Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1232

for life, so as to make such person tenant in tail by construction of law: besides, such a construction is highly unreasonable, as it would put it in the power of Cecil Fiennes to defeat her own issue, if she had any, and all the subsequent limitations in the will. That Cecil could not bind the premises by the articles, longer than during her own life, as to the three fourths decreed to the respondents Lady Catherine Jones, Dame Frances Hewett, and Peter Hawker; and if she could, yet, with regard to those three fourths, and likewise the remaining fourth decreed to the respondent Burman, it was insisted, that none of them were bound by the articles, upon which alone the [119] appellant's title depended; because it appeared by those articles, that the occasion of entering into them, was to put an end to the disputes which had arisen between the appellant and Cecil, touching the real and personal estate of his brother William; and it did not appear, that there was any dispute touching the moiety of the premises now in question, which was no part of William's estate, But if this moiety was intended to be comprised under any general words in the articles, yet they had been long since waived and departed from; no demand having been made by the appellant, upon the foot of these articles, from the 22d of March 1699, when they bore date, to the death of Cecil Fiennes which happened on the 23d of July 1715; during all which time, she quietly enjoyed the premises subject to the charges thereon; nor was any demand made by the appellant upon the respondents under the articles, till he mentioned them in his answer to the original bill, which was 24 years after the date of them. And though, in 1700, conveyances were made by the appellant and Cecil of other estates, yet such conveyances neither recited, or imported to be made in pursuance of the articles neither were the limitations or provisions therein, agreeable to the tenor of the articles; from whence it was evident, that they were waived, and that the parties came to a new agreement. That it would be a dangerous precedent, if a Court of Equity, at so great a distance of time after the death of one of the contracting parties, who, if living, might be able to prove an express waiver of the articles, and after a great alteration in the circumstances of persons and things, should decree a specific execution of them; and it would be particularly unreasonable in the present case, because Cecil Fiennes being dead, could not now execute the power given her by the articles, of disposing of £1000; which, in consequence, would give the appellant £1000 more than by the articles was intended for him.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, and also the Judges, touching a point of law to them proposed, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of should be affirmed, except as to the respondent Burman; and as to him the decree was reversed: And it was further ordered and declared, that the fourth part of the moiety decreed to the said Burman and his heirs, did belong to the appellant and his heirs; and the same was to be conveyed to him accordingly, by the respondent Lord Viscount Harcourt, subject nevertheless to that part of the decree, which directed a partition; and that the rents and profits decreed to be accounted for and paid to the respondent Burman, should be accounted for and paid to the appellant. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 382.)

On a trial at the Great Sessions for the county of Flint, upon the 7th of April 1720, in an ejectment brought for the lands in question, on the several demises of Ravenscroft Gifford and David Parry, the Jury found a special verdict to the following effect:

That Thomas Ravenscroft, Esq. being seised in fee of the premises in question, on the 2d of August 1675, by his will devised the same to his wife for her natural life and for her better support and credit, and for better discharging his debts, and in the tenderness of his affection to her, he devised to her the full sum of £500,

to be raised by her,