Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1388

stock he meant these words "at" and "on" were proper for the sake of certainty; but if applied to the place where she was to enjoy them, there was something wanting to give the word "the," speaking of the furniture, etc. a determinate signification; and therefore, upon either ground, she was entitled to these for life. But by the decree, Bonds Walls, the chattel estates, and the furniture and stock at Battens, were directed to fall into the residue of the personal estate, which was to be held in trust for the respondent; by which means, the testator's widow, whom he intended to make an ample provision for during her life, was reduced to a small tenement, and a proportion of an annuity of £50 a year for her subsistence, by the want of skill in the person who advised a tenant in tail, with the reversion in fee in himself, to suffer a recovery in order to effectuate his will. It was therefore hoped, that the decree would be reversed, and the appellant restored to so much as remained of the provision intended for her.

On the other side it was said (J. Dunning, J. Morris), that the leasehold estate called Bonds Walls, was described in the will as being contiguous and adjoining to Battens, the family mansion, and directed to be conveyed to, and constantly to be enjoyed therewith, and never separated from it. That the other chattels were given to the appellant for life, only on the condition of her residence at Pattens; and that the household goods, plate, and furniture, and the live and dead stock, the use of which was given to the appellant, was confined only to that on Battens. From these circumstances, it appeared to have been the clear intention of the testator, to make Bonds Walls, and his other chattel estates, as well as the furniture and stock, accessory to Battens, his dwelling-place, which he was fond of, and sat down with ambitious views to perpetuate, as was manifest by his disposing of it in strict settlement, and requiring the respondent and his issue, and other remainder-men, to change their names as a condition of their enjoying it. That though in the course of succession which the testator had prescribed, Bonds Walls, as well as the other chattel estates, and the furniture and stock, would have gone to the appellant for life, if his will had not been revoked; yet this would have been so, merely as a consequence of its being an object with him, to make these chattel interests dependent and concomitant with Battens, to which circumstances he seemed to have been more attentive than to any consideration of the persons to whom they were transmitted; and Bonds Walls, in particular, was a desirable accommodation to the possessor of Battens, to and with which it was contiguous and intermixed. The devise therefore of Battens, the principal, being revoked by the recovery, the bequest of the chattel interests, the accessories must fall with it; and there would consequently have been an intestacy as to them as well as Battens, but for the residuary bequests, under the trusts of which the respondent was become entitled to them, by having attained his age of 21.

[365] After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that so much of the decrees therein complained of, as declared that the bequest of the leasehold estate called Bonds Walls, and of all the testator's chattel estate, and the use of his household goods, plate, and furniture at Battens, and his live and dead stock, became consequentially revoked by the common recovery suffered of Battens; and the directions given by the decree, pursuant to such declaration, should be reversed: and it was declared, that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the said bequests, discharged from the condition of living at Battens, which the common recovery had put out of her power. (M. S. Jour. sub anno 1774, p. 985.)