Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1262

and that in the present case there was a further reason and motive for so doing, because the estate came by an honorary grant from the Crown to the testator's father, in consideration of his eminent services, which must be an inducement to him to continue it in the male line, as most capable of serving the Crown on future occasions, and the necessary means to preserve it in the name of the family. And the testator's intent to give his sons successively an estate in tail male, might be also further collected from the general design and tendency of his will, which, throughout the whole order and course of succession, preferred the male to the female line; and he had accord-[166]-ingly in effect declared, that when the male issue failed, then, and not till then, the issue female should succeed to the estate. That the several parts of this will served to explain each other, and, by a consistent construction of the whole, proved the testator's intent to intail the estate successively upon his sons and their heirs male; thus, for instance, the limitation to the eldest son and his heirs, was explained by the remainder to the second and other sons of the testator, which demonstrated, that he could not mean heirs general, according to the literal expression, but heirs of the body of the eldest son. Nor did the testator stop here, because his intention was not completely expressed, and therefore he went on to complete the devise, and shew what heirs of the body of the eldest son he meant; by adding, and failing my issue male, then to my issue female, and their heirs for ever, and for want of issue female, then to my heirs for ever; which words were a complete and final explanation of the devise to his sons, and shewed that the testator did not, upon the whole, mean to create an estate in tail general in his sons, but a special estate in tail male only. And it being his intent to postpone the issue female, till there should happen to be a failure of his issue male, this intent could not be answered, without postponing his grand-daughters as well as daughters, who were both comprehended under the general expression of his issue female. And it would be inconsistent with his design, if the younger sons, who were confessedly to take place of his own daughter, should be obliged to give way to the daughters of his eldest son. If it was the testator's meaning, that his sons should successively take a general estate tail, and that the daughters of the eldest son should he preferred, and take before the testator's younger sous, such intent was sufficiently and completely expressed in the antecedent clauses of the will; and therefore, instead of adding, the testator ought to have omitted the following clause, and failing my issue male, then to the use of my issue female, etc. because those words could have no proper meaning or effect, if applied to a general estate tail in the sons, but must in that case be rejected as useless and inoperative. On the other hand, as it was the true intent of the testator, that none of his female descendants or issue should take, until there should be a failure of all his issue male, it was absolutely necessary for him to add these explanatory words, to qualify and correct the antecedent limitations, which imported a general estate tail, and thereby to reduce that estate in tail general upon his sons, to an estate in tail male only; and the several provisions afterwards made for his younger children, and the other directions given by his will touching his estate, seemed to favour and coincide with this construction. That supposing the sons to take an estate in tail male only, under their father's will, the respondent would then be entitled to the Cork estate, and to the several denominations of the Kerry estate adjudged to him by the decree; for as to the lands in Cork, there was no recovery suffered of any part of them; and as to the denominations of the Kerry estate in question between the [167] parties, the pretence for including them in the recovery suffered by the appellant's father, was, that they were sub-denominations only, and part of or belonging respectively to the several grand denominations expressed and comprised in the recovery, and consequently passed thereby, whereas it appeared by evidence in the cause, that they were neither part of, or included within, or belonging to any of the denominations comprised in the recovery, but were distinct, separate, and grand denominations, upon which several and distinct rents were reserved to the crown; and being omitted in the recovery, the intail thereof was not barred, nor the right of the respondent in any wise thereby affected.

After hearing the agents for the parties on this appeal, it was, by their consent, ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the several decrees, orders and proceedings therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 27. p. 493.)