Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1399

those manors, hereditaments, and premises, respectively mentioned in the said several articles of the 13th of June 1763, and the 30th of October 1763. That the said Sir Brian was not at the time of making his said will, seised of or entitled to any advowson or advowsons, or right of presentation in the counties of Chester and Stafford, or in either of them, but only to the nomination of a minister or curate for the time being, of or to the chapel of Broughton, in the parish of Eccleshall in the said county of Stafford. That afterwards (to wit) on the 1st of February 1766, the said Sir Brian, being of the age of 25 years, died without revoking or altering his said will, and without issue; and that Thomas Delves, named in the said will, now Sir Thomas Broughton, Bart. was, and is, the only brother and heir at law of the said Sir Brian Broughton Delves, and as such, the said respective premises, in the counties of Suffolk and Salop, descended to him the said Sir Thomas, who was a minor of the age of 20 years, at his said brother's death; and at the death of the said Sir Brian, the said Dame Mary, his widow, was of the age of 24 years, or thereabouts. That upon the 6th of June 1772, the said Sir Thomas Broughton, by indenture of bargain and sale by him duly executed, and inrolled in Chancery, in consideration of the sum of £3825 to him paid by the said Robert Hill, granted, bargained, and sold to the said Robert Hill and his heirs, and said advowson of the church of Mottisfont, alias Mottson, East Dean, and Lockerley, and all glebe lands, tithes, tenths, oblations, obventions, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging. But whether the said Sir Brian did, by his said will, devise to the said Dame Mary his wife, the said advowson of the church of Mottisfont, alias Mottson, East Dean, and Lockerley, or not, the jurors were totally ignorant; and therefore they prayed the advice and consideration of the court, etc.

In Michaelmas term 1773, this case was argued in the Court of Common Pleas, and the court gave judgment for the defen-[392]-dant; viz. that Sir Brian did not, by his will, devise the advowson in question to Dame Mary his wife.

The defendant therefore, brought his writ of error in the Court of King's Bench; and after the case had been twice argued there, the court, in Trinity term 1774, unanimously reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas; and were of opinion, that Sir Brian did, by his will, devise the said advowson to Dame Mary.

To reverse this latter judgment, Mr Hill brought a writ of error in parliament; and on his behalf it was argued (E. Thurlow, J. Dunning, C.  Fearne), that the advowson of Mottisfont did not rest in contract, at the time Sir Brian made his will; for he had made a complete purchase of this advowson, and taken a conveyance of it to himself in fee, three months before. It could not therefore come within the description of all the manors, messuages, advowsons, etc. for the purchase whereof I have already contracted; unless a purchase already completed, means the same thing as a purchase contracted for. No sort of contract or agreement whatsoever appeared, respecting the purchase of the advowson of Mottisfont; and if any ever existed previous to the conveyance, it became extinguished in the completion of it, before the will was made. A contract is a thing in its nature executory; when executed, its very essence is at an end. It would be impossible to extend the words "estate, etc." for the purchase whereof I have already contracted, to an estate actually purchased and conveyed, at however short a time, before the making of the will, without at the same time admitting, that the same words would be sufficient to include all the lands, which the oldest testator who ever lived, had purchased from the earliest period of his life; for no line can in this respect be drawn between three months, and threescore years. The resting in contract is a circumstance of description, which ceases to be applicable to an estate, in the very instant when the purchase is completed, or else continues applicable for ever.

But it was objected, that the clause which was the subject of the present question, might be considered as containing two several descriptions: the first imported in the words, "all the manors, messuages, advowsons, etc. in the county of Hants;" and the other in the words, "for the purchase whereof I have already contracted, etc." That these two descriptions might be taken separately, and when so taken, the first contained words sufficient to comprise the advowson in question; and that the latter words were not necessarily restrictive of the former, but might be considered as an additional description.

To this it was answered, that it was impossible to distinguish two several descriptions in the clause in question. The words, "all the manors, messuages, advowsons, etc. in the county of Hants," served, of themselves, to ascertain no lands whatsoever of the testator. The word "the" in the beginning of the clause, must have an immediate and