Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1291

assigns, all such the contingent reversionary interest of the appellants, of and in the said park, lands, and premises, for and during not only all the residue and remainder (if any) which should be then to come and unexpired of the said term of 90 years, but also of such term and interest as should be granted by the said new lease; and that in such assignments, assurances, and conveyances as aforesaid, all such usual, necessary, and proper covenants, as well on the part and behalf of the appellants as of Mr. Gregory, as their respective counsel should advise and require, should be inserted and contained.—And Mr. Gregory, in consideration of the premises, thereby covenanted, that he, his executors, administrators, or assigns, would, at or before the time of executing such assignments and assurances as aforesaid, pay the appellants the said £1000 in full for the absolute purchase of such their contingent reversionary interest in the premises as aforesaid and also would accept of such assignments or assurances thereof as aforesaid, and execute a counterpart thereof, if thereunto required.

The appellants, being desirous that this agreement should be forthwith carried into execution, several times applied to Mr. Gregory to perform the same on his part. They also made the respondent the Duke acquainted with it, and that, in order to enable the appellants to perform the same on their part, it would be necessary his Grace should procure the lease of the said estate so agreed to be sold, to be renewed according to the terms of the agreement.

But Lord Vane and the Earl of Darlington persisting in their claim in the said leasehold estate, and insisting that the appellants had no right thereto, the appellants, in Michaelmas term 1758, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery, against the said George Gregory, and the respondents Lord Vane, the Earl of Darlington, and the Duke of Newcastle, setting forth the several matters aforesaid, except the suit commenced by the respondent Lord Vane; and charging, that the claims of the respondents Lord Vane and the Earl of Darlington, were without foundation in law or equity; and that the appellants were well able to make a good title to the said estate at Shimpling, subject only to the estate for life of the respondent the Duke, and to the contingency of his having a son born; and therefore praying, that the respondents Lord Vane and the Earl of Darlington might set forth what right, title, or [211] interest they had in or to the said leasehold estate at Shimpling, and how they made out the same; and that the agreement of 25th September 1758, might be specially performed and carried into execution; the appellants thereby offering to perform the same on their part; and praying also, that the lease of the said estate might be renewed according to the terms of the agreement; and that the respondent the Duke might pay the fine and fees payable thereon; and that Mr. Gregory might, upon the obtaining of such new lease, and upon the appellants assigning to him all their right and interest in the said leasehold estate at Shimpling, pay the £1000 purchase money for the same to the appellants.

To this bill Mr. Gregory, by his answer, declared, that he was ready and willing to perform the agreement, provided a new lease should be obtained agreeable thereto, and a good title could be made by the appellants.

The respondent Lord Vane, by his answer, said, that Lord Vane his father had issue Christopher, his eldest son, (who died an infant, and without issue, in his father's life-time,) and him the respondent his younger son; and insisted, that the said Christopher was the first person in point of time in esse, who had or took any estate or inheritance in the premises in the will and act of parliament mentioned; and that he dying an infant, the respondent, as the only surviving son and heir apparent of his father, became the first person in esse who took any estate of inheritance in any of the said premises by virtue of the said limitations; and that Lord Vane, his father, also died many years since, leaving the respondent, his only son and heir; and that he, on his father's death, became seised of an estate tail, in remainder, immediately expectant on the determination of the estates limited to the Duke, and to Mr. Pelham his brother, and to their first and other sons respectively, of and in all the freehold and copyhold honours, manners, messuages, lands, and hereditaments, in the said will and act of parliament mentioned; and that he also became entitled to all the leasehold estates, as well for lives as years, in the said will and act mentioned, subject to the contingency of the Duke's and Mr. Pelham's dying without issue male; and therefore submitted to the judgment of the court, that the absolute estate and interest in the estates held by leases for years, and limited to the respondent the Duke for life, did not vest in Thomas Pelham, the eldest son of Henry Pelham, subject to the estate for life