Joynt Creditors That there can be no division of the Joynt Estate whereby to charge any part thereof with the private debts of either party and till the Joynt debts are paid and till division be made of the Surplus both parties are alike interessed and every part of the said Joynt Estate that the Commissioners have no power by the Commission to Administer an Oath to the Plaintiffs for proof of their debts they claiming debts from the said Widdows only and the Commission is against Widdows and Berman Joyntly and not severally and therefore cannot admit of the Plaintiffs Creditors This Court declared That the Estate belonging to the Joynt Trade as also the debts due from the same ought to be divided into Moieties and that each Moiety of the Estate ought to be charged in the first place with a Moiety of the said Joint debts and if there be enough to pay all the debts belonging to the Joynt Trade with an Overplus then such Overplus ought to be applied to pay particular debts of each Partner but if sufficient shall not appear to pay all the Joynt debts and if either of the Partners shall pay more than a Moiety of the Joynt debts then such Partner is to come in before the said Commissioners and be admitted as a Creditor for what he shall so pay over and above his Moiety and decreed accordingly Charles Howard contra le Duke de Norfolk al' 34 Car. 2. fo 722. THe Plaintiff by his Bill seeks to have Execution of a Trust of a Term of 200 years of the Barony of Grostock The Case was this The Earl of Arundel the Duke of Norfolks Father by Lease and Release Perpetuities or Entailing a Term for years with Remainders over Anno 1647. setled the Barony of G. and other Lands to himself for life then to the Countess Elizabeth his Wife for life and after her decease there is a Term limited to the Lord Dorchester and other Trustees for 200 years under a Trust to be declared in a deed of the same date with the Release and the Limitation of the Inheritance after the Term of 200 years is first to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body then to Mr. Charles Howard the now Plaintiff Brother of the said Henry and so to all his Brothers Successively in Tail Male remainder over Then by the said other Deed the Earl declares the Trust of the Term of 200 years and that deed in the reciting part declares that it was intended the said Term should attend the Inheritance and the profits should go to such persons and in such manner as was therein after limited viz. to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Lord Thomas Lord Maltrevers Eldest Son of the said Earl of Arundell or any Issue Male of his Body should be living but in case he should die without Issue Male in the life-time of Henry Howard not leaving his Wife enseint with a Son or in case after the death of Thomas without Issue Male the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel should descend to Henry Howard then Henry Howard and his Heirs to be excluded of the Trust and then it should be to Charles the Plaintiff and the Heirs Males of his Body remainder in like manner to other Brothers After this the Contingency doth happen for Thomas Duke of Norfolk dies without Issue and the Earldom of Arundel as well as the Dukedom of Norfolk descended to Henry now Duke of Norfolk by Thomas his death without Issue presently upon this the Marquess of Dorchester the Surviving Trustee Assigns the Term to one Marriott he Assigns it to the now Duke of Norfolk and the Duke suffers a Recovery to the use of him and his Heirs and the Plaintiffs Bill is to have execution of the Trust of this Term to the use of himself and his Heirs Males of his Body The Defendants insist That by the Assignment by Marriott to my Lord Duke Henry the Term was Surrendred and quite gone that the Common Recovery which barred the remainders which the other Brothers had would also be a Bar to the Trust of this Term and that the trust of a Term to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body until by the death of Thomas without Issue the Earldom should descend upon him and after that to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body was a void Limitation of the remainder to Charles The Plaintiff insists Though the Term by the Survivor is gone and Merged in the Inheritance yet the Trust of that Term remains in Equity That this is not a Term that attends the Inheritance but it s a Term in gross and so not barred by the Recovery and that the Limitation of the remainder in Contingency is good in Law and Relief ought to be had in this Court The Lord Chancellor Nottingham the Case being of great Consequence calls the Judges to his Assistance viz. the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton the Lord Chief Justice North and the Lord Chief Baron Mountague and they made one single point in the case Whether this Contingent Trust of a Term limited to the Plaintiff Charles and the Heirs of his Body upon the dying of Thomas without Issue Male whereby the Honour did descend to Henry be good in point of Creation and Limitation for as for the Recovery if this be not a good Limitation in point of Creation the Recovery will do nothing so that supposeth it to go along with the Inheritance and if this take effect then it will suffer no prejudice by the Recovery And as for the Assignment by Marriott to the Duke if this Court decree it for the Plaintiff then it is a Breach of Trust and then he must answer for it and so must the Duke for it is a Surrender to a person who had notice of the Trust If for the Defendant then it is of no weight So that the whole rests upon the first single point viz. whether it be a good Limitation upon the Contingency to Charles or as they call it Springing Trust a springing Trust And the said three Judges were all of Opinion that it was a void Limitation and that it ought to be Decreed for the Defendant They said Term in gross and a Term attending the Inheritance the difference there is great difference as to the Limitation of Terms that are in gross and Terms that attend the Inheritance as to Terms in Gross they are not capable of Limitation to one after the death of another without Issue but in Termsattendant upon an Inheritance there may be such a Limitation if the Inheritance be so limited and not else Now the Term is capable of a Limitation to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body because it hath an Inheritance to support it But now to put another limitation upon it that upon the
South-hampton and the Earl of Winchelsey and Sir Orlando Bridgman and the said Gape and others and their Heirs upon Trust as to Mudghill as he before had declared and as to the rest of the Mannours and Lands on Trust for payment of all such debts in the said Indentures to be paid and unpaid at his death and for freeing his personal Estate and Executors from the payment thereof and of the Trust in the Deed of 1652 for the Lady Jane Seymour and after these Trusts performed all the Lands unsold and the Reversion thereof be disposed by the Lady Dutchess of Sommerset his Wife and the Trustees by his Will and their Heirs for 21 years from his death to such as the said Lady Dutchess should appoint and in default of such appointment for the raising such sums of Mony for the Plaintiff Elizabeth's portion and maintenance as the Deed of the 20 of April 1654 appoints or in default of such appointment by the Dutchess to go to such Person to whom the Trust of the Inheritance of the premisses after the 21 years is limited by the Will and the conveyance so to be made to the said Dutchess and the other person named in his Will should be upon further Trust that the said Dutchess and the other person should stand seized of the said Lands unsold and the Reversion of such part thereof as should be leased out for lives or years in Trust for William Lord Beauchamp and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue forthe benefit of John Lord Seymour for life and after for the benefit of the first and every other Son of his Body and the Heirs Males of their Bodies respectively and for default of such Issue for the benefit of all his Daughters and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Bruce his Grandchild and all the Daughters of John Lord Seymour and their Heirs equally as Tenants in common and not as Joynt Tenants which Will the said Duke in 1660 ratified by new publishing thereof and all the Trustees in the deed of 1652 being dead except Sir Orlando Bridgman and Gape and the interest in Law being in them by Survivor ship Sir Orlando Bridgman knowing the debts in the deed of 1652 to be paid conveyed all the Lands therein mentioned to the said Dutchess of Sommerset That in 1671 the said William Lord Beauchamp Duke of Sommerset died without Issue whose Heir the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is and after the Lord John Seymour became Duke of Sommerset and died without Issue by whose death the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is intituled as Heir to Duke William her Grandfather to the reversion in fee of Mudghill Duke John being only Tenant in Tail thereof and ought to injoy the same it not being liable to pay any debts but is discharged thereof by her Grandfathers Will and not disposed from her by any Act the 19100 l. being all paid So that the questions now before the Court were whether the reversion of Mudghill expectant upon Pleydalls Estate for life as well as the residue of the Estate be liable to all the debts which Duke William owed at his death or only to the 19100 l. debts And secondly Whether the reversion of Mudghill as well as the residue of the Estate after satisfaction of all the debts of Duke William ought to be for the benefit of all Duke Williams Daughters and the Plaintiff Lady Bruce and their Heirs equally or the said reversion to go intirely to the said Lady Bruce as right Heir to Duke William As to the first question the Defendant insisted the said Reversion as well as the other Estate is liable to all the debts for that by the deed of 1652. Mudghill was conveyed for raising of Money for the payment of 19100 l. debts and all other debts that he should owe at the time of his death in which deed it is provided that after the said debts be paid he might by any deed or his last Will Revoke all or any of the said Trusts other than as concerning the 19100. debts yet made no Revocation other than by his last Will and therein he Revoked only those Trusts that were for the benefit of the Lord Beauchamp or the Lady Elizabeth Seymour or his own right Heirs and by the said deed the Legal Estate in Mudghill is setled in the Trustees and their Heirs and the Duke had no power to Revoke the uses or Estates till after the 19100 l. was paid and the said Duke directing his Trustees to convey Mudghill to his Son John he did thereby dispose of an equitable interest only of the reversion of Mudghill and the 19100 l. was not paid in the said Dukes life-time but great part remains unpaid and he hath contracted several new debts since the 20th of April 1654. which the Defendant since paid upon the Securities of the said Lands and Mudghill is one of the Mannours conveyed by the deed of 1652. for the payment of 19100 l. and all other the debts he should owe at the time of his death and altho' the same be directed by the last Will of the said Duke to be setled upon the Lord John Seymour and his Heirs Males yet the said Duke by deed of 1652. had no power to revoke the same for the payment of his debts or if he had he did not revoke the same by the said Will but left Mudghill and other the premisses subject to the payment of his debts and the Trustees understanding such to be the Dukes intention never setled Mudghill on the said Lord John Seymour who being lately dead without Issue the same is subjected to the payment of the said Duke Williams debts and when debts are satisfied the overplus of the Moneys and the said Mudghill and all other the premisses ought to be divided according to the intent of the said Dukes Will and by the said Dukes death and the Releases of the said Trustees the interest in Law became vested in Sir Orlando Bridgman and he conveyed Mudghill c. unto the said Dutchess and the said Gape and other the Trustees and their Heirs that they might therewith pay the said debts and though there be sufficient besides Mudghill to pay all the debts yet by the Will upon which this question doth arise that thereby the Trust for the Right Heirs of the said Duke are revoked in express Terms so that by any deed preceding the said Will the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce cannot claim any advantage as Heir the rather for that by the Will it doth appear that Duke William had an equal regard to his own Daughter and the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce his Grandchild and Heir and it cannot be presumed that he would more concern himself for the Welfare of a Grand-daughter than his own Daughters nor was the said Reversion of Mudghill disposed to the Plaintiff by any words in the Will though he did by express words in his Will Revoke all Trusts for the benefit of his Heirs in
dying of Thomas without Issue whereby the Earldom shall descend this shall go over to Charles that cannot be for it hath no Freehold to support it and so it s a Term in gross further there cannot by the Rules of Law or Equity be a Remainder for years of a Term limited after an Estate Tail neither directly nor upon Contingency as in Burges's Case but the Law will allow a remainder directly upon an Estate for life so likewise upon a Contingency if that were to happen during the Continuance of the particular Estate But this case is a step further and not to be allowed they relied chiefly upon Child and Bayles Case which was put thus by Chief Baron Mountague a Devise by A. of a Term to William his Eldest Son and his Assigns and if he die without Issue then to Thomas his youngest Son It was Judged in the Exchequer Chamber to be a void remainder because thereby a perpetuity would ensue though it was argued in that case that it was given upon a Contingency to the younger Son which would soon be Determined and end in a short time Chief Baron Mountague put this for Law a Term may be limited to one and the Heirs Males of his Body upon a Contingency to happen first with Limitation over if that Contingency do not happen it is a good Limitation as if a Term be limited to the Wife for Life and then to the Eldest Son if he over-live his Mother and the Heirs Males of his Body the remainder over to a younger Son if the Eldest Son dye in the life of the Mother the Limitation to the second Son may be good but if there be an Instant Estate Tail created of a Term tho there be a Contingency as to the expectation of him in remainder yet this is such a Total Disposition of a Term as after which no Limitation of a Term can be and so the Judges were of Opinion that the Plaintiff had no Right to the Term but the decree ought to be for the Defendant The Lord Chancellor Nottingham differed from the Judges and Decreed for the Plaintiff He put some steps or Preliminaries which he agreed with them and which were clear 1. That the Term in question though it were attendant on the Inheritance at first yet upon the hapning of the Contingency it s become a Term in gross 2. That the Trust of a Term in gross can be limited no otherwise in Equity than the Estate of a Term in gross can be limited in Law 3. The legal Estate of a Term for years whether it be a long or a short Term cannot be limited to any Man in Tail with the remainder over to another after his death without Issue this is a direct perpetuity 4. If a Term be limited to a Man and his Issue and if that Issue die without Issue the remainder over the Issue of that Issue takes no Estate and yet because the remainder over cannot take place till the Issue of that Issue fail that remainder is void too Reeves Case 5. If a Term be limited to a Man for his life and after to his First Second and Third Son in Tail Successively and for default of such Issue the remainder over though the Contingency never happen yet the remainder is void though there were never a Son born to him that looks like a perpetuity Sir William Buckhursts Case 6. One Case more and that is Burgesss Case A Term is limited to one for life with Contingent remainders to his Sons in Tail with remainder over to his Daughter though he had no Son yet because it was foreign and distant to expect a remainder after the death of a Son to be born without Issue that having a prospect of a perpetuity was adjudged void 7. If a Term be Devised or Trust of a Term limited to one for life with twenty remainders for life Successively and all the Persons in Esse at the time of such limitation these are all good remainders 8. A Term is Devised to one for 18. years after to C. his Eldest Son for life and then to the Eldest Issue Male of C. for life though C. had not any Issue Male at the time of the Devise or death of the Devisor but before the death of C. it s good being a Contingency that would speedily be worn out Cotton and Heaths Case for there may be a Possibility upon a Possibility and a Contingency upon a Contingency and in truth every Executory devise is so and therefore the contrary Rule given by Lord Popham in the Rector of Chedingtons Case is not Reason These things were agreed by all But the Point is The Trust of a term for 200 years is limited to Henry in Tail provided if Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry so that the Earldom shall descend upon Henry then to go to Charles in Tail and whether this be a Limitation to Charles in Tail is the Question My Lord Chancellor conceived it a good Limitation as a springing Trust to arise upon a Contingency and which is not of a remote or long Consideration As for the Legal Reasons of this Opinion they were these 1. Many Men have no Estates but what consist in Leases for years Now it would be absurd to say That he who has no other Estate than what consists in Leases for years should be uncapable to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family though they are directly in his immediate prospect he shall not make provisions for Wife and Children upon Marriage 2. It was the Opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton That had it been thus Penned it had been good If Thomas die without Issue Male living Henry so that the Earldom descend upon Henry then the 200 years limited to him and his Issue shall cease but then a new Term of 200 years shall arise and be limited to the same Trustees for the benefit of Charles in Tail Now what difference is there why a man may not raise a new springing Trust upon the same Term as well as a new springing Term upon the same Trust It is true in 6 Ed. 6. in the time of Lord Chancellor Rich all the Judges delivered their Opinion If a Term of years be devised to one provided if Devisee die living I. S. then to go to I. S. is absolutely void But in 19 Eliz. Dier fo 277 328. it was held by the Judges to be a good Remainder Executory Remainder and that was the first time that an Executory Remainder of a Term was held to be good As for Child and Bayles Case the Case is truly Reported by Crook A Term of 70 years is devised to Dorothy for life then to William and his Assigns all the rest of the Term provided that if William die without Issue living at the time of his death then to Thomas which is in effect the present Case but there was more in it William had the whole Term to him and his
of the premisses were accrued to the said Plaintiffs but that by reason of the said Proviso and several Ambiguities in the said Deed it was doubtful to what parts the Plaintiffs Settlement with Proviso not to attempt the impeachment of it Court dirccted a Trial at Law and that the Trial should be no forfeiture the Heirs general were intitled unto so to be protected against the said Proviso and to have the partition of the Lands is the Bill His Lordship declared it was most fit that a Trial at Law be had touching the Plaintiffs Right and Title and that such Action to be brought shall not be taken or construed a breach of the Proviso aforesaid or forfeiture of the Plaintiffs Right and Title to the premisses Smith contra Sallett 24 Car. 2. fo 382. THe Bill is to have an Issue directed by this Court to try whether the Fines of the Copyholders due to the Lord of the Mannor were certain or arbitrary The Defendant insisted Fines of Copyholder whether certain or arbitrary it having been tried at Law the Court would not relieve the Plaintiff other than for the preservation of Witnesses That there had been several Trials already and Verdicts have passed for a Fine certain and particularly one in Ejectment before Mr. Justice Windham and another before the Lord Chief Justice Hales upon a Special Issue directed out of the Exchequer Whether the Fines were certain at 8 d. an Acre and 8 d. a Cottage or not And a Verdict passed on both Trials for a Fine certain This Court declared They could not relieve the Plaintiff in Equity other than for the preservation of Testimony and dismissed the Plaintiffs Bill Lewis contra Lewis al' 24 Car. 2. fo 664. This is on a Case stated viz. THat the Lord St. Will. John and his Trustees demised a Lease on the premisses for 99 years unto the Defendant Turner if the Plaintiff Alice then Wife of Dr. William Lewis and Theodore Lewis Son of the said Dr. Lewis and one Feilder or either of them should so long live That this Lease was made at the nomination of and in Trust for the said Dr. Lewis That after in July 1666. the Doctor made his Will and as to the premisses devised them to the said Alice for life and after her death then to the said Theodore Lewis to be disposed of as the said Doctor shall appoint them by his Will in writing or Deed and of his Will made the said Alice his Executrix That in March 1667. by a Declaration in writing to which the said Doctor and the Defendant Turner are parties and executed by them both the Trust of the premisses was thus declared viz. for the said Doctor for life afterwards for such person or persons as the said Doctor by his Will or Deed should appoint and in default then for the Executors or Administrators of the said Doctor That in July 1667. the Doctor died without making any other Will or Deed or other Appointmen for the disposing of the premisses That Alice by virtue of the said Will and Deed entred and possessed the premisses That it appears also in the Case Parol Declaration of ones Intent not good against a Declaration in writing some Proof was offered touching a Parol Declaration of the said Dr. Lewis his Intention that the Son Theodore should have the benefit of the said Lease but that being by Parol against a Declaration in writing the Court conceived it not material in the Case and that it is also in the Case that the said Theodore claimeth so much of the term as should be behind at the death of the said Alice and that the said Alice claims the whole term as Executrix to the said Dr. Lewis The Court at the first Hearing was assisted with the Mr. Justice Atkyns Trust of a term devised to J.S. and then to J. D. to be disposed of as the Testator should appoint by his Will or Writing He makes a Writing and declares it to himself for life and after to such persons as he should by Will or Deed appoint and for default of that to his Executors and made no other Will or Deed the Executor shall have it who inclined to be of Opinion for the said Theodore and that the said Defendant Turner the Trustee ought to execute the Trust for him But his Lordship differing in Opinion and having since advised upon the Case with Mr. Justice Windham and several other of the Judges who were all clear of Opinion That according to the Declaration in writing the Plaintiff Alice the Executrix is well intituled to the benefit of the said Lease This Court therefore doth decree That Turner the Trustee do execute the trust and convey and assign the said Lease and the remainder of the term therein to the Plaintiff Alice or whom she shall appoint Lance contra Norman 24 Car. 2. fo 233. THe Plaintiff Lance his Suit is Recognizance that the day before the Marriage of the Plaintiff and his Wife the said Plaintiffs Wife was perswaded to enter into a Recognizance of 2000 l. without defezance to the Defendant Norman being the Plaintiffs Wives Brother to which the Plaintiff was not privy or consented which Recognizance the Plaintiff seeks to have set aside and vacated The Defendant Norman insists That the Plaintiff was Suiter to his Sister designing to gain her Estate but she not likely to have Children intended the said Defendant Norman part of her Estate and upon that account gave the said Recognizance and at that time the said Norman was in the Country and no ways knowing of it nor had contrivance in it but the said Plaintiff proving unkind to his Wife and turned her out of doors and parted with her not making any provision for her This Defendant hath put the same in Suit The Plaintiff insisted that his said Wife voluntarily absented from him and took and conveyed awaygreat part of his Estate and hath acted as a most insolent and undutiful Wife and entred into the said Recognizance without his privity This Court being assisted with the Judges was satisfied that the said Recognizance was entred into the very day before Marriage without defezance or the Plaintiffs privity whereby to defraud the Plaintiff and one witness only deposed the Plaintiffs consent to the drawing the said Recognizance who hath an Assignment of the same to himself The Court decreed the said Recognizance to be set a side A Recognizance entred into by the Wife the day before Marriage set a side and a perpetual injunction and vacated on the Record thereof and a perpetual injunction is granted against it and this Court proposed on the said Plaintiffs Wives returning back all the Estate which she took and conveyed away that the Plaintiff do allow her 20 l. per Annum which was consented to by the Plaintiff for her separate maintainance Howard Vxor contra Hooker 2 Car. 2. fo 587. BIll is to set aside a
the hazard and contingency of the said Adventure Mortgaged and the length of time since the Mortgage the Plaintiff ought to be admitted to a Redemption of the said Adventure Sowton contra Cutler and Clerke 27 Car. 2. fo 676. THe Bill is to call the Defendant Cutler to an account for Wares delivered him and Monies paid to and for him amounting to 3000 l. Foreign Attachment and to be releived against an Attachment in the Lord Mayors Court by the Defendant Clerke whereby he Attached 2000 l. in the Plaintiffs hands supposing the Plaintiff to be so much indebted to the Defendant Cutler and that Cutler is indebted to Clerke in a a greater Sum So the Plaintiff Exhibited an English Bill in the Mayors Court for Relief therein upon which Bill the Plaintiff could not proceed his Witnesses living out of the Jurisdictions of that Court so the Plaintiff prays a Certiorari to remove the said Proceedings into this Court The Defendant Clerke hath pleaded Custom of London That by the Custom of the City of London any Creditor in the Name of any other person may make an Attachment of his own Mony in the hands of his Debtor it not being material whether such Creditor be really indebted to the person so Attaching And the said Clerke further pleaded That the said English Bill was to the same effect with this Bill and is not dismist and demurred to that part which prays a Certiorari to remove the said Proceedings on the Attachment and English Bill for that it is not practicable to remove Records out of a Latin Court to an English Court which cannot hold the Plea thereof nor for the Plaintiff to remove his own Bill by Certiorari This Court held the said Plea to be Insufficient No Certiorari allowed to remove Proceedings by English Bill in the Lord Mayors Court into Chancery and Over-ruled the same and the Defendant Clerke to answer that part of the Bill But as to that part of the Bill which requires the Certiorari held the Demurrer to be good and ordered a Procedendo to the Lord Mayor c. that they may proceed upon the same Attachment but at the same time an Injunction to Issue to stay the Defendants proceedings on the said Attachment in question Newport contra Kinaston 27 Car. 2. fo 517. THe Point in difference arising upon the Will of the Lady Katherine Leveson Legacy the Question being Whether 500 l. mentioned in her Will be thereby devised to Mrs. Katherine Newport or Mrs. Snead who were both her Grand-daughters it being thus exprest in the said Will viz. To my Kinswoman the Lady Diana Newport Wife to my Lord Newport I bequeath my Diamond Pendants which cost 400 l. and to her Daughter Mrs. Katherine Newport my God-daughter a Jewel set with Diamonds wishing her all happiness and 500 l. to my God daughter Mrs. Katherine Snead I give and bequeath a Diamond Bodkin and an Emrod Border I also give her as a Token of my Love to her self a power to alter or add to her said Will and by a Codicil annexed to her Will and made part thereof And after a Legacy given to Mr. Richard Newport of 400 l. in Gold it follows thus viz. Also I give unto his Sister Mrs. Katherine Newport my God-daughter 500 l. in Silver And after two other Legacies intervening it is thus exprest viz. Also I give unto my God daughter Katherine Snead 100 l. more than I have given her in my Will by which said Will and Codicil the said Mrs. Katherine Newport doth conceive that there is two 500 l. Upon the Construction of the Words of a Will two 500 Pounds Legacies to one person decreed devised unto her 500 l. by her Will and 500 l. in Silver by the Codicil and the Executors scruple to pay the same for that the said Mrs. Katherine Snead doth claim the said 500 l. given by the Will to belong unto her so that Mrs. Katherine Newport seeks to have the two 500 ls by the Will and Codicil But Mrs. Snead insists That the 500 l. given by the Will as aforesaid belongs to her and is so intended and not to Mrs. Newport by the most Grammatical and reasonable Construction of the Will and Codicil This Court upon Reading of the said Will was fully satisfied both by Construction of the said Will and by the Intention of the said Lady Leveson that both the 500 l. given by the said Will and the 500 l. given by the Codicil were given and do belong to the said Mrs. Newport and decreed the said Executors to pay her the 1000 l. accordingly Wyrall contra Hall 27 Car. 2. fo 516. THe Testator made his Will A good Will though no Executor named but named no Executor This Court declared the Will to be a good Will Price contra Evans 27 Car. 2. fo 460. THe Plaintiffs Title is under an Occupant Title under an Occupant demurred to and allowed The Defendant demurred This Court allowed the Demurrer for that a Title under an Occupant this Court will not Countenance nor give any Relief thereof Lambert contra Greene 27 Car. 2. fo 122. THe Defendant Cicily Greene demandeth an Allowance for a Third part of a Tenement and Ground for the Remainder of a Term of 99 years The Case is thus viz. For 80 l. the same were Assigned in 1655. Lease not a customary Chattel to Henry Hall for Remainder of a Term of 99 years in Trust for the Defendants Testator William Greene and the Remainder Expectant upon the said Term conveyed to the said Testator and his Heirs which Demand is submitted to the Judgment of this Court This Court declared That the said Lease was not a Customary Chattel and would not allow the Defendant's Demands Lucking contra Rushworth 28 Car. 2. fo 801. THat John Pincheon deceased After a Statute acknowledged and a Mortgage the Conisors Trustees renew the Leases in their own Names yet Decreed liable to the Statute borrowed of the Plaintiffs Father 4000 l. for which he mortgaged Freehold and Copy-hold Lands and also for farther Security entred into a Statute but the Terms in the Leases being expired the Defendants as Trustees have renewed the said Leases with the Colledge in their own Names in Trust for the Children of Pincheon and so deny the same are liable to the Plaintiffs debt This Court was satisfied the Plaintiffs debt being secured by Statute as well as by Mortgage ought to be satisfied out of all the Estate of the said Pincheon in Law or Equity and that the Renewals of the said Leases in the Names of the Trustees ought not to shelter or protect the Estate against the Plaintiffs debt for that though the Plaintiffs Mortgage did bind but a particular part of the Estate yet the Statute did bind the whole Estate and the Statute binding the whole Estate in its own nature though no mention were made of subjecting the same by the Will to the
the premisses as aforesaid for that Mary sued her Mother and had her portion out of the personal Estate and though the Defendants Father might intend to give the Plaintiffs Father the premisses and sealed a Deed for that purpose yet he altered his Mind and never perfected it and there was no Consideration for his so doing And the Defendant insists He ought to enjoy the premisses for that by the Plaintiffs own shewing his Title is defective and therefore ought not to receive any countenance in a Court of Equity against the Defendant who is Heir at Law to his Father and Grandfather and comes in and ought to have the Aid of the Court to protect his Title But the Plaintiffs Council insisted That the Defendants detaining of the said Deed is a Fraud and the Consideration of making the said Deed is valuable Defect of Livery and Seisin aided in Chancery and there is no defect therein but want of Livery and Seizin which defect this Court hath often supplied when no Fraud appears in gaining the Deed. This Court the said Deed appearing to be fairly executed by the Defendants Father and that there was no defect therein save only the form of Livery and Seizin and made on such valuable Consideration as Marriage decreed the Defendant to execute Livery and Seizin in the said Deed and make farther assurance of the said premisses to the Plaintiff and his Heirs and the Plaintiff is decreed to enjoy the same against the Defendant Barker contra Hill 33 Car. 2. fo 278. THe Plaintiff having Contracted with the Defendants Father for the purchase of a Copyhold Estate Upon a Contract for Copy-hold Estate and purchase Mony paid the Bargainor dies before Surrender his Heir decreed to surrender the Plaintiff paid the purchase Mony and the Defendants Father agreed to surrender the premisses at next Court and said He had made a Surrender lately to the use of his Will which would enure to the benefit of any Purchaser but before next Court day and any Surrender made the Defendants Father died so the Bill is to have the Defendant his Son and Heir to confirm the Plaintiffs purchase by Surrender or otherwise as this Court shall direct This Court decreed the Defendant when he came of Age to surrender effectually the premisses to the Plaintiff and the Lord of the Mannor presently to admit the Plaintiff Tenant to the premisses Bonnington contra Walthall 33 Car. 2. fo 37. THe Defendant Walthall claims an Annuity of 100 l. per An. Annuity and Interest out of the Estate in question ever since August 1642. with Interest by virtue of a Deed of that date made by himself to Mr. Serjeant Willmot and others whereby it is appointed that the Trustees in the said Deed should dispose of the Monies by them raised by profits and sale of the premisses for payment to the said Defendant and his Assigns during his life and the life of Peter Bonnington the yearly Sum of 100 l. and the said demand of the said 100 l. per Annum and Interest being a Matter of great value and moment in the Cause it is referred to the Judgment of the Court whether all or how long the said 100 l. per Annum shall or ought to be allowed in this point as also the original Cause which was heard 19 Nov. 1679. coming now to be heard again The Plaintiff insisted That the 100 l. per Annum if it was created the same determined by the death of Peter Bonnington But the Defendant Walthall insists to have Allowance for the said Annuity of 100 l. and Interest for the same for 40 years past whereas the Plaintiff insists That the 100 l. per Annum never was nor ought to be allowed to the Defendant for that the Deed of August 1642. under which the Defendant claims the said 100 l. per Annum the same was to be paid in the first place before debts and there being a debt due to one Chambers which the said Defendant brought in against which debt if the said Annuity had been real the Defendant would have opposed the payment of his said 100 l. per Annum being to be paid in the first place and the Defendant not demanding the said Annuity in 40 years and suffering debts to be paid before it it ought to be adjudged a Trust for Peter Bonnington and the rather for that no Consideration appears for such Annuity The Defendant insists That the Plaintiff admits it a Trust and seeks Relief only for the Surplus after Trusts satisfied and determined and this Trust being Continuing the same with Arrears and Interest ought to be paid to the said Walthall This Court on reading the said Deed Annuity not being demanded in 40 years time conceived to be a Trust saw no Consideration for granting the said Annuity and it never being demanded this Court conceived it was a Trust for Bonnington and would not charge the Estate therewith and decreed the Estate to be discharged thereof Ring contra Hele 33 Car. 2. fo 270. THe Plaintiffs Rings Bill is for the Writings and Estate of Sir Henry Hele which he claims by virtue of an Agreement made by the said Sir Henry and him wherein it was agreed that the said Sir Henry should settle his Lands in Wigborough and Bridges in Com' Sommerset on himself for life after to the Heirs of his Body with power to make his Wife a Joynture of Wigborough and to grant Estates thereout for three lives with a Remainder to the Plaintiff Ring and the Heirs of his Body if he Survived and Sir Henry died without Issue with Remainder to Sir Henry's right Heirs with power to Sir Henry to sell Pooles Tenement part of the premisses and Sir Henry was forthwith to suffer a Recovery to dock the Intail of the premisses Consideration and in consideration thereof the Plaintiff Ring was to settle his Estate in Dorset and Sommerset to the use of himself in Tail with Remainder in Tail to Sir Henry Hele with Remainder in Fee to the Plaintiff and that if either party leave Issue to be at liberty to make new dispositions as he pleased That Sir Henry imployed one Chubb and Patten to assist the Plaintiff Ring in Surveying Sir Henry's Estate and after both the Plaintiff Ring and Sir Henry went to Counsel who advised a Deed of bargain and sale of the said Estate from Sir Henry to the Plaintiff Ring which was executed between the said Sir Henry and the Plaintiff Ring and Inrolled and bears date the 26 of March 1673 That before the said Recovery the Plaintiff Ring prepared another Deed dated the 6th of May following to lead the uses thereof according to the said Agreements and a draught of a Settlement of the Plaintiff Rings Estate on Sir Henry both which being perused and approved by Sir Henry were also executed and the Deed to lead the uses of the Recovery recited the said Agreement and Inrolled Deed to make the Defendant
Assigns Dorothy was Executrix and granted the Lease to William And the Record goes further After the death of Thomas without Issue it was to go the Daughter which was a plain affectation of a Perpetuity but however this Case is contradicted by other Resolutions Cotton and Heath before cited and Wood and Sanders in this Court which was this a long Lease is limited and declared thus To the Father for 60 years if he lived so long then to the Mother for 60 years if she lived so long then to John and his Executors if he survived his Father and Mother and if he died in their life time having Issue then to his Issue but if he die without Issue living the Father or Mother then the Remainder to Edward in Tail John died without Issue in the life time of the Father and Mother It was Resolved by Lord Keeper Bridgman assisted by two Judges That the Remainder to Edward was good The whole Term had vested in John if he had survived yet the Contingency never hapning and so wearing out in the compass of two Lives in being the Remainder over to Edward might well be limited upon it Object Where will you stop if not at Child and Bayles Case Resp Every where where there is apparent danger of a Perpetuity but so is not this Case The Equitable Reasons were 1. It was Prudence in the Earl to take care that when the Honour descended upon Henry a little better support should be given to Charles who was the next Man and trod upon the Heels of the Inheritance 2. It was very probable and almost morally certain that Thomas would die without Issue he being not of a good state of Body or Mind and while such they were circumspect that he should not Marry 3. It s an hard thing for a Son to tell his Father That the provision he has made for his younger Brothers is void in Law But it is much harder for him to tell him so in Chancery for there no Conveyance is ever to be set aside where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction The Law doth in many Cases allow of a future Contingent Estate to be Limited where it will not allow a present Remainder to be Limited A man hath an Estate Limited to him his Heirs and Assigns this is a Fee-simple but if he die without Issue living I.S. or in such a short time to I. D. this is good Though it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet it s not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee Pell and Brownes Case If a Lease comes to be limited in Tail the Law allows not a present Remainder to be limited thereupon yet it will allow a future Estate arising upon a Contingency only and that to wear out in a short time The Limitation in Wood and Sanders Case is after an express Entail and yet Adjudged good because it was a Remainder upon a Contingency that was to happen during two Lives which was but a short Contingency and the Law might very well expect the hapning of it But our Case is stronger because it is only during one life It was decreed the Plaintiff should enjoy this Barony for the residue of the Term and the Defendants to make him a Conveyance accordingly and to account with the Plaintiff for the Profits received since the death of Duke Thomas and which they or any of them might have received without wilful default The Duke of Norfolk exhibited a Bill of Review in Chancery to which Charles Howard put in a Plea and Demurrer which was Argued before Lord Keeper North and he Over-ruled the said Plea and Demurrer and Reverst the Lord Chancellors Decree But afterwards this Decree was Reverst in Parliament and the first Decree affirmed in behalf of Charles Howard Turner contra Crane 34 Car. 2. fo 668. THat Robert Newell and his Wife Copyhold Mortgage for 220 l. paid by the Plaintiffs Wife Susan then a Widow did Surrender the Copyhold Premisses to the use of the said Susan and her Heirs on condition that the said Robert Newell and his Wife 's paying to the said Susan her Executors and Assigns 230 l. in March next after then the Mortgage to be void and the Mony not being paid the said Susan was admitted to the premisses and afterwards Marryed the Plaintiff and they received the profits of the premisses and afterwards Susan died Intestate no ways indebted leaving Susan her Daughter by the Plaintiff her Heir an Infant and the said Susan the Infant was admitted by the Plaintiff her Guardian Admittance of Guardian as Heir to Susan the Mother who received the profits and died leaving the Defendant Jane Crane her Aunt as Heir and she was admitted and the Plaintiff on Susan the Daughters death took Administration of Susan the Mothers Estate and claims the Mortgaged Lands insisting That though the Defendant Jane was Heir to Susan the Daughter who was Heir to Susan the Mother yet the premisses being a Mortgage belonged to him as Administrator to Susan the Mother This Court would consider of this Case and of Cases of Mortgages in Fee where no Covenant is made for the payment of the Mortgage-Mony to the Executor or Administrator and no debts owing by the Mortgagee whether the Heir or Administrator of the Mortgagee shall have the Lands This Court upon reading Presidents declared The Heir of the Mortgagee in Fee there being no debts owing shall have the Redemption Mony and I not the Administrator That he was fully satisfied that the Plaintiff as Administrator to the said Susan ought not to have the mortgaged premisses from the Defendant Jane Crane the Heir of the Heir of the said Mortgagee but the said Jane ought to enjoy the same and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Dowse contra Percivall 34 Car. 2. fo 186. THe Plaintiffs Father John Dowse Lessee purchased the Inheritance in Trustees Names and dies Intestate This Lease shall attend the Inheritance took a Lease of the City and afterwards purchased the Inheritance in Trustees Names for him and his Heirs and the said Dowse died Intestate the Defendant his Wife as Administratrix claims this Lease to belong to his personal Estate This Court decreed it to attend the Inheritance Magistr ' c. Vniversit ' Colleg ' in Oxon ' contra Foxcroft 34 Car. 2. fo 522. THe Bill is to Revive a former Decree made against the Defendants Father whereby the said Defendants Father was decreed to pay the Plaintiff 2000 l. and Interest To which the Defendant demurs A Decree and Sequestration against one who dies this shall not be Revived against his Heir or Real Estate though it were for Mony payable on the behalf of a Charity for that the said Defendants Father against whom the said Decree and a Sequestration is had is dead whereupon the Sequestration being granted purely for his Contempt of a Decree which was for a personal duty only
the same could never by any subsequent Act come into the Administration of the Estate of Sir Martin What Act amounts to an Assent of a Legacy and that every Act of the Defendant Robinson was a plain Assent to the Legacy to the Plaintiffs and it is plain the premisses were devisable and so the Plaintiffs Title plain and undoubted and the Plaintiffs ought to have a Decree against the Defendant to Account to them for the said Estate and ought to have the benefit of the said Lease The Defendant further insisted That by such imprudent Act as aforesaid he ought not to be Devested of the Estate but it ought to go to pay Sir Martins debts This Court declared That by the said Clause in the Lease to Worsam the Defendant had Assented to the Plaintiffs Legacies given them by the Will of their Father and that the Devise by the Will was a good Devise Devise of a Plantation in Barbados and that the premisses did well pass thereby and that the said Act of the Defendant Robinson being voluntary had put the Estate out of the power of the Creditors of Sir Martin or out of the power of any Administrator de bonis non of him Decree the Plaintiffs to have the benefit and the Defendants to assign and decreed the Plaintiffs to have the benefit of the premisses and of the Lease to Worsam and the Defendants to Assign their Interests to the Plaintiffs accordingly But the said Defendant desiring a re-hearing of the Cause which was on the 20th of Nov. 1682. when the Defendant insisted That the said Lease could not be an Assent for that the Defendant Robinson then claimed the premisses not as Executor or otherwise than only as Trustee for the Devisees whose Inheritance he then took the same to be and not as personal Estate upon which and other grounds the Defendant insists the said Rent and Reversion of the premisses expectant on the Determination of the Lease was and ought to be of the Testators personal Estate and to go in the ordinary course of Administration and to an Administrator de bonis non and be lyable to debts His Lordship notwithstanding what was now urged by the Defendant declared Decree by Finch he saw no cause to alter the former Decree but confirmed the same This Decree reversed by the Lord Keeper North The Decree reversed by North. and in 1683 fo 168. he heard this Cause upon the whole merits and ordered an Account And in 1686 Finch his Decree confined by Jefferys The Lord Chancellor Jefferys reheard this Cause upon the Merits and confirmed my Lord Chancellor Finch's Decree and discharged my Lord North's Decree Benson contra Bellasis 34 Car. 2. fo 848. THis Cause having received a hearing before the Lord Chancellor Nottingham 11 July 33 Car. 2. who made a Decree for excluding the Defendant Dame Dorothy Administratrix of Robert Benson the Plaintiffs Father from having any part of his personal Estate and the said Cause being heard 10 July 35 Car. 2. before the Lord Keeper North who decreed the said Defendant Dame Dorothy to retain to her own use one third part of the said personal Estate of the said Robert Benson and the said Cause being again reheard this day by the Lord Chancellor Jefferys The Case being that the said Robert Benson on his Marriage with the Defendant Dame Dorothy for the setling of a Joynture on the said Dorothy in full of all Joyntures Dowers and Thirds which she might claim out of his real and personal Estate conveyed Lands to the use of himself for life and after to the said Dorothy for life in full of all Joynturs c. as is aforesaid with this Proviso Settlement on Marriage That if the said Dorothy should after the death of the said Robert Benson have or claim to have or should recover any other part of the Lands or Tenements or any part of the personal Estate of the said Robert by the Custom of the Province of York or by any other means whatever other than what the said Robert Benson should give Bequeath or Settle upon or to her That then the Feoffees therein named should be seised of all the premisses setled in use upon the said Dorothy to the use of Sir Henry Thompson and Mr. Grayham their Executors Administrators and Assigns for 60 years to commence from the death of the said Robert if the said Dorothy should so long live Upon Special Trust that the said Thomson and Grayham should receive the profits of the premisses limited in the Joynture and they should dispose thereof to such persons and their uses as should be damnified by the said Dorothys perception of the profits of any other Lands of the said Robert or the taking or recovery of any part of the personal Estate other than what should be given or bequeathed until the respective values of the Profits or values of such Personal Estate should be fully satisfied and the residue of the said Profits to remain to the said Dorothy That the said Robert dying intestate and the said Dorothy Administring at York and in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury as Guardian to the Plaintiff Robert possessed the Real and Personal Estate prerends a Right to some part of the Personal Estate by the said Administration notwithstanding the said Marriage agreement The Lord Chancellor Nottingham declared the said Dorothy was bound by the said Marriage Agreement Marriage Agreement provided if the Wise claim any of the personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York then the Estate to other use Decreed she is bound by the said Settlement and ought not to claim any part of the personal Estate by Finch and the Administration ought to have been granted to her and that however the same ought not any ways to avail her for that it would be contrary to the said Settlement and Agreement and that the said Dorothy ought not to claim any part of the Real Estate other than what was Setled on her by the said deed or any of the Personal Estate and decreed accordingly But the Defendant Dorothy insisted Reversed by North. That the Lord Keeper North had adjudged one third of the Personal Estate to belong to the Defendant by virtue of the said Administration and was an accrewing Right not barred by the Marriage Agreement The Lord Chancellor Jefferies Confirmed by Jeffreys on reading the said Marriage Settlement and the said two former Orders declared That the said Order for the Excluding of the said Defendant Dorothy from having any part of the Personal Estate was a just Order and ought to stand and be pursued and that the said Order of the Lord Keeper Norths before mentioned ought to be set aside and Decreed accordingly Stapleton contra Dom. Sherwood 34 Car. 2. fo 732. THat Sir Phillip Stapleton the Plain tiffs Father Bill for Distribution of the personal Estate on his Marriage with his first Wife Setled
the Mannor of Warter in the County of York whereby he made himself but Tenant for life the Inheritance vesting in the Plaintiff his Eldest Son and Sir Phillip had Issue by his first Wife the Plaintiff his Eldest Son Robert his Second Son and Mary who Marryed the other Plaintiff the Lord Merrion That Sir Phillip in 1647. by Will devised to his said Son Robert a Rent charge of 40 l. per Annum to be issuing out of the said Mannour and afterwards the said Robert died and the Defendant Dorothy his Relict Administred to the said Roberts Personal Estate so the Plaintiffs Bill is to have Distribution of his Personal Estate The Defendant Dorothy insisted That she as Widow of her said late Husband Robert by the Custom of York is Entituled to a Moiety of the said Personal Estate and by the late Act for setling Intestates Estates the said Defendant is Intituled to the other Moiety and insisted That Sir Phillip having Issue by several Venters which are yet alive or their Representatives they are equally intituled with the Plaintiff Stapleton This Court declared a Distribution of the said Personal Estate according to Law to be made amongst the Plaintiff Stapleton and the Child of the Lord Merrion as also the Brothers and Sisters of the said Robert as well as those of the half-Blood as those of the whole Blood and their respective Lineal Representatives who are to be called into the account And as to the point whether the Lord Merrion and his Child have the Right to his Wives share of the Estate a Case is to be made That the Master to whom the account of the Intestates Personal Estate was referred 36 Car. 2. fo 375. hath allowed to the Defendant Dorothy the Administratrix a Moiety of the said Estate of the said Intestates dying without Issue and hath Distributed the other Moiety amongst the Intestates Kindred Brothers and Sisters Whereas by the Custom of the Province of York she is not only to have a clear Moiety of the Personal Estate of her said Husband so dying without Issue after Debts c. but by the late Statute for setling Intestates Estates she is to have a Moiety of the other Moiety The Plaintiff insists That there was no Colour for the Defendant to have a Moiety of the remaining Moiety the said Statute leaving the Custom as it was without Addition Diminution or Inlargement but the Widow was to have only a Moiety and the other Moiety to be Distributed amongst the next of Kin. This Court for the further satisfaction The Custom of the Province of York Certified by the Arch-Bishop ordered the Lord Arch-Bishop of the Province of York to testifie when a man dies Intestate within that Province without Issue after his Debts c. paid how the Residue is to be Distributed by the Custom of the Province The Bishop certified That in such Cases as aforesaid the Widow of the Intestate by the Custom of the Province had usually allotted to her one Moiety of the clear Personal Estate and the other Moiety hath been Distributed amongst the next of Kin to the Intestate and that had been the constant practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts at York The Plaintiff insisted That the Custom of that Province is excepted out of the Act of Parliament and if it were within the Act it ought to have the more favourable construction on their part because it was made in favour of them and not of the Widow and Administratrix who before the said Act usually went away with the whole Estate unless more particular instances prevented This Court declared The Widow by the Custom of the Province of York shall have the Moiety but not another Moiety by the Act of Settlement of Intestates Estates They could not expound the Act to give the Defendant more than a Moiety that being the proportion allotted to her by the Custom and also by the Act if it had not been a Case within the Custom which Custom is confirmed because it appoints the same kind of Distribution with the Act and it would be a strein to give her more than a Moiety part by the Custom and part by the Act and refers to the Masters Report made in this Cause Coventry contra Hall 34 Car. 2. fo 330. THat Sir Thomas Thynn Bill for mean profits Father both of Sir Henry Frenderick Thynn and Sir James Thynn conveyed on Sir Henry Frenderick and his Heirs Males of his Body expectant after the decease of him the said Sir Thomas the Mannour of Hempsford and other Lands and soon after dyed and the said Sir Henry Frederick possessed the said premisses but Sir James Thynn pretending the said Conveyance was Defective Sir Henry Frederick in Oct. 1650. obtained a decree that the said Sir Henry Frederick and the Heirs of his Body should enjoy the said premisses against the said Sir James Thynn and his Heirs according to the intent of the said Settlement That Sir James Thynn insisting That Sir Thomas was but Tenant for life and not Seized in Fee of the premisses having suffered Recoveries so that the Freehold was in the said Sir James or some other for his use by virtue whereof he received the profits which Sir Henry Frederick ought to have received That Sir Henry not being able to recover the said mean profits at Law by reason of the defect in the said Conveyance which is now supplyed and setled by the said decree and Act of Parliament so that the said Sir Henry hath the right to the said profits and writings So the Bill is to be relieved for the same and to have an account thereof The Defendant insisted That there ought to be no account of the mean profits the demand thereof being very old and is grounded on a decree in a former Cause whereby a defect in a Conveyance under which the Plaintiff claims was supplyed and there is no provision in the said decree for mean profits though the Bill originally was such as this Court might have decreed mean profits and when the Decree was made it was not granted nor any farther relief than only possession and the possession hath been so unconstantly in any one person that it is very difficult especially after so long time against an Executor that is no way privy to the accounts of the Testator The Plaintiff insisted That though the demand on the decree is Antient and a prosecution hath been for the same ever since and the Right being determined the Plaintiff ought to have an account of the mean profits as the Consequences of that Right though the Original Bill might pray an account and the decree be silent as to that point This Court declared That considering this case as if there were no Act of Parliament the Plaintiff hath a right to demand an account upon an equity that ariseth on the Marriage Agreement and Settlement made in pursuance thereof notwithstanding the length of time for that the Plaintiff
said Francis Pawlet and the other Trustees Executors Will pursuant to a Settlement for raising Portion That Vere Pawlet one of the said Daughters died and the Plaintiff her Mother took Administration to her Estate and thereby intitles her self to the said Portions of 4000 l. appointed to be paid to the said Vere at her Age or day of Marriage And the Question now being Whether the Plaintiff by virtue of such Administration is intituled to the Portion of her said Daughter Vere who died before her Age or day of Marriage and the Trustees should be compelled to raise the same out of the Trust of the Term of 500 years which was granted out of the Defendant the now Lord Pawlet the Infants Inheritance This Court upon perusal of Presidents declared Difference between a Legacy and a Trust they did not find any of the Presidents that came up to this Case and conceived there was a great difference between a Legacy and a Trust for that a Trust is expounded according to the intent of the party but a Legacy is governed by the Rules of Common Law and an Executor who is to have the residue in one case is not of so great regard as the Heir who is to have the residue in the other Settlement for the raysing of 4000 l. Portion to two Daughters to be paid at Age or day of Marriage one dye before her Portion shall not go to her Administrator but the Heir shall take profits That this case is of general concern to all Families for it was grown a thing of course to charge the younger Childrens Portions upon the Heirs Estate which would not have been charged but for these occasions of providing for Children And in this case the time of payment never hapning but becoming impossible by the death of the Child before the Portion was payable the Plaintiff has no right to demand it And it were hard for this Court to make a Strain against the Heir where the consideration failes for which the Portion was given viz. the advancement of the Children and altho' there were a Will in the case yet it refers to the Deed and was made at the same time so that it does not at all alter the consideration of the Case and it would be hard to decree the payment presently for that were to wrong the Heir who is to have the proceed of the Mony beyond the maintainance until the time of payment This Court saw no ground to take it from the Heir at Law to give it to an Administrator who might have been a Stranger and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill The Presidents used in this Cause for the Administrators were Rowley contra Lancaster Brown contra Bruen Clobery contra Lampen The President for the Heir Gold contra Emery This Cause was heard in Parliament and the dismission confirmed Woodhall contra Benson al' 36 Car. 2. fo 314. THat John Wirley deceased Settlement Will. being possessed of divers Mannors and Lands for 320 years that the said Term came to the Defendants Adams and Shagburgh in Trust for payment of Monies and after in Trust for Edward Colley Grandson of John Wirley for his life and after his decease to the Plaintiff Ann late Wife of the said Edward Colley and the said Plaintiff Ann to have 130 l. per Annum for her life which Settlement was made in consideration of Marriage and after the death of Edward Colley the Trustees were directed to permit the Heirs Males of Edward on the Plaintiff Ann to be begotten to receive the residue of the profits and in case of no Issue Male of her there is provision for Daughters and Limitations over to the said Edward Colley's Heirs Males and it was also declared that in case the Plaintiff Ann should Survive the said Edward then she to have the moiety of the Mannor house for her life that the Trust limited to the Heirs Males of Edward and the Remainders thereupon depending are void and the benefit of the whole Trust was in Edward for that the Trust would not be Intailed That by another Deed it was declared by the said Edward Colley and his said Trustees that in case the Plaintiff Ann should have no Issue she should have the whole Mannor house above the 130 l. per Annum and by another Deed the said Edward Colley by consent of his said Trustees declared in case the said Edward should die leaving the Plaintiff Ann no Issue and should not otherwise dispose of the residue of the profits of the premisses over and above the Rents and Charges payable as aforesaid then his said Trustees after his death should by Sale or Leases of the premisses pay all debts and after all debts paid to permit the Plaintiff to receive the residue of the profits for her life and after her death to permit the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same That the Trust for the right Heirs of Edward was void and reverted and the said Edward did afterwards declare that in case he had no Issue he intended to leave his whole Estate to the Plaintiff Ann. That the said Edward 22 Jan. 26 Car. 2. made his Will in writing reciting the Agreement in the last Deed touching payment of his debts and after some small Legacies devised to his said Trustees all the rest of his personal Estate in Trust that they should pay his debts as aforesaid and declared his meaning to be that his Executors after his debts paid should deliver the overplus to the Plaintiff Ann deducting 5 l. a-piece for their pains and all charges That Edward soon after dying the overplus belonged to the Plaintiff and the said Trustees possessed the premisses and the personal Estate and the Plaintiff Ann having since intermarryed the Plaintiff Woodhal whereby the whole belongs and remains unto him in right of his Wife and the said Trustees ought to Assign to the said Plaintiff But the said Trustees pretend the Trust and Term aforesaid doth after the Plaintiff Anns death belong unto the Defendant Gabriel Ciber and Jane his Wife she being the only Sister and Heir at Law of the said Edward Colley That the Defendant Benson knowing of the Will and Settlement aforesaid purchased the premisses of the Defendant Ciber and his Wife and the Trustees Assigned to him The Defendants the Trustees insisted That their names were used in the Marriage Settlement of Edward Colley upon his Marriage with the Plaintiff Ann in which Settlement was recited a Conveyance made by John Wirley whereby he did demise the Trusts therein mentioned and the premisses in Trusts as to Clark's Farm for such persons as he or his Executors should by Will or otherwise direct and several other persons upon several other Trusts and as to several parcels of the said premisses which the said Defendant conceived was the Estate lately enjoyed by Edward Colley in Trust for such persons as the said John Wirley should direct and for want of such appointment to
Kindid before distribution that share shall go to her or his Executors or Administrators and not to the Survivor next of Kindred to the first Intestate and before any actual distribution made vest an Interest in the respective persons appointed to have distribution of the surplus of his Estate as much as if it had been Bequeathed by Will and that if any one of them dye before distribution tho' within the year yet the part or share of such person so dying ought to go over to the Executors or Administrators of such party so dying and not to the Survivor or next of Kindred to the first Intestate and that the Lady Katherine was at her death well intituled to a share of her Brother Thomas Wentworths Estate as an Interest thereby vested in her notwithstanding she died within a year after the Intestate and before any distribution made and that the Lord Winchelsey as her Administrator is now well intituled therto and decreed a distribution and the Plaintiff the Lord Winchelsey shall have the Lady Katherines share and proportion of the said Thomas Wentworths Estate accordingly and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth shall have a like share thereof with the Defendant Lister and John Wentworth 2 Jac. 2. so 315. The question being Whether the respective shares of the Plaintiff and Defendant Lister the said Lady Katherine and Elizabeth and the Defendant Lister being only of the half Blood to the Intestate and whether the Mony be vested in Lands or the Lands themselves should be accounted part of the personal Estate of the said Thomas Wentworth or not His Lordship ordered a Case to be made as to those two points The Case being viz That the said Thomas Wentworth died an Infant and unmarried leaving such Brother of the whole Blood and such Brother and Sisters of the half Blood as aforesaid who were his next of Kindred in equal degree and that upon his death a real Estate of near 2500 l. per Annum discended to the Defendant John Wentworth his Brother and Heir and that above 3000 l. of the profits of that Estate received in the Intestates life time by Dame Dorothy Norcliff and the said Trustees which belonged to him and his proper Monies were by them during his Non age and without any direction or power in their Trust but of their own Heads laid out in Purchases in Fee and Conveyances in their Names but in Trust for the said Intestates and his Heirs with this express Clause in the said Conveyances viz. in case-he at his full Age would accept the same at the Rate purchased the purchase being made with his Mony and for his advantage This Court as to the said two Points Half Blood to have an equal share with the whole Blood being assisted with Judges declared That the Plaintiff and the Defendant Lister ought each of them to have an equal share with the Defendant John Wentworth of the surplus of the personal Estate of the said Intestate and the distribution thereof ought to be made among them share and share alike and decreed accordingly And as to the other Point declared Trustees lay out the Monies of an Infant in Lands in Fee This shall be accounted part of his personal Estate he dying a Minor That the Monies laid out in the said Purchases ought to be taken and accounted for as part of the said personal Estate and distributed with the rest and decreed a Sale of the said purchased premisses and distribution thereof to be made as aforesaid Dom ' Middleton contra Middleton 1 Jac. 2. fo 793. THat Sir Thomas Middleton upon his Marriage with the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta Middleton Devise setled a great part of his Estate in Com' Flint and other Countries for her Joynture being seised in Fee of Lands in several Countries viz. Flint Denbigh and Merioneth and setled all his Estate on his first and other Sons on her Body in Tail Male and charged the same with several Terms of years for raising Portions for Daughters viz. If one Daughter and no Issue male 8000 l. and out of his personal Estate intending to make an addition to the Portion of the Plaintiff Charlotta his only Child and to increase the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta's Fortune and Joynture made his Will in 1678. and thereby reciting that whereas upon his Marriage-Settlement it was provided That if he should have a Daughter she was to have 6000 l. Portion as his Will was and he gave to his only Daughter Charlotta in case she should have no Son living at his death 10000 l. more as an addition to her Portion to make her up the same 16000 l. and for raising of the said portions and payment of his debts and Legacies he devised all his said Lands except his Lands limited for his Wives Joynture for her life unto Trustees and their Heirs in Trust to raise out of the Rents and profits of the said premisses the several Sums mentioned for his Daughters portion and the sums of Mony thereafter mentioned and Willed That till one half of the said Daughters portion should be raised his Daughter Charlotta to have 100 l. per Annum for the first four years and afterwards 200 l. per Annum till her moiety of her portion should be raised and after payment of the said portions maintenance debts and legacies he devised the said Trustees to stand seised of all the said premisses except before excepted to the use of the Heirs males of his Body with a Remainder to the Defendant Sir Richard Middleton his Brother for life without impeachment of Waste Remainder to his first Son and Heirs males of his Body with other Remainder to the Defendants Thomas Richard and Charles Middleton Remainder to the right Heirs of the said Thomas and he bequeathed to his said Daughter Charlotta the Plaintiff his Diamond-pendants which his Wife wore and bequeathed to his Wife Dame Charlotta after his death one Annuity of 200 l. per Annum for her life to be raised out of the profits of the said premisses and bequeathed the great Silver Candlesticks to go according to his Grandmothers Will to the Heirs of his Family with his Estate as an Heir Loom and bequeathed the use of all his Goods Stock and Housholdstuff to his Wife the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta for so long as she should live at Chirke Castle and from thence he left the same to his eldest Son and Heirs or such as should be Heir male of his Family according to the limitations aforesaid and his further Will was that his said Wife should have such proportion of the Goods Housholdstuff and Stock for the stocking and furnishing of Cardigan-House and Demean being part of her Joynture as should be judged fit by her Trustees that she might be supplied with Goods and Stock requisite for her House and left to whomsoever should be his Heir all his Stable of Horses and made the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta Executrix and died in 1683. leaving the