Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1361

the bill therefore prayed, that the said £4000 Bank stock might be transferred into the name of the accountant general, and placed to the credit of the cause; and that he might be directed to receive and pay the dividends thereof, to the said Elizabeth Russell during her life; and that after her death, one moiety of the said capital stock might be transferred to the appellant, or as he should appoint, and the other moiety thereof to the respondent Metcalfe Russell, or as he should appoint; and that in the meantime the appellant's right, as administrator to his late wife and as surviving her, might be established by the decree of the court; and that the appellant might be decreed to be entitled to such provision, which might have been made for his said late wife, under any settlement made upon the marriage of the said Michael and Elizabeth Russell, her father and mother, for her portion, or [321] accruing to her by survivorship, and to have the same raised and paid accordingly.

To this bill the defendants severally put in their answers, and thereby admitted the several facts of the bill; but insisted, that the whole right and interest in the £4000 Bank stock, and all benefit arising from the same, did on the death of the appellant's late wife, become vested in the respondent Metcalfe Russell, as surviving her, subject to the life estate of the said Elizabeth Russell therein; and that on the determination of such life estate, he should, in case he survived the said Elizabeth Russell, be entitled to have the whole of the said stock transferred to him, with all benefit thereto belonging, from the person or persons in whom such trust should then remain, absolutely to himself, and to his own proper use, free and clear of and from all claim and demand of the appellant in right of his said late wife, or any one claiming under him, or any other person or persons in any manner whatsoever; and the said defendants admitted, that there was a settlement made upon the marriage of the said Michael and Elizabeth Russell, but that there was no provision made therein for the younger children of that marriage.

On the 27th of November 1769, the cause was heard before the Lord Chancellor Camden, when his Lordship was pleased to order, that the respondent Sylvanus Grove should transfer the said £4000 Bank stock, to the accountant general in trust in the cause, and he was to declare the trust thereof accordingly, subject to the further order of the court and it was ordered, that the interest to accrue thereon should be paid, from time to time, to the defendant Elizabeth Russell, during her life, and upon her death the parties who should be entitled to the said Bank stock, were to be at liberty to apply to the court concerning the same; and his Lordship reserved the consideration of all questions that might arise between the contending parties concerning the said Bank stock, till after that event should happen.

On the 25th of December 1769, the said Elizabeth Russell died, and in Trinity term 1770, the appellant exhibited his supplemental bill against the respondents, stating that all dividends of the said Bank stock, which had accrued due in the lifetime of the said Elizabeth Russell, had been paid; and therefore praying, that the appellant might be decreed to have an immediate transfer of a moiety of the said £4000 capital Bank stock, with its increase in that fund, together with the payment of all dividends which had accrued due on the said moiety, since the death of the said Elizabeth Russell.

The respondents appeared, and put in their answers to this bill, and admitted the facts; but hoped, that the right to the Bank stock would be absolutely declared to be in the respondent Metcalfe Russell, as belonging to him on the death of the said Elizabeth Russell his mother.

[322] On the 4th of May 1771, the original and supplemental causes came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor Bathurst, when his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the appellant's supplemental bill without costs; and declared that the £4000 Bank stock, standing in the name of the accountant general in trust in the original cause, belonged to the respondent Metcalfe Russell; and that the dividends accrued thereon since the death of the said Elizabeth Russell, likewise belonged to the said respondent; and the accountant general was thereby directed to transfer the same accordingly.

The appellant apprehending himself aggrieved by this decree, appealed from it; insisting (E. Thurlow, J. Dunning, J. A. Stainsby, J. Hannam), that this, like all other cases upon wills, was a question of construction, to be determined by the intention of the testator, if that could by any means be come at. It was a bequest made by a grandfather in favour of his daughter and her children, she being a married woman, and having at the time of making the will two children, both infants, and likely to have more, all of whom it was apparent were intended to be equally the objects of the