Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1386

will was thereby revoked, with respect to any devise therein made of any of the premises included in the recovery; and that upon the death of the testator, the estates comprised in the recovery descended to the said Theodore Darley, as the testator's heir at law; and therefore the bill prayed, that the possession of the testator's real estates might be delivered up to him; and for an account of the rents and profits thereof, from the death of the testator; and also an account of the rents and profits of the tenement called Bonds Walls, from the testator's death; and that the term of years therein might be assigned to some person in trust for Theodore Darley; and also for an account of the timber cut down from [361] the premises; and that the possession of such of the testator's copyhold estates as belonged to Theodore Darley, might be delivered up to him, and the rents and profits thereof accounted for.

The appellant and the several other defendants put in their answers to this bill, and admitted the several facts therein stated.

On the 10th of December 1766, the cause was heard before the Lord Chancellor Camden, when his Lordship ordered a case to be stated for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, upon the following question; viz. "Whether the deed executed, and the recovery suffered by Vincent Darley, was a revocation of the will?" And on the 7th of July 1767, the Judges of that Court certified, that they were of opinion, that the deeds executed and recovery suffered by the testator Vincent Darley, were a revocation of his will, as to the lands comprised in the recovery.

In consequence of this certificate, the cause was further heard on the 21st of November 1767, when his Lordship was pleased to declare, that the testator having suffered a recovery after the execution of his will, the same was thereby revoked, as to the devises of the real estates comprised in the recovery; and that the said estates were descended to the said Theodore Darley the testator's heir at law. And it was ordered, that an account should be taken of the rents and profits thereof, received by the appellant, or for her use; and that what should be found due on that account, should be paid by the appellant to the said Theodore Darley; and that possession thereof, and of the deeds and writings thereto belonging, should be delivered up to him; and his Lordship declared, that the testator having so revoked in toto the disposition of his freehold estate called Battens, the direction by him to convey his leasehold estate called Bonds Walls, for the benefit of those persons to whom he had devised the said estate called Battens, was consequentially revoked also, and that the same fell into the residue of his personal estate. And with respect to the testator's personal estate, his Lordship declared the devises by the will to the appellant, of all his chattel estate, in case she chose to reside at Battens, and the use of his household goods, plate, and furniture at Battens, and his live and dead stock, were become consequentially revoked by the revocation of the devise of his estate at Battens, and that the same fell into the residue of his personal estate: and the testator having devised the residue of his personal estate to the respondent, under certain contingencies, his Lordship declared, that the testator's next of kin would be entitled to such residue, if those contingencies should not happen. And it was further ordered, that the Master should take an account of the personal estate of the testator, received by the appellant, or for her use; and that she should sell the testator's household goods, linen, plate, and furniture, together with the stock; and that the testator's personal estate should be applied [362] in payment of his debts in a course of administration, and then of his legacies; and that the residue thereof should be paid into the Bank, to the credit of the cause, subject to the contingencies in the testator's will; and any of the parties who should be entitled to the clear residue of such personal estate, upon the contingencies in the will mentioned, should be at liberty to apply to the Court touching the same.

The appellant being dissatisfied with this decree, for having declared, that the bequest of the use of the testator's household goods, plate, and furniture at Battens, and his live and dead stock to the appellant, was consequentially revoked by the revocation of the devise of his estate at Battens, and that the same fell into the residue of the personal estate; and also for having declared, that the leasehold estate called Bonds Walls, and all the other chattel estates, fell into the residue of the testator's personal estate; petitioned for a re-hearing of the cause, as to those matters; and accordingly, the cause was re-heard on the 29th of April 1769, when his Lordship was pleased to affirm the former decree.

The appellant therefore appealed from both the decrees; insisting (A. Wedderburn,