Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1218

was, at the said Robert Wynn's death, let to his brother Maurice at £120 per ann. but with the addition of Cae Mawr, was then let at £178 13s. 4d. per ann.

To this report the appellant took several exceptions; and on the 15th of January 1724, the cause was heard on the exceptions, and also on the special matter of the report, before Sir Joseph Jekyll and Sir Jeffrey Gilbert, two of the then Lords Commissioners for the custody of the Great Seal; who wore pleased to over-rule the appellant's exceptions, and to declare, that the whole paternal estate of Robert Wynn, which descended to him from his ancestors the Wynns, did pass by the words in the will, of all his estate of Maesmochnant; and therefore decreed, that the appellant's bill should stand dismissed, without costs; and that the Master should deliver back the will and deeds produced before him, to the respondent.

From this decree and report the present appeal was brought; and on behalf of the appellant it was argued (P. Yorke, W. Peere Williams), that the death of his father Owen, in the life-time of Robert, who suffered the recovery and made the will, ought not to prevent the appellant from taking the premises in question, as heir of the body of his father Owen, who was the next remainder-man in tail, expectant upon the death of Robert and his brother Maurice, without issue; because it appeared to have been the intention of Robert Wynn, as well by the will as by the deed, that the premises should come to the appellant's father, and the heirs male of his body, in default of issue of the said Robert and his brother Maurice and the remainder in fee limited by the will to the testator's own right heirs, was to take place only in case of failure of heirs of the body of his cousin Owen Wynn, the appellant's father, which had yet not happened. That if this were so, the uses declared of the recovery ought in the mean time to be let in; and the appellant, as heir of the body of Owen, ought to take thereby, in the same manner as if no other appointment or disposition had been made by Robert Wynn of the premises. That if the death of Owen, in the life-time of the testator Robert, should prevent the appellant from taking any part of the premises devised by the will, yet that devise extended only to the capital messuage and demesnes of Maesmochnant, and not to any other of the testator's lands in the county of Denbigh; for they were known by different names, rated and taxed separately as distinct tenements, lay in different parishes, and were purchased, or came into the family by marriage, at several times, and some of them were purchased by the testator himself. That in case all the paternal estate of Robert Wynn, passed by the devise in the will, of all his estate of Maesmochnant; yet it was conceived that the appellant's bill ought not to have been absolutely dismissed, nor the deed of the 12th of September 1709 decreed to be delivered back to the respondent; be-[98]-cause there were general words in that deed, which comprised the lands purchased by Robert Wynn, as well as the paternal estate for Robert Wynn not only recites that he had suffered a common recovered of all his lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the said county, but by the same deed declared, that all and every person and persons who then were, or should, by virtue of the recovery therein recited, or otherwise, be seised of the premises therein mentioned, should stand seised thereof, to the uses expressed in the said deed; by which the appellant, as the only son and heir of his father Owen Wynn, became entitled to the same, as the next remainder-man in tail, after the death of Maurice the brother, without issue; and ought to have had the deed delivered up, to enable him to assert his title as he could by law, to the purchased premises, under that deed; especially since the Master's report, and the decree grounded thereon, related only to the paternal estate; whereas the title to the purchased estate remained still undetermined, and the respondent had not, nor could pretend to any title or interest whatsoever thereto, by or under the said deed.

To this it was answered (T. Lutwiche, C. Talbot) on the other side, that the will absolutely superseded the uses of the deed; and that by the death of Owen Wynn the appellant's father, in the life-time of Robert the testator, the devise to Owen and the heirs male of his body became void; the appellant could therefore derive no title by law to that devise, as heir of the body of Owen Wynn, who never took any estate by virtue of the devise. That the whole paternal estate of Robert Wynn was known by the general name of Maesmochnant estate; and so it appeared by the appellant's own witnesses, and he by his bill claimed it by the very same name, the whole value of which estate was but £120 per ann. and he by his will had charged it with an annuity of £100 per ann. tax-free, besides his debts, legacies, and funeral expenses; which the capital massuage and demesnes alone would not be near sufficient to pay. That the appellant could