was affirmed Sir Simon Leach al' Plaintiffs Versus J. Thomson Lessee of Charles Leach Defendant WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in B. R. upon a Special Verdict on a Trial at Bar in Ejectment brought by Thomson on the Demise of Charles Leach the Special Verdict finds that Nicholas Leach was seized of the Lands in question in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seized 9 Nov. 19 Car. 2. he makes his last Will and thereby devises the Premisses to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to Simon Leach his Brother for his Life and after his Decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon lawfully to be begotten and the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the second c. and so on to the eighth Sons of all and every other Sons c. and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach his Kinsman Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in Com' Devon ' Esq deceased and the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of him the said Nicholas for ever Then they find That the Lands in the Declaration and those in the Will are the same that afterwards viz. 10 Apr. 20 Car. 2. Nicholas died seized without Issue of his Body that after his Death the said Simon his Brother and Heir Entred and was seized in his Demesne ut de libero tenemento for term of his Life Remainder to the first Son of the Body of the said Simon the Brother and the Heirs of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten and for default of such to the second c. Remainder to Sir Simon in Tail Remainder to the said Simon the Brother and his Heirs belonging That Simon Leach the Brother being so seized afterwards viz. 20 Aug. 20 Car. 2. took to Wife Anne the Daughter of Vnton Crook that
and yet ' t is there in the power of the Ancestor by good Pleading to have supported the Patent and by bad pleading to destroy it and therefore when the Foundation which is the Patent fails the Honour and whatever it be that is erected upon it shall fail also Every Estate by the consent of all Persons interested and concerned in the thing may be taken away for the Law is so set against Perpetuities that a Clause intimating it is void and tho' an Honour is not Jones Rep. 109 123. assignable yet it may be extinguished It 's true if a Man hath but a part of an Estate as only an Estate for Life he can't alone pass away the whole Estate but none who hath the Inheritance in Tail or in Fee but he may destroy the whole and tho' any one have but part yet by the concurrence of all that are concerned the whole may be destroyed It is admitted if he commit Treason and is attainted thereof he loseth the Honour for himself and his Posterity now 't was in his power to do this act overt and if by an act unlawful he hath power to defeat the descent of the Intail upon his Issue there is the same reason that by a lawful act he should part with it there are two Acts of Parliament in force which fortifie the Fine it must be granted that those Honours are within the Statute de Donis and then there can be no reason they should not be within the Statutes of Fines 4 Hen. 7. 34 H. 8. which say that Tenant in Tail may levie a Fine of all things that are intailable within the Statute de Donis whatever therefore is within the one is within both and it is not sufficient to alledge that it is inconvenient that it should be within the Statute of Fines for there is an Act of Parliament and without an Act of Parliament to exempt it it can't be exempted It may be proved by great variety of Precedents to have been the practise in former times anciently nothing more frequent than to release Hoours See Selden's Titles of Honours 730. it was as frequent as to grant them In latter times Delaval's Case 11 Rep. 1. it hath been the Judgment of the Lords that Honours may be extinguished which in 1668. was certified by all the King's Counsel Learned in the Law to be good Authority But to go a little higher Andrew Gifford Baron Pomfret in Fee 4 Hen. 3. Rot. 100. surrendred to the King so 23 Hen. 3. Simon Mountford Esq Earl of Leicester having a Mind to take an Honour from his eldest Son and confer it upon his younger and so it was surrendred and regranted accordingly Selden seems to construe this to be by way of Transmission and not Surrender yet others of later Authority as Cambden's Britan. Title Earl of Leicester say expresly that he did Surrender it and Selden himself says it was by Concurrence of the King King Hen. 3. Rot. Cr. 24. men E. 1. created one Earl of Richmond and he surrendred to the King Cambden's Brit. Title Earl of Richmond Roger de Bigod surrendred not only the Office of Earl Marshal but also the Earldom of Norfolk William Duke of Juliers whose Father came in with Edw. 3. was created Earl of Cambridge 40 Edw. 3. m. 21. in Fee his Son surrenders to the King which Record we have here So Edward the Third made his Son John of Gaunt See Cambden's ubi supra Earl of Richmond who surrendred it to the King And lastly in the Years 1639 1679. Roger Stafford whom the King intended to make a Viscount by the Advice of the Learned Men levied a Fine thereof by which 't is now enjoy'd Lastly he argued ab inconvenienti for no Lord in the House will be in safety if it should be other ways there being many sitting in this House by virtue of Surrenders from other Lords in former days and perhaps some of their Heirs are alive and so if these Surrenders be adjudged invalid it would shake your Lordships own Possessions and make it dubitable whether Forreigners and Persons unknown may not come and thrust them out but if not so it may cause Confusion amongst themselves their former Honours having been surrendred to accept of others and perhaps some not thinking their Titles secure will stick to the former and so occasion Dispute and Confusion about Precedency and lastly it will put a great Disgrace upon your Ancestors proceedings who deemed this Course legal and those must show very good Precedents that it hath been disavowed if they will encounter such constant Practises In the next place 't was answered to their Arguments and Objections and as for that first Argument That an Honour is inherent in the Blood he answered That this Inherency in the Blood is not essential to Honours for an Honour may be created for Life and then none of the Posterity or Blood of the Peer is thereby enobled It may be limited to the Heirs Males of the Body so that an Honour may touch and enter far into the Blood and yet not run with it and farther it may be limited to the Heirs by such a Wife there the Issue by the second Venter shall never inherit the Dignity and yet is as near to the Father as those that are by the first so that 't is no true ground that they go upon that Nobility is inherent in the Blood and for what was alledged as to the Inconveniency of Surrendering Dignities he answered That there may be necessary Reasons for the extinguishment of an Honour and it may be for the benefit and advantage of the Party and his Posterity as if it do happen that the Family do fall into Poverty and be not able to support the Honour of Peerage with decency and so this Honour would perhaps be a Disgrace to the rest of the Lords and in a Child's Case it may happen to a Noble Family to have those Afflictions that to continue the Honour would expose the Family to Infamy and therefore some times to prevent the Son of Adultery from his succeeding to the Dignity it may be convenient to surrender it and yet this cannot be without the concurrence of the Prince who being the Source of Honour can best judge of the Reasons for stopping the Stream and it cannot seem an harder Case to disinherit him of the Honour then of the Estate which he may do and if he leave his Honour without his Estate it will be a Burden on his Shoulders which he will be unable to bear and seeing it 's necessary that there be a concurrence of the Prince it is undecent to suppose so vile a thing of the Crown as to comply with the Peevishness and Simplicity of the Parents where there is no reason for it And as for what hath been alledged for the Invalitity of those Precedents that they were in Cases of New Creations and were in nature of Transmissions he answered That when an
Trust the entire Condition must be performed or else the Use or Trust can never rise or take place And it is not enough that one part only be performed As to the Objection from the intention of the Parties 't was Answered That no such Intention did appear or reasonably could be collected from any thing in this Deed or Will and it would be too great a violence to the words to break that Condition into two which is but one according to the plain and natural Contexture and Sense of it It hath been said That if the Duke cannot take an Estate for Life in the Trust unless he had Issue Male by the Dutchess then she her self could not take for Life by that Trust unless there were Issue Male for that their Estates are limited together and then the Consequence would be That if there were Daughters and no Sons the Daughters would have the Trust of the Estate in their Mother's Life time and their Mother nothing which could not be the intent of Sir Henry Wood. To this it was answered That the same arises from a plain Mistake and a Supposition that the Daughters if any should take tho' there never were a Son whereas the Limitation to the Daughters is under the same precedent Condition as the Limitation to the Duke and Dutchess is For the precedent Copulative Condition ushers in the whole Limitation of the Trust so that the Trust to the Daughters could no more arise without Issue Male born than the Trust to the Duke and Dutchess And whereas 't is pretended That at this rate the Duke and Dutchess were to have had no Subsistence till the Birth of Issue Male which might be many years it was answered That this was a plain mistake of the Law for this Trust being by the Deed and Will thus limited upon this precedent Condition of having Issue Male they whose Estates in this Trust are thus limited upon this Condition can take nothing till the Condition be performed by Marriage and Issue Male and then by the Rules of Law till some of those Persons to whom the Trust was limited could take the Trust of the Estate descends to the Heir at Law and she was intituled to the Profits till the precedent Condition should be performed or become impossible and if the Condition had been performed the Trusts would have taken effect and being not performed but becoming impossible by the Dutchesses death before she had Issue the subsequent Trusts take effect upon her death Besides that it is pursuant to the Rules of the Common Law which gives to the Husband no Estate for Life in the Wives Inheritance unless he have Issue by her born alive wherefore it was prayed that the Decree might be reversed Then it was argued on the behalf of the Respondent That Sir Henry Wood by the same Settlement directs that if the Duke died before his Marriage with her then the Trustees should dispose of the Profits of the Premisses to the Lord George Palmer the Duke's Brother in case the Brother married her and to the said Mary for their Lives and the Life of the longer Liver of them And from and after the decease of the Survivor of them then to their Issue in Tail Male c. without adding any words of a preceding Condition and yet says In like manner and for the like Estates as he had appointed for his said Daughter and the Duke in case of their Marriage which plainly evidences his intention to be That the said Duke and the Lady Mary should have the Profits during their Lives altho' they should never have Issue Male as the Brother would have had in case he had married her Then 't was urged That Sir Henry Wood's appointing the Surplus of the Profits over and above her said Maintenance for the benefit of the Duke until his marriage shows the intent for that it can't be imag ined that he should be provided for before his Marriage and left destitute of all Support after it unless he had Issue Male by her Nay his intention of Kindness to the Duke was proved further by giving him 20000 l. in case she refused to marry him or died before her Marriage And as to the Pretence of its being a Condition precedent it was answered That unless that Paragraph be made to interfere with it self the Duke will be intitled to an Estate for Life if there were no other Clause in the Deed. For first It 's said That for a more full and ample provision for the said Duke and his Wife the Trustees c. Which words according to the Construction of the Appellant's Counsel must be useless and void unless the Duke were not after Marriage to have as great if not greater Supply then he had before the Marriage Then 't is said That they should be seized in Trust for the Duke and his Wife and the Survivor of them for and during their natural Lives and the Life of the longer Liver of them And from thence 't was argued That the meaning and import of the words far and during can be nothing less than the whole Duration and Continuance of their Lives from and after Sir Henry's Death and their Marriage Then the Will of Sir Henry proves the Intention for that it recites That he had settled from and after his Decease the Premisses in Trust for the Duke and the said Mary during their Lives and the Life of the longer Liver of them and takes no notice of the pretended precedent Condition which shows that he designed them the Profits immediately after his Decease and the Marriage Then in the Limitations over they are not to take any benefit of or by the Premisses until the death of the Duke and his Wife without Issue therefore it must be understood that the Profits in the mean time should remain to the Duke and his Wife or the Survivor of them And then it was further observed That the Duke comes in as a Purchaser upon as valuable a Consideration as any in the Law viz. Marriage and the Limitation over to the Respondent is avoluntary Settlement And as to the Objection of the Marriage being before Sixteen it was not much insisted on the other side and in reason cannot be because her continuing married till after Sixteen doth fully satisfie the intent of the Deed in reference to this Matter And many other Reasons were urged from the Intent of the Parties and the Nature of the Interest the same being a Trust Estate and proper for Equity to construe And upon the whole it was pray'd that the Decree might be affirmed but the same was reversed Sir Caesar Wood alias Cranmer Versus Thomas Webb APpeal from a Decree in Chancery The Case was founded upon the next preceding The Respondent was one of the Coheirs of Sir Henry Wood and claimed a Moiety of the Profits of the Premisses during the Duke's Life and the same was decreed accordingly And now it was argued on the behalf
of making a new Presentation And in all pleadings of this sort the notice is generally alledged to be the same day or within a day or two at the most That certainly it ought to be with convenient notice But then it was urged That the six Months ought not to be from the Death of the last Incumbent if there be a person Criminal presented which the Patron doth or may know as well as the Bishop there the six Months must be from the Death but if it be upon a refusal for a Cause which lies only in the Bishop's knowledge then it must be only from the notice and that notice ought to be personal but if the Months incur from the Death the notice should be in conveient time and what that is the Court must Judge Then it was urged from Speccot's Case That this Plea is too general and uncertain that a Temporal right being concerned the Bishop ought to have set forth more particularly and distinctly the cause of his Refusal 8 Rep. 68. the certain cause of a Divorse must be shewn 11 Hen. 7. 27. 2 Leon. 169. The Ordinary is a Judge only of the matter of Fact if true not if this matter pretended be a cause of Refusal he ought to alledge that so particularly as to manifest it to the Court in which the Suit depends That 't is a legal cause of Refusal He is not a Judge whether Hodder's insufficiency in any one point of Learning be a good cause of Refusal for if it should be so the Temporal Right of Patronage would be very precarious The Court ought to have enough before them whereon to Judge of the Cause as well as that on Issue may be joyned and tried here 't is only said that he is less sufficient not that he is altogether illiterate this will put it in the Power of the Ordinary to refuse for want of knowledge in any Learning as he thinks fit as Mathematicks or Anatomy without which a Man may be well Qualified to be the Rector of a Benefice and the consequence of such Opinion will be much to the prejudice of Lay Patrons that certainty in Pleading ought to be encouraged for the prevention of the exercise of Arbitrary discretionary Power that the Wisdom of the Common-Law is to reduce things to single Questions that the Determination upon them may be plain and certain and known and the reasons of such Determinations may appear which cannot well be done if general Allegations or Pleadings be countenanced for which and other Reasons urged by the Counsel who argued with the Judgment 't was prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed It was replied on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that the Books were very plain that the six Months were to incur from the Death of the Incumbent and then if there were not notice in convenient and due time in order to enable the Patron to present again that this ought to come on the other side That to require Learning in Presentees to Benefices would promote the Honour of the Church nay of the Nation in general That every Man who knew this Presentee and his Ignorance even as to the Latin Tongue must acknowledge that the Reverend Prelate who refused him had done worthily and becoming the Character of his Order Family and Person and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be Reversed and it was Reversed Robert Davis versus Dr. John Speed WRIT of Error on a Judgment in Ejectment in the King 's Bench for certain Lands in Hamp-Shire the Declaration was upon the Demise of Francis Cockey The Verdict finds that William Horne and Ann his Wise were seized of the Lands in Question in their Demesne as of Fee in Right of the Wife that they made and executed a Deed Covenanting to Levy a Fine thereof to the use of the Heirs of the said William Horne lawfully begotten and to be begotten on the Body of the said Ann his Wife and for default of such Issue then to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Horne for ever and a Fine was Levied accordingly to these uses that William and Ann were seized prout Lex postulat that they had Issue William Horne their Son who Died without Issue in the Life of William and Ann that she Died and William the Father and Husband Survived her that then he Died without Issue that the lessor of the Plaintiff is Sister and Heir of the said William Horne that after his Death she entred and was seized prout Lex postulat that Elizabeth Joanna and others were Co-heirs of the said Ann that their Estate and Interest came by mean conveyances to the Defendant Speed That he was seized prout Lex postulat that the Lessor of the Plaintiff entered and Ousted the said Speed and made the Demise in the Declaration and that the Plaintiff entered and was Possessed till the Defendant entered upon him and Ousted him And if it shall appear to the Court that the Desenant's entry was lawful they find the Defendant not Guilty and if c. upon this special Verdict Judgment was given in B. R. for the Defendant And now it was Argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Judgment was Erroneous and ought to be Reversed for that these Lands belonged to the Heirs of the Husband by force of this Deed and Fine that this was in the Case of an Use which was to be construed as much according to the intent of the Parties as a will That if by any construction that intent could be fulfilled it ought That the intent of the parties here was plain to give this Estate to the Husband and his Heirs that uses are to be governed by Equity and that therefore the meaning of the persons concerned was to be pursued That the Woman intended to take nothing her self nor to reserve any thing but to part with the whole That here was an use by implication in the Husband tho' none could result back to the Husband because he had none before but that in this case as in that of a Will an use might by implication very well be raised to the Husband and then this might be good by way of Remainder after the Death of the Husband or create an Estate Tail in him by coupling the use implied to him for Life with that to the Heirs of his Body and that if it were not so then that it was good as a springing contingent use to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband c. and that in the mean time till that Contingency happened the same was to the use of the Wife and her Heirs And that this Construction contradicted no Rule of Law That it was no more than was allowed in case of a Will by way of Executory Devise according to Pell and Brown's Case in 2 Cro. that the Estate should remain in the Wife and her Heirs during the Life of the Husband
afterwards the 20 Aug. 25 Car. 2. he being so seized did Make Seal and as his Deed deliver a certain Writing purporting a Surrender of the said Lands to the said Sir Simon Leach which Writing was prout c. Then they find that the said Simon Leach the Brother non fuit compes mentis sue tempore confectionis sigillationis deliberationis scripti illius c. That afterwards viz. 10 Nov. 25 Car. 2. the said Simon the Brother had Issue of his Body on the Body of the said Anne his Wife Charles Leach that the said Simon died and Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff is eldest Son and Heir of the said Simon c. Et si videbitur Cur ' quod c. Upon this Verdict there was Judgment for the Plaintiff And now it was argued That the said Judgment was Erroneous and said that in the Case there were two Queries 1. If this were a good Surrender there being no Acceptance or Agreement by Sir Simon before the Birth of the first Son Charles But this was not insisted on before and therefore waived here the same having been adjudged by the Lords to be a good Surrender even to an Infant without Acceptance in another Action between the same Parties which you may see reported in 2 Ventris 198 208. Then it was argued on the second Query That the Lessor of the Plaintiff in the Ejectment being a Remainder Man in Tail cannot take any Advantage of his Father's Lunacy That in this Case he could claim no Title as Heir at Law to his Father or Uncle because of the intermediate Remainder to the Defendant in Tail so that quoad this Estate he is as a meer Stranger and not as Heir and tho' he were able to avoid it by Writ or the like yet it being once good the particular Estate of Simon the Father of Charles was determined before the Contingent Remainder to the first Son could take place and consequently it can never after revive Then the Question is Whether this Surrender by a Non compos being an act done by himself and not by Attorney be void or only voidable There 's no express Case that a Surrender by one who is Non compos to him in Remainder is void Perhaps 't will be said as it hath been That the Acts of a Madman are meer Nullities by all Laws in the World But to this 't is an Answer That the Laws of England have made good and honest Provisions for them so as to avoid their Acts for the Benefit of the Party of the King and of the Heir But it was repeated that this was a Contingent Remainder and if it could not vest when the particular Estate did determine whether by Death or Surrender it never could vest at all for a future Right to defeat the Surrender as Heir cannot support such a Contingency a present right of Entry would but if no such present right the Remainder is gone for ever and here was no such in Charles If Tenant for Life make a Feoffment with condition of Re-entry the Contingent Remainder shall never arise again tho' the Condition be broken and a Re-entry were made So is the Case of Purefoy versus Rogers 2 Saund. 380. Wigg versus Villers 2 Rolls Abridg. 796. and then Charles cannot avoid this Deed for the avoiding of a Deed is to take somewhat out of the way in order to the revesting of somewhat but here was nothing to work upon for if the Surrender were good for a Moment the particular Estate for Life was once gone and consequently for ever and this must hold unless the Act were totally void Then 't was argued That during the Life of the Party 't was only voidable for the King by Office no Man can Stultifie himself and so is the great Resolution in Beverly's Case 4 Rep. and 1 Inst 247. and Whittingham's Case 8 Rep. and if it be not void as to himself it cannot be void as to others And tho' Fitzh in his N. B. says that he himself may have a dum non fuit compos that is not agreeable to the received Law for Beverly's Case was never shaken till now and Fitzh supposes it only voidable by saying that Writ doth lye There is also a Reason for this Rule of Law that a Man shall not disable himself by pretence of Distraction because if the Pretence were true he had no memory and consequently could not know or remember that he did such an Act and therefore 't is as it were impossible for him to be able to say that he was so distracted when he did it 't is for him to say what 't is not possible for him to know But they would compare this to the Case of an Infant yet even there all his Acts are not void his Bond is only avoidable he cannot plead that 't is not his Deed 'T is true that Acts apparently to his prejudice cannot be good as 1 Cro. 502. Suppose a Non compos Signs Seals and Delivers such a Deed and after recovers his Senses and agrees to it would not this be a good Surrender from the first Perkins sect 23. 1 Inst 2. and if it can be made good by a subsequent Agreement 't was not totally void and if not totally void 't is with the Plaintiff in Error The Law besides is very tender in case of Freeholds to make Conveyances void by bare Averments and this would be of dangerous Consequence if when there was no Inquisition or Commission of Lunacy during Life that thirty or forty years after a Conveyance it should be in the power of a Stranger to say that the Vendor was mad 't will make Purchasors unsafe Acts solemnly done ought to have a solemn Avoidance The 1 Hen. 5. cap. 5. Fine to be void 't is void as a Bar but yet it makes a Discontinuance and must be solemnly avoided Lincoln Colledge Case 3 Rep. Stroud and Marshal 3 Cro. 398. Dett sur Oblig ' The Defendant pleads that at the time he was of non sane memory and on demurrer adjudged no Plea and the Opinion of Fitzh held not to be Law And 3 Cro. 622. 50 Assis 2. Fitzh Issue 53. a Release by a Non compos which is much the same with a Surrender only one works upwards and the other downwards and after Recovery the Party agrees to it the same is binding 39 Hen. 6.42 and 49 Edw. 3.13 Then was mentioned the Provision of the Law in these Cases besides the Care of the Court of Chancery which protects the weak and unwary by Rules of Equity There 's a Writ de Ideota Inquirend ' and the express direction of the Writ is to enquire quas terras alienavit which shews that 't is not void The Statute of Prerogativa Regis is express Authority for it the Reason given is that such Persons Lands should not be aliened to their hurt or the King 's It must be agreed that before Office found the King cannot avoid
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