discerned there was the same reason for after twenty mens lives as after one and so then it was held and agreed that so long as the Limitation exceeded not Lives in being at the creation of the Estate it should extend so far That came to grow upon them then and now if this be admitted no man can foresee what an ill Effect such an ill Allowance might have there might such Limitations come in as would incumber Estates and mightily entangle Lands This is certain such an allowed Limitation would adde a greater check to Estates than ever was made by Limitations of Inheritance For when an Estate of Inheritance was limited to a man and his Heirs Males of his body with Remainders over and a Term was limited accordingly to wait upon the Inheritance In that Case he that had the first Estate-tail had full power over the Term to alienate it if he pleased for it is not an Estate within the Statute De Dominis and I doubt not that had a great Influence upon the Judges when they made the difference between Terms for years in Gross and Terms attendant upon the Inheritance For Terms in Gross they could not be aliened in such a Case but Terms attending upon the Inheritance though under such Limitations the parties could alien them But now if this Limitation in question were good then Henry could not part with it because it is to him and his Heirs Males of his body under a collateral Limitation of his brothers dying without Issue and the Earldom descending to himself and then his Estate was to determine and so it would fetter that which if it had been a Term attendant c. would have been alienable I have seen the time often when they have refused to carry Cases further than the Precedents have been in former times and peradventure it would be dangerous if we should do so here and it seems to me to be an odd kind of Estate as this Limitation makes it and if such a construction as the Plaintiff would have should be made it would bring it under a great uncertainty To take this Estate as it stands in Henry and the Heirs Males of his body it is by this Limitation made and so indeed I think it is a Term that waits upon the Inheritance But if this that is contended for be admitted to be a good Limitation upon the Contingency of Thomas's dying without Issue Male then the Estate in Charles would be a Term in Gross for it hath no Inheritance to attend upon Then suppose Henry had died without Issue Male in Charles's life-time then it is a Term attendant upon the Inheritance again If Charles die in the life of Henry it goeth to the Executors If Henry in the life of Charles it goes to the Heirs Therefore I think that this Estate being limited in another way and being it would endure a strain further than any yet has been attempted and it being to commence upon Thomas's dying without Issue Male and not attendant upon any Inheritance it is such an Estate as the Law cannot allow of but void in Limitation and Creation and so I take it the Plaintiffs Bill ought to be dismissed THE Lord Chancellor NOTTINGHAM'S ARGUMENTS The First Argument THIS is the Case The Plaintiff by his Bill demands the benefit of a Term for two hundred Years in the Barony of Greystocke upon these settlements Henry Fredericke late Earl of Arundel and Surry Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant had Issue Thomas Henry Charles Edward Francis and Bernard and a Daughter the Lady Katharine Thomas Lord Maltravers his eldest Son was Non compos Mentis and care is taken to settle the Estate and Family as well as the present circumstances will admit And thereupon there are two Indentures drawn and they are both of the same date The one is an Indenture between the Earl of Arundel of the one part and the Duke of Richmond the Marquess of Dorchester Edward Lord Howard of Eastcricke and Sir Thomas Hatton of the other part it bears date the Twenty first day of March 1647. Whereby an Estate is conveyed to them and their Heirs To these uses To the use of the Earl for his life After that to the Countess his Wife for her life with power to make a Lease for 21. Years reserving the antient Rents The remainder for 200. Years to those Trustees and that upon such trusts as by another Indenture intended to bear date the same day the Earl should limit and declare and then the remainder of the Lands are to the use of Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body begotten with like remainders in Tail to Charles Edward and the other Brothers successively Then comes the other Indenture which was to declare the Trust of the Term for 200 Years for which all these preparations are made and that declares that it was intended this Term should attend the Inheritance and that the profits of the said Barony c. should be received by the said Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Thomas and any Issue Male of his Body should live which was consequently only during his own life because he was never likely to Marry and if he dye without Issue in the life-time of Henry not leaving a Wife privement Enseint of a Son or if after his death the Dignity of Earl of Arundel should descend upon Henry Then Henry or his Issue should have no farther benefit or profit of the Term of 200 Years Who then shall But the benefit shall redound to the younger Brothers in manner following How is that To Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body with the like Remainders in Tail to the rest Thus is the matter settled by these Indentures how this Family was to be provided for and the whole Estate govern'd for the time to come These Indentures are both sealed and delivered in the presence of Sir Orlando Bridgman Mr. Edward Alehorn and Mr. John Alehorn both of them my Lord Keeper Bridgman's Clerks I knew them to be so This Attestation of these Deeds is a Demonstration to me they were drawn by Sir Orlando Bridgman After this the Contingency does happen for Thomas Duke of Norfolk dies without Issue and the Earldom of Arundel as well as the Dukedom of Norfolk descended to Henry now Duke of Norfolk by Thomas his death without Issue presently upon this the Marquess of Dorchester the surviving Trustee of this Estate assigns his Estate to Marryot but he doth it upon the same Trusts that he had it himself Mr. Marryot assigns his interest frankly to my Lord Henry the now Duke and so has done what he can to merge and extinguish the Term by the signing it to him who has the Inheritance To excuse the Marquess of Dorchester from cooperating in this matter it is said there was an absolute necessity so to do Because the Tenants in the North would not be brought to renew their Estates while so Aged a
Lord Chief Baron Montague Charles Howard is Plaintiff and the Duke of Norfolk and others are Defendants The Plaintiff by his Bill seeks to have Execution of a Trust of a term of 200 years of the Barony of Grastock which was made by Henry Frederick Earl of Arundel and upon the Bill Answers Deeds and other Passages in this Cause contained is this Henry Frederick Earl of Arundel by Lease and Release of the 20th and 21th of March 1647. did settle the Barony of Grastock and of Burgh and several other Lands to himself for Life then to the Countess Elizabeth his Wife for life and then there is a term created for 99 years which we need not mention in this Case because it is determined and after the death of the Countess there is a term for years limited to my Lord of Dorchester and other Trustees for 200 years under a Trust to be declared in a Deed of the same date with the Release and the limitation of the Inheritance after this term of 200 years is first to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body then to Mr. Charles Howard the now Plaintiff Brother of the said Henry and so to all his Brothers successively intail Male with the last Remainder to the Earl of and his Heirs then by a Deed 21 of March 1647 the Earl declares the Trust of the term of 200 years reciting first the uses of the former Deed and therein says it was intended that the said term should attend the Inheritance and the Profits of the Barony of should be received for 200 years by Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his body so long as Lord Thomas eldest son of the said Earl of Arundel or any Issue Male of his body should be living but in case he should die without Issue Male in the life of Henry Howard not leaving his Wife ensient with a Son or in case after the death of Thomas without Issue Male the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel should descend to Henry Howard then he and his Issues to have no benefit of this term of 200 years but it was to descend to the other Brother Charles Howard the now Plaintiff as hereafter is mentioned and then comes Now this Indenture witnesseth and therein the Earl declares that it should be under the Limitations after specified viz. if Thomas Lord Howard had any Issue Male or Heirs Male of his body living Henry Howard then the Trustees should have the commencement of the term in trust for the said Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body till such time as the Earldom should come to Henry Howard by the death of Thomas without Heirs Males of his body and after to the other Brothers successively and the Heirs Males of their bodies and then doth divide the other Mannors with cross Remainders to the five Brothers then the Case goes on thus the Earl of Arundel dies in time in 1652 Elizabeth the Countess dies in 1673 then in 1675 my Lord of Dorchester the surviving Trustee assigns the Term to one Marriot he assigns it to the now Duke of Norfolk and the Duke the 24th of Octob. 1675 by Bargain and Sale makes a Tenant to the Precipe and then a Recovery is suffered and the Uses of that Recovery 25th of October are declared to be to the Duke and his Heirs Then Thomas Howard the former Duke died without Issue having never been married and that is in the year 1677 whereby the Honour came to the now Duke and so the Plaintiffs Bill is to have execution of the Trust of the term of the Barony of to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his body This I conceive was opposed by the Counsel for the Defendant upon these grounds 1. That by the Assignment made by Marriot to my Lord Duke Henry the Term was surrendred and quite gone 2. The second ground was the common Recovery suffered which they say barred the remainders which the other Brothers had and so also would be a bar to the Trust of this term 3. And the other ground was that the Trust of a term to Henry and the Heirs Males of his body until by the death of Thomas without Issue the Earldom should descend upon him and then to Charles is a void Limitation of the Remainder As to the first that by the assignment of Marriot to Henry Howard the whole Term was surrendred and being so surrendred hath no existance at all that I find but was barely mentioned and I think cannot be stood upon for this the term by the surrender is gone indeed and merged in the Inheritance yet the Trust of that term remains in Equity and if this Trust be destroyed by him that had it assigned to him this Court has full power to set it up again and to decree the term to him to whom it did belong or a recompence for it therefore I think that stands not at all as a point in the Case or as an objection in the way As to the next thing the common recovery now suffered by the now Duke that doth bar the remainders to the other Brothers And so also the trust of this term that I conceive to be so in case this can be interpreted to be a term to attend the Inheritance and indeed in the reciting part the Deed doth seem to say that it was intended to attend the Inheritance But by that part of the Deed which followeth after now this Indenture witnesseth there it is limited that the term should be to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body until such time as the Honour of the Earl of Arundel by his elder Brothers death without Issue should come to him then to the Plaintiff which doth convey the Estate of the term in a different Channel from that in which the Inheritance is setled and taking this Deed altogether it doth limit this term in such various Estates that it can no way be construed to be a term attending the Inheritance and then I conceive the recovery doth not bar the trust for the recovery would bar the incident to any Estate as this would do here if it attended the Inheritance but being onely a term in Gross and a collateral thing I conceive the recovery has no operation to bar the trust in the term Then the Case singly depends upon the third point whether the Trust of a term thus limited to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body until his Brother die without Issue whereby the Honour came to him with such contingent Remainders over be a good Limitation this is the Question and so in short the Case is but thus A Term of Two Hundred years is granted in trust that Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his body shall receive the Profits until Thomas die without Issue Male of his body and then to Charles Howard and the Heirs Male of his body And in this case I am
of Opinion that these Limitations to the younger Brothers upon this Contingency are absolutely void in the first Creation and are gone without the Surrender and that upon this Recovery Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk ought to have the trust of the whole Term. The Expositions of Devizes of Terms or the Dispositions of the Trust of Terms have proceeded by many steps to higher degrees than was at first thought of by the makers It would be too long to give a distinct History of it but it is so plain that it is now a resolved and decreed thing and setled therefore it were in vain to tell you the steps taken towards it That the devize of a Term and the limitation of the trust of a Term to one and the Heirs of his body is good though Burgesses Case was onely for Life the Cases are very full in it On the other side where there is a limitation of a Term to one and the Heirs of his body there a positive Limitation of the Estate over after his death without Issue that I think also is as fully declared to be void I shall not cite Cases at large but onely those Points and Expressions in them which are peculiar and pertinent to this purpose there is Jinkins and Kennish's Case I think it was in the Exchequer there it was said it was such a total Disposition of the term to limit it to one and his Heirs Males that it would not admit of a Limitation over but adjudged to be void So in my Lord Rolls Abridgments 1 Part Tit. Devise fol. 611. 11 Car. 1. Leventhorp and Ashby's Case B. R. It is said that the Remainder of a Term to C. after it is limited to B. and the Heirs Males of his body is a void Remainder and fol. 613. he puts down the reason why the Remainder is void because the Limitation to one and the Heirs Males of his body is a full disposition of the Term. And if such Limitations over were permitted it would create perpetuities which the Law doth abhor Sanders and Cornishes Case Croke fol. 230. There it is resolved that the Devise of a Term in such a manner with Limitations after one another to make a perpetuity cannot be good For says the Book to limit a possibility and to limit the Remainder of a term after a dying without Issue stands not with the Rules of Law. Now to bring this Case within these Rules that if there be the Trust of a term to a man and the Heirs of his body no Limitation can be over I say then if this Estate be so limited to my Lord Duke by the name of Henry Howard the other will follow when there is a Limitation Intail though it cannot be properly stiled Intail of a Term yet it is a Disposition of that Term as long as the Tail lasts then there can be no Limitation over And as to that I think as the Deed is penned it may well be stood upon that here is an Estate given to Henry and the Heirs Males of his body For though the Deed says until by the death of Thomas without Issue the Earldom of Arundel shall descend upon him yet the first Limitation I think shall stop at the Heirs Male of his body and the Remainder over shall be then void But I will not stand upon that because I think I shall not need it but admit until by the failure of the Issue of Thomas the Earldom come to him makes it not an Estate to Henry and the Heirs of his body directly yet it gives an Estate to him and the Heirs of his body as long as Thomas has any Issue of his body and that I count to be all one as to the Operation of Law for each of the Estates must determine upon the persons dying without Issue which is too remote a Condition to limit the Remainders of a Term upon And this until he die without Issue and as long as he shall have Issue are terms Synonimous in my Opinion and so it being a Limitation to him and his Heirs of his body as long as Thomas liveth and hath Issue of his body it cannot be limited over and the rather upon comparing the former part of the Deed where there is an expression that it was intended the Estate should remain in my now Lord Duke so long as Thomas lived or had any Issue of his body Therefore I say there being in my opinion no difference as to operation of Law between the Limitations to a man and the Heirs of his own body and to a man and the Heirs of his body during the life of another and the Heirs of his body there can be no difference in the resolution It is as possible a disposition of the Term during the continuance of an Intail as the other and therefore no Remainder can be limited over But now the doubt in this Case that is made ariseth upon this point that this Limitation over to the Brothers is upon a meer Contingency and whether that be good I think is the main Question And truly upon the reasons of Child and Baily's Case I cannot think it is a good Limitation that Case has been so often reported that I need not put it at large In short this it was A Devise by A. of a Term to William his eldest Son and his Assigns and if he die without Issue then to Thomas his youngest Son there the Judges of the Kings-Bench did first deliver their Opinion that this was a void Limitation to Thomas And after it came into the Exchequer-Chamber and there by the Opinion of ten Judges it was affirmed and the reasons of the Judgement are not what was alleadged at the bar in this Cause but they went upon the ground because thereby a perpetuity would ensue and that which was observed by one of the Councel that the Term was given to him and his Assigns was onely an Answer to a Case put in the argument upon Child and Baily's Case which was the Case of Rhetorick and Chappell Hill. 9 Jac. R. 889. B. R. which was cited by my Lord Chief Baron Tanfield against the resolution of Child and Baily's Case to difference it from the Case then before them And though it was urged in Child and Baily's Case that it was given upon a Contingency to the younger Son which would soon be determined and end in a short time yet that weighed not with the Judges but that they ruled it to be a void Limitation and I met lately with a Judgement in the Common-pleas which crosseth that Case of Rhetoricks and Chappell's it was Hill. 31 and 32 Car. 2. Reg. 1615 Gibson's and Sanders's Case Matthews possessed of a long Term of years having Issue a Son and three Daughters makes his Will and devises his Chattel-Leases to his Son and if that Son die before Marriage or after Marriage without Issue that then they should go to the Daughters The Son doth Marry and dieth without
Issue the Daughters his Executrixes against whom an Action of Debt is brought upon a Bond they plead no Assets and upon a special Verdict the Question being whether this were Assets in their hands it was adjudged it was In the report of that Case there are many expressions of the Courts unwillingness to extend these Devises and Dispositions of Terms further than the Judges had gone already The authority of this Case doth much strengthen the authority of Baily's Case because it doth thwart and oppose the Judgement in Rhetorick and Chappell's Case There was also started at the Bar in Pell and Browns Case that a Fee upon a Fee arising upon such a proximate Contingency as might happen in so short a time as a Life was a good Limitation It is very true that Case is so adjudged but I think there might be such reason of difference urged between the disposition of a Fee-Simple and of a Term for a Term may be qualified as to a man and his Heirs until a marriage take effect but the qualifying of a disposition of a Term cannot be because when once a Term is given the qualification comes too late I do think that there have been Cases in this Court where a Term has been limited to one and the Heirs Males of his body upon a Contingency to happen first with Limitations over if that Contingency do not happen that has been a good Limitation As thus if it be limited to the Wife for life and then to the eldest Son if he overlive his Mother and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder over to a younger Son there if the eldest Son die in the life of the Mother the Limitation to the second Son may be good But if there be an instant Estate-tail created upon a Term with Remainders over though there be a Contingency as to the expectations of him in the Remainder yet there is such a total disposition of the Term as after which no Limitations of a Term can be For that Objection out of Pell and Brown's Case there is no such sure Foundation to build upon in the point of a Term because that Case it self has been controverted since that Judgement given in a Case between Jay and Jay in stiles Reports 258 and 274 Trinit 1651 fol. 258. 'T is thus A man seized in Fee devised it to one and his Heirs and if he die during the life of his Mother the Remainder to another and his Heirs There is no Opinion given but Rolls Chief Justice said a Limitation of an Inheritance after an absolute Fee-simple is not a good Limitation because this would be to make a Perpetuity which the Law will not admit but if it be upon a contingent Fee-simple it is otherwise but fol. 274 where it is spoken to again by Latch he argued that it was not a good Limitation and though he doth cite and confess Pell and Brown's Case to be adjudged quite contrary to what he argued yet he tells you that the Judges did find such Inconveniences arising upon it that the Court was divided upon a like Case and says further that within nine years after that Judgement 21 Jac. it was made a flat Query in the Serjeants Case and adds moreover that it hath been ever since disputable and cites a Case and gives you a Roll but not the Parties names Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. C. B. Rol. 1149 wherein says the Book after solemn Arguments both at Bar and Bench it was adjudged quite contrary to Pell and Brown's Case but admit that Case to be good Law where will you stop if you admit the limitation of a Term after an Estate-tail where shall it end for if after one it may as well be after two and if after two then as well after twenty for it may be said if he die within 20 years without Issue and so if within 100 and there will be no end and so a Perpetuity will follow It was said at the Bar it will be hard to frustrate the intention of the Parties To that I answer Intention of Parties not according to Law are not to be regarded It was the Intention in Child and Baily's Case that the younger Son should have it and so in Burgesses Case it was the Intention the Daughter should have it and so in Gibsons and Sommers's Case it was intended for the Daughters yet all these Intentions were rejected and therefore as to that it is not at all to weigh any thing in the Case It has also been objected but then here is a contingency that has actually hapned upon Thomas's death without Issue and so the Honour is come to Henry I say the hapning of the Contingency is no ground to judge The Limitation good upon it was not good if the other Limitation had stood out and that I conceive is our Case So then for that I think these expositions have gone as far already as they can for my part I cannot extend it any further and therefore I conceive in this Case the Plaintiff has no right to this Term but the Decree ought to be made for the Defendants The Argument of the Lord Chief Justice North I Shall not trouble your Lordship to repeat the Case again for it has been truly opened by my Lord Chief Baron nor shall I trouble you with any long Argument because I think there is but one point in the case and that a short one The onely point is this Whether this contingent Trust of a Term limited to Charles upon the dying of Thomas without Issue Male whereby the Honour did descend to Henry be good in point of Creation and Limitation for the other two points will not trouble the Case For as to that point of the Recovery in case this being not a good Limitation in point of Creation it will make nothing in the Case for it is gone without the Recovery In case it be good in point of Creation the Recovery will do nothing for that supposeth it to go along with the Inheritance And if this take effect then it will suffer no prejudice by the Recovery Then for the assignment of Marriot to the Duke that signifieth nothing in the Case it doth indeed shew that if your Lordship shall decree this Cause for the Plaintiff then he hath committed a breach of Trust but if for the Defendant then it is of no weight at all If the Law be for the Plaintiff then he must answer for this breach of Trust and so must the Duke for it is a surrender to a person that had notice of the Trust So that the Question is barely upon that single first Point whether it be a good Limitation upon the Contingency to Charles this which they call a springing Trust My Lord I take the Rules of this Court in cases of Trusts of Terms to be the same with Rules of Law in Devises of Terms For I conceive the Rules of Law to prevent Perpetuities are the policy of
where no Remainders can be limited no contingent Remainder can be limited which I utterly deny for there can be no Remainder limited after a Fee simple yet there may a contingent Fee simple arise out of the first Fee as hath been shewn Thus it is agreed to be by all sides in the Case of an Inheritance but now say they a Lease for Years which is a Chattel will not bear a contingent Limitation in regard of the poverty and meanness of a Chattel Estate Now as to this point the difference between a Chattel and an Inheritance is a difference only in Words but not in substance nor in Reason or the Nature of the thing for the owner of a Lease has as absolute a power over his Lease as he that hath an Inheritance has over that And therefore where no perpetuity is introduced nor any inconveniency doth appear there no Rule of Law is broken The Reasons that do support the springing Trust of a Term as well as the springing use of an Inheritance are these 1. Because it hath hapned sometimes and doth frequently that Men have no Estates at all but what consist in Leases for Years Now it were not only very severe but under favour very absurd to say that he who has no other Estate but what consists in Leases for Years shall be incapable to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family tho' these are directly within his view and immediate prospect And yet if that be the Rule so it must be for I will put the Case A Man that hath no other Estate but Leases for Years Chattels real treats for the Marriage of his Son and thereupon it comes to this agreement These Leases shall be setled as a Joynture for the Wife and provision for the Children says he I am content but how shall it be done Why thus You shall assign all these Terms to John a Styles in Trust for your self and your Executors if the marriage take no effect But then if it takes effect to your Son while he lives to his Wife after while she lives with Remainders over I would have any one tell me whether this were a void limitation upon a Marriage settlement or if it be what a strange absurdity is it that a Man shall settle it if the Marriage take no effect and shall not settle it if the Marriage happen 2. Suppose the Estate had been limited to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his Body till the death of Thomas without Issue then to Charles there it had been a void limitation to Charles if then the addition of those words If Thomas dye without Issue in the life of Henry c. have not mended the matter then all that addition of Words goes for nothing which it is unreasonable and absurd to think it should 3. Another thing these is which I take to be unanswerable and I gather it from what fell from my Lord Chief Justice Pemberton and when I can answer that Case I shall be able to answer my self very much for that which I am doing Suppose the Provisoe had been thus penned And if Thomas die without Issue Male living Henry so that the Earldom of Arundel descend upon Henry then the Term of 200 Years limited to him and his Issue shall utterly cease and determine but then a new Term of 200 Years shall arise and be limited to the same Trustees for the Benefit of Charles in Tail. This he thinks might have been well enough and attained the end and intention of the Family because then this would not be a Remainder in Tail upon a Tail but a new Term created Pray let us so resolve Cases here that they may stand with the reason of Mankind when they are debated abroad Shall that be reason here that is not reason in any part of the World besides I would fain know the difference why I may not raise a new springing Trust upon the same Term as well as a new springing Term upon the same Trust that is such a chicanery of Law as will be laught at all over the Christian World. 4. Another Reason I go on is this That the meanness of the consideration of a Term for years and of a Chattel Interest is not to be regarded for whereas this will be no reason any where else so I shall shew you that this Reason as to the Remainder of a Chattel Interest is a Reason that has been exploded out of Westminster-Hall There was a time indeed that this Reason did so far prevail that all the Judges in the time of my Lord Chancellor Rich did 6 Edvardi 6 deliver their Opinions That if a Term for Years be devised to one provided Dyer fol. 74. that if the Devisee die living J. S. then to go to J. S. that remainder to J. S. is absolutely void because such a Chattel Interest of a Term for Years is less than a Term for Life and the Law will endure no limitation over Now this being a Reason against Sense and Nature the World was not long governed by it but in 10 Eliz. in Dyer they began to hold Dyer f. 277 the Remainder was good by Devisee and so 15 Eliz. seems too and 19 Eliz. it was by the Judges held to be a good Remainder and that was the first time that an executory Remainder Dyer f. 328 Dyer f. 358. of a Term was held to be good When the Chancery did begin to see that the Judges of the Law did govern themselves by the reason of the thing this Court followed their Opinion the better to fix them in it they allowed of Bills by the remainder Man to compel the Devisee of the particular Estate to put in security that he in Remainder should enjoy it according to the Limitation And for a great while so the practice stood as they thought it might well because of the Resolution of the Judges as we have shewn but after this was seen to multiply the Chancery Suits then they began to resolve that there was no need of that way but the executory Remainder Man should enjoy it and the Devisee of the particular Estate should have no power to bar it Men began to presume upon the Judges then and thought if it were good as to Remainders after Estates for Lives it would be good also as to Remainders upon Estates Tail That the Judges would not endure and that is so fixed a Resolution that no Court of Law or Equity ever attempted to break in the World. Now then come we to this Case and if so be where it does not tend to a perpetuity a Chattel Interest will bear a Remainder over upon the same Reason it will bear a Remainder over upon a Contingency where that Contingency doth wear out within the compass of a life otherwise it is only to say it shall not because it shall not For there is no more inconvenience in the one than in the other Come we then at last
to that which seems most to choak the Plaintiffs Title to this Term and that is the resolution in Child and Baylie's Case For it is upon that Judgment it seems all Conveyances must stand or be shaken and our Decrees made Now therefore I will take the liberty to see what that Case is and how far the Opinion of it ought to prevail in our Case 1. If Child and Baylie's Case be no more than as it is reported by Rolls part 2. fol. 129. then it is nothing to the purpose A Devise of a Term to Dorothy for life the remainder to William and if he dies without Issue to Thomas without saying in the life of Thomas and so it is within the common Rule of a Limitation of a Term in Tail with Remainder over which cannot be good But if it be as Justice Jones has reported it fol. 15 then it is as far as it can go an Authority For it is there said to be living Thomas But the Case under favour is not altogether as Mr. Justice Jones hath reported it neither for I have seen a Copy of the Record upon this account and by the way no Book of Law is so ill corrected or so ill printed as that The true Case is as it is reported by Mr. Justice Crook and with Mr. Justice Crooks Report of it doth my Lord Rolls agree Cro. Hil. 15. Jac. 459. in his abridgment Title Devise 612. There it is a Term of 76 Years is devised to Dorothy for life then to William and his Assigns all the rest of the Term provided if William die without Issue then living then to Thomas and this is in effect our present Case I agree it But that which I have to say to this Case is First It must be observed that the Resolution there did go upon several Reasons which are not to be found in this Case 1. One Reason was touched upon by my Lord Chief Baron That William having the Term to him and his Assigns there could be no Remainder over to Thomas of which Words there is no notice taken by Mr. Justice Jones 2. Dorothy the Devisee for life was Executrix and did assent and grant the Lease to William both which Reasons my Lord Rolls doth lay hold upon as material to govern the Case 3. William might have assigned his Interest and then no Remainder could take place for the Term was gone 4. He might have had Issue and that Issue might have assigned and then it had put all out of doubt 5. But the main Reason of all which makes me oppose it ariseth out of the Record and is not taken notice of in either of the Reports of Rolls or Jones or in Rolls Abridgment The Record of that Case goes farther for the Record sayes There was a farther Limitation upon the death of Thomas without Issue to go to the Daughter which was a plain affectation of a perpetuity to multiply Contingencies It farther appears by the Record that the Fathers Will was made the 10 of Eliz. Dorothy the Devisee for life held it to the 24 and then she granted and assigned the Term to William he under that Grant held it till the 31 of Eliz. and then regranted it to his Mother and dyed the Mother held it till the 1 of K. James and then she dyed the Assignees of the Mother held it till 14 Jac. and then and not till then did Thomas the younger Son set up a Title to that Estate and before that time it appears by the Record there had been six several Alienations of the Term to Purchasers for a valuable Consideration and the Term renewed for a valuable Fine paid to the Lord. And do we wonder now that after so long an acquiescence as from 10 Eliz. to 14 Jacob and after such successive Assignments and Transactions that the Judges began to lye hard upon Thomas as to his Interest in Law in the Term especially when the Reasons given in the Reports of the Case were legal Inducements to guide their Judgments of which there are none in our Case But then Secondly At last allowing this Case to be as full and direct an Authority as is possible and as they would wish that rely upon it then I say 1. The Resolution in Child and Balie's Case is a Resolution that never had any Resolution like it before nor since 2. It is a Resolution contradicted by some Resolutions and to shew that that Resolution has been contradicted there is 1. The Case of Cotton and Heath which looks very like a contrary Resolution there is a Term limited to A. for eighteen years the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the first Issue of B. for life this Contingent upon a Contingent was allowed to be good because it would wear out in a short time But 2. To come up more fully and closely to it and to shew you that I am bound up by the Resolutions of this Court there was a fuller and flatter Case 21 Car. 2. in July 1669 between Wood and Saunders The Trust of a long Lease is limited and declared thus To the Father for sixty years if he lived so long then to the Mother for sixty years if she lived so long then to John and his Executors if he survived his Father and Mother and if he died in their life-time having Issue then to his Issue but if he dye without Issue living the Father or Mother then the Remainder to Edward in Tail. John did die without Issue in the life-time of the Father and Mother and the question was whether Edward should take this Remainder after their death and it was Resolved by my Lord Keeper Bridgeman being assisted by Judge Twisden and Judge Rainsford that the Remainder to Edward was good for the whole Term had vested in John if he had survived Yet the Contingency never hapning and so wearing out in the compass of two Lives in being the Remainder over to Edward might well be limited upon it Thus we see that the same Opinion which Sir Orlando Bridgeman held when he was a Practizer and drew these Conveyances upon which the question now ariseth remained with him when he was the Judge in this Court and kept the Seals and by the way I think it is due to the Memory of so great a Man whenever we speak of him to mention him with great Reverence and Veneration for his Learning and Integrity Object They will perhaps say Where will you stop if not at Child and Balie's Case Ans Where why every where where there is any Inconvenience any danger of a perpetuity and where-ever you stop at the limitation of a Fee upon a Fee there we will stop in the limitation of a Term of years No man ever yet said a Devise to a man and his Heirs and if he die without Issue living B. then to B. is a naughty Remainder that is Pells and Browns Case Now the Ultimum quod sit or the utmost limitation of
may be convinced of but truly at present I see no colour to retract it Mr. Serj. M. We pray then my Lord that we may have this right done for us who are for Mr. Howard the Plaintiff that they on the other side will let us know what particular points we must go upon for if they come at large we may not perhaps be so well provided to answer them Lord Chancellor I suppose they can say nothing to any point but that which is the main point in the Case the limitation of the remainder of a springing Trust after the Entail of a Term that is to determine upon a contingency that expired in the time of a Life a point which was never argued for Mr. Howard at the Bar nor stirred by the Counsel Mr. Serj. M. I hope we for Mr. Howard shall be heard to justify your Lordships Opinion Lord Chancellor What hath been said here at the Bench on both sides has been taken in Short-hand and made publick I know the Counsel on both sides hath seen it or will see and look into it well and if they can give me any reasonable satisfaction that I am in the wrong I shall easily recede from it But upon any thing yet offered I am of the same mind I was As to the Learned Judges that assisted me at the hearing the Decree is mine and the Oath that Decree is made upon is mine theirs is but Learned Advice and Opinion And therefore if they can satisfy my Conscience that they are in the right and I not well and good if not I must abide by that Decree I have made according to my Conscience And I will repeat this to you I go upon these Heads for my Opinion and I would be glad any body would answer them I say it is against natural Justice to say that a Man who hath no Estate but what consists in Terms shall be disabled from settling his Estate so as to provide for the contingencies in his Family that are in immediate prospect I say it is a common Case A Man that is less for Years assigns his Term in Trust for himself until such a Marriage take effect and after to himself for Life to his Wife for Life with remainder in Tail to his Children Is that springing Trust upon the contingency of the Marriage good or not If it be not good then what will become of a great many Marriage settlements If it be good then why not in this Case as well as that And I would fain know what difference there is between the Case as it is at the Bar and if it had been limited thus If my Lord Arundel had said that if Thomas Die without Issue Living Henry then the Term for 200 Years in Tail should cease and a new Term should arise upon the same Trust for Charles that it seems had been well enough is there any sense in the World that can lead a reasonable Man to conclude why there should not be a new springing Term upon the same Trust I cannot see any reason to run this Case down upon the single authority of Child and Baylie's Case which was such a resolution as never had its like before nor since but contradicted by several resolutions as have been cited particularly Wood and Saunders Case in this Court in my Lord Bridgmans time These are the grounds my present apprehensions go upon but I will hear Mr. Keck if it may be in any reasonable time and give the respect to the Duke of Norfolk that he shall not be surprized tho' withall I must do Mr. Howard the Justice that he be not eternally delaid Then the Day sevennight was appointed but upon the continuance of Mr. Kecks illness it was put peremptorily for Judgment on the first Saturday in the next Term. De Termino Trin. Anno Regis Car. II. 34 in Cancell Howard vers le Duc de Norfolk Sabbati 17 Junii Anno Dom. 1652. MY Lord we have nothing to do in that Mr. Serj. M. Cause but to pray your Judgment Mr. S. G. My Lord we were in great hopes to have had other Assistances to day but it seems we are disappointed of them That which I shall humbly offer is but short We are by your Lordships favour permitted now to offer something if we can to answer the objections which your Lordship made and which were the ground of your Opinion We did apprehend them to be these that Child and Baylie's Case was not the same with this Case and that the Case of Wood and Saunders is the last resolution of this Nature and will rule this We do my Lord humbly with submission offer these Reasons why the first Case is the same with this and the other difference from it Child and Baylie's Case my Lord tho' it doth differ in some Circumstances yet it differs in no one that doth immediately concern the Limitation For the Circumstances wherein they Differ was the Length of the Term being almost Expired the Conveyances over to several Purchasers and at the end of the Term the resolution taken But tho' it differs in these Circumstances yet these have no influence upon the Limitation or the Construction of Law upon the Limitation Now the Limitation is the same there as it is here for there it is to one for Life and to his Son during the whole Term and if he die without Issue during the Life of his Father and Mother then the remainder over this remainder was adjudged void This is the same Case with ours for in the Case the first remainder actually vested in William the Son for it was to him and his Assigns during the whole Term and if he die without Issue Living Father and Mother then over This remainder I say was adjudged void he was actually seized of the whole Interest which being vested in him could not be devested upon the contingent Limitations over upon his death without Issue living Father and Mother It is the same in our Case the Duke of Norfolk has the Interest of this Estate by the Limitation in Tail actually vested in him and then it cannot be devested by the rule of Child and Baylie's Case upon the Contingency of Thomas's dying without Issue in the Life of Henry which is during the Life of the now Duke of Norfolk And in this respect the Case of Wood and Saunders is not the same It is a Limitation to the Father and Mother for Life and for 60 years if they so long live then to John the Son if Living at the time of the Death of Father and Mother the whole Term. My Lord this was not a vesting the Estate in John the Son but a Contingent Limitation that he should take or not If he were Living at the time of the Death of Father and Mother then he should take If not he should not take There was no Interest vested in him till the Contingency hapned and so the Limitations will be different And that
the Son but hath but a small Estate to give him The Elder Brother he has a Term for Years and has a mind to provide for the Son of his Younger Brother and his intended Wife and he limits the Trust of his Term thus to the use of himself and his Executors till the Marriage be had but if he die or provided he die before the Marriage had without Issue living his Younger Brother the Father of him that is to be Married then to the use of that Son and so on We do make a great doubt whether the Limitation of the Trust of the Term there would be good or not upon the difference of Child and Baylies Case that has been so often mentioned in this Cause and was so solemnly resolved The resolution of which Case and that also of Wood and Saunders we submit to your Lordships consideration As for the intention of the Parties in this settlement we cannot but say it was intended as a provision that when the Bulk of the Estate and the Honour came to the Duke his Younger Brothers should have an increase of their Portions But it is as plain the intent does fail as to all the other Younger Children because the construction of Law will not support it So that the intent without the Rule of Law to maintain it will signify nothing Mr. H. If your Lordship will please to give me leave I think I may offer something that has not yet been observed We do not trouble your Lordship or our selves out of a presumption that we shall so far prevail as to alter the Opinion your Lordship has delivered but truly my design is to offer some reasons why I hope your Lordship will be pleas'd to take some further consideration of the matter Not but that I know your Lordship did very seriously deliberate upon it before you delivered your Opinion and you have been pleased to tell us the reasons you went upon and they were two First upon the Case of Wood and Saunders in this Court And Secondly upon the natural Reason and Justice that a Man that has no other Estate but Terms for Years should have a power to settle those Terms so as to provide for the Contingencies of his Family That a settlement of a Term upon Trustees to himself till the Marriage take effect and then over shall be good this might be resembled to Pell and Browns Case and so come within the same reason Now my Lord with submission we have this to offer This Trust of this Term in our Case was first to attend the Inheritance and that was an Estate Tail limited but then there is a Contingency added to this Trust to this Trust of the Term that if Thomas die without Issue living Henry then to Charles and as it hath been said already it is very plain this Entail of the Term did actually vest Then the single first Question is whether upon the Contingency hapning the death of Duke Thomas without Issue it shall devest and a springing Trust arise to the now Plaintiff Mr. Charles Howard It is said there was a just care taken for him that was a Younger Son so there was but a like care was taken for the other five Bernard c. as well as for him Now then the Case lies upon this doubt with submission to your Lordship whether this can enure by way of a springing Trust by a new Creation We think that cannot be for here being once an Estate Tail limited in a Term that was to attend an Estate Tail of the Inheritance the Remainder over must be void in the very Creation My Lord I have observed ever since I have had the honor to practise at this Bar and very many particular instances might be given that when the Judges have been upon the Cases called to advise here they would not go beyond nor think fit that the Court would not go beyond nor think fit that this Court should beyond the Resolution in Mannings Case And they have often said if that Case were now to be adjudged it would receive another kind of Resolution The Judges gave that Resolution by way of Executory devise and now I think since that there have been more Suits in this Court of this Nature since the King's Restauration than were in forty Years before For cunning People will be always finding out Perpetuities and are fond of Limitations tending to Perpetuities not only in Inheritance but in Terms for Years After Mannings Case the Conveyancers did contrive these Trusts of Terms for Years to go beyond that Case For they seemed to argue thus That being good by way of Executory devise then we will declare a Trust and that the Law has nothing to do with it is a Creature of Equity and Governably by Equity And I have seen a Conveyance of this Nature made by my Lord of Leicester to Marryot and Western drawn 1658. Where there was the Trust of a Term limited over after an Estate Tail but that was never insisted upon to be good all the Cases being otherwise If then it be not good by way of Executory devise it cannot be good by way of Limitation of the Trust of a Term. Now in this Case certainly it would not be a good Remainder by way of Executory devise For when a Term is devised to end in Tail no Man will say a Remainder of the Term can be limited over As for the Case of Wood and Saunders That My Lord I conceive had been good by way of Executory devise A Man that hath a Term deviseth it to his Wife for life and if John his Son be living at the death of his Wife then to him in Tail but if he die without Issue living Wife then to Edward that might be good For it is a condition precedent as to John and there he must survive his Father and Mother or he takes nothing but he dying before them never vested in him at all and so might well vest in Edward But in our Case it is void in the Creation because in the Case here before your Lordship it did vest and was to attend the Inheritance when the Contingency happens Can it then enure to the Plaintiff by way of springing Trust surely no. In Wood and Saunders Case it never vested in our Case it did vest But I must My Lord crave leave to say one word to another point in the Case and that is the Recovery When Contingent Remainders in Law in Cases of Settlements may be by any act in Law barred this Court I conceive will not set them up agen Now in this Case before the Contingency hapned when the Estate Tail of the Inheritance was in my Lord Duke of Norfolk and the Lease for 200 Years attendant upon that Estate Tail then doth my Lord Duke suffer a common Recovery which we apprehend hath so barred and destroyed this Term that this Court will never interpose to set it up again My Lord that which on
agreed If the Limitation be not good then there was no need at all of a Surrender to bar it nor of the common Recovery to extinguish it But then we come to consider the Limitation and there it agreed all along in point of Law That the measures of the Limitations of the Trust of a Term and the measures of the Limitations of the Estate of a Term are all one and uniform here and in other Cases and there is no difference at Chancery or at Common Law between the Rules of the one and the Rules of the other what is good in one Case is good in the other And therefore in this Case the Court is agreed too that the Limitations made in this Settlement to Edward c. are all void for they tend directly and plainly to Perpetuities for they are Limitations of Remainders of a Term in gross after an Estate Tail in that Term which commenceth to be a Term in gross when the Contingency for Charles happens Thus far there is no difference of Opinion but whether the Limitation to Charles if Thomas die without Issue living Henry whereby the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel descends upon Henry I say whether that be void too is the great Question of this Case wherein we differ in our Opinions It is said that is void too and yet sever it from the Authority of Child and Baylie's Case which I will speak to by and by I would be glad to see some tolerable Reason given why it should be so for I agree it is a Question in Law here upon a Trust as it would be elsewhere upon an Estate and so the Questions here are both Questions of Law and Equity It was well said and well allowed by all the Judges when they did allow the Remainders of Terms after Estates Tail in those Terms to be void I shall not devise a Term to a Man in Tail with Remainders over the Judges have admirably well resolved in it and the Law is setled and Matthew Mannings Case did not stretch so far because this would tend to a Perpetuity Now on the other side I would fain know when there is a Case before the Court where the Limitation doth not tend to a Perpetuity nor introduceth any visible Inconvenience what should hinder that from being good For tho' if there be a tendency to a Perpetuity or a visible Inconvenience that shall be void for that reason yet the bare Limitation of the Remainder after an Estate Tail which doth not tend to a Perpetuity that is not void Why because it is not I dare not say so see then the Reasons why it is so The Reasons that I lie under the load of and cannot shake off are these The Law doth in many Cases allow of a future Contingent Estate to be limited where it will not allow a present Remainder to be limited and that Rule well understood goeth through the whole Case How do you make that out Thus If a Man have an Estate limited to him his Heirs and Assigns for ever which is a Fee-simple but if he die without Issue living J. S. or in such a short time then to J. D. tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet it is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee. And they that speak against this Rule do endeavour as much as they can to set aside the Resolution of Pells and Browns Case which under favour was not the first Case that was so Resolved for as I said before when I first delivered my Opinion it was resolved to be a good Limitation 19 Eliz. in the Case of Hinde and Lyon 3 Leonard 64. which by the way is the best Book of Reports of the later ones that hath come out without Authority If that be so then where a present Remainder will not be allowed a Contingent one will. If a Lease for years come to be limited in Tail the Law allows not a present Remainder to be limited thereupon yet it will allow a future Estate arising upon a Contingency only and that to wear out in a short time But what time and where are the bounds of that Contingency You may limit it seems upon a Contingency to happen in a life what if it be limited if such a one die without Issue within 21 Years or 100 Years or while Westminster-hall stands Where will you stop if you do not stop here I will tell you where I will stop I will stop where-ever any visible Inconveniece doth appear for the just bounds of a Fee-simple upon a Fee-simple are not yet determined but the first Inconvenience that ariseth upon it will regulate that First of all then I would fain have any one answer me where there is no Inconvenience in this Settlement no Tendency to a Perpetuity in this Limitation and no Rule of Law broken by the Conveyance what should make this void And no Man can say that it doth break any Rule of Law unless there be a Tendency to a Perpetuity or a palpable Inconvenience Oh yes Terms are meer Chattels and are not in consideration of Law so great as Freeholds or Inheritances These are words and but words there is not any real difference at all but the Reason of Mankind will laugh at it shall not a Man have as much power over his Lease as he has over his Inheritance If he have not he shall be disabled to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family that are within his view prospect because it is but a Lease for years and not an Inheritance or a Freehold There is that absurdity in it which is to me insuperable nor is the Case that was put answered in any degree A Man that hath no Estate but what consists in a Lease for years being to Marry his Son setled this Lease thus In Trust for himself in Tail till the Marriage take effect and if the Marriage take effect while he lives then in Trust for the Married couple is this future Limitation to the married couple good or bad If any Man say it is void he overthrows I know not how many Marriage-settlements If he say it be good why is it not a future Estate in this Case as good as in that when there is no tendency to a Perpetuity no visible Inconvenience All Men are agreed and my Lord Chief Justice told us particularly how that there is a way in which it might be done only they do not like this way and I desire no better argument in the World to maintain my Opinion than that For says my Lord Chief Justice suppose it had not been said thus if Thomas die without Issue living Henry then over to Charles but thus if it happens that Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry c. then this Term shall cease and there shall a new Term arise and be created to vest in Charles in Tail and that had been wonderful well and my