Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1174

and Dame Elizabeth his wife, and of the said now Countess of Stamford, for to preserve the contingent estates; and to no other use or purpose.

In October 1690, the testator died; leaving Dame Elizabeth Hobart and the Countess of Stamford, his granddaughters and co-heirs at law; but neither of them had any male issue living at the time of his death.

Divers controversies afterwards arising between Sir Henry Hobart and his Lady, the appellants, and the Countess of Suffolk, relative to the testator's will, an act of parliament was passed in the year 1694, entitled, An act for settling the estate of Sir John Maynard, Knt. deceased; whereby it was, inter alia, enacted, that the real estate by the said Sir John Maynard's will given or appointed, should go unto, and be held and enjoyed by such person and persons, to and for such estates and interests, and under and subject to such charges, limitations, and appointments, and in such manner and form, as is in the said will expressed, and subject to the provisos in the said act and the said trustees were thereby authorised and impowered, to convey the said manors and lands immediately unto such person and persons, and for such estate and estates, as the same were in and by the said will limited and appointed to be conveyed, as if the said Countess of Suffolk was dead. And in this act was a proviso, that the Earl of Stamford and Sir Henry Hobart should have several terms of ninety-nine years (in case they should so long live, and survive their said wives) in the premises to their respective wives limited or appointed by the said will.

Sir Henry Hobart and his Lady afterwards died, leaving issue the respondent, their only son, and several daughters.

In Easter term 1707, the respondent exhibited his bill in the Court of Chancery, against the appellants and the Earl and Countess of Suffolk, the Lord Gorge, and Maynard Colchester and others, praying, that the trustees might convey the said manors and premises, according to the testator's will, and the said act of parliament.

On the 24th of January 1707, the cause was heard before the Lord Chancellor Cowper; when his Lordship decreed, that the defendants the Earl and Countess of Suffolk, Richard, Lord Gorge, and Maynard Colchester, should forthwith execute conveyances of [33] the said Sir John Maynard's real estate, according to his said will, and the words of the act of parliament; and that a Master should settle the conveyances so to be executed.

Accordingly the Master settled and allowed the draft of a conveyance, whereby the said estate was mentioned to be conveyed to Thomas Carter and Charles Clayton, and their heirs; habendum, to them and their heirs to the several uses, intents, and purposes in the said will and act of parliament limited, expressed, and declared; and to and for no other use, intent, or purpose whatsoever.

To the Master's report of this draft, the plaintiff excepted, for that the premises ought at least to have been limited to the use of the said Carter and Clayton and their heirs, and only in trust for such person and persons, and such estate and estates, as were in and by the said will and act of parliament limited; whereby the legal estate might be vested in the said trustees, for the better preservation of the contingent limitations, which otherwise, as the draft was prepared, were liable to be destroyed, and the testator's intention plainly defeated.

The matter of this exception came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor on the 19th of December 1709; when his Lordship declared,

That in matters executory, as in case of articles, or a will, directing a conveyance, where the words of the articles or will were improper, or informal, that court would not direct a conveyance, according to such improper or informal expressions in the articles or will, but would order the conveyance or settlement to be made in a proper and legal manner, so as might best answer the intent of the parties; and in this case, his Lordship conceived the true intent of the will to be, that the estates should be secured, as far as the rules of law would admit, to the issue male of the respective devisees, before the cross-remainders should take place; and that it was designed to be as strict a settlement as possible by law;

his Lordship therefore decreed, that in the said conveyance, where any part of the estate was limited in use to the plaintiff for ninety-nine years, if he should so long live, there should be a limitation over to trustees, and their heirs, during his life, to preserve the contingent uses in remainder; and then to the first and other sons of the plaintiff in tail male successively; and where any part of the estate was limited to the defendant the Countess of Stamford, for life, and then to the Earl for ninety-nine