Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1401

But it was still further objected, that a testator's intention must be collected from all parts of his will, compared together; and that upon the general face of the will, in this case, the testator seems to have intended a sort of provisional distribution of his estates; viz. that those in the counties of Stafford and Chester should go one way, and those in the county of Hants another; and that it was not to be supposed, that he intended to separate so small a part as the advowson of Mottisfont, from the residue of his estates in the county of Hants; and therefore it must be concluded, that it was his intention to comprise the advowson of Mottisfont in the devise in question.

In answer to this it was said, that the rule that a testator's intention must be collected from all the parts of his will compared together, supposes that the intention so to be collected has a necessary connection with some part of the will or other; but no rule of law or construction says, that a court of justice is to make a man's will, or suppose an intention in the testator, which is not necessarily connected with any part of his will. There was not a syllable in Sir Brian's will, which expressed or implied any intention at all respecting the advowson of Mottisfont, unless a disposition of the whole of his estates in the counties of Stafford and Chester, to one person, was to be deemed inconsistent with a disposi-[385]-tion of only part of his estates in the county of Hants to another person; or unless it is to be inferred, that because a testator has devised the greatest part of his lands in a certain county, (and that too in terms expressly restraining the devise to such part only,) he therefore intended the devisee to have the whole of his real property in the same county; but it was presumed a conclusion of this nature would differ very little from making, or rather altering a testator's will. It must amount at least to an introduction of some addition to that will, inasmuch as it would operate to dispose of lands which the testator had left undisposed of; but a claim to the advowson of Mottisfont under Sir Brian's will, must rest upon something expressed or implied in that will, as made by Sir Brian himself. It must be observed also, that the advowson in question, and the estates contracted for, were purchased at different times, and from different persons, and had no connection in title with each other.

Lastly, there was no room in this case, even for the common presumption, that a testator intends not to die intestate as to any part of his estate; for it appeared, that Sir Brian actually died intestate, as to his estates in the counties of Suffolk and Salop, which he left unnoticed by his will, and which therefore, upon his decease, descended (as was found by the verdict) to his brother and heir at law, Sir Thomas Broughton. Now there was no more mention or disposition of the advowson of Mottisfont, in any part of Sir Brian's will, than there was of the estates in Suffolk and Salop; nor was there a liberty of supplying a disposition in one case, any more than in the other; any attempt of this nature must proceed upon mere conjecture; but it is not the policy of our laws to suffer any person's will to be made by another man's conjecture. Every testamentary disposition of lands must proceed from the testator himself, he must act a part in the business, and a decided part too; either by declaring his intention to dispose in express terms, or by something necessarily importing such an intention; for nothing less operative can supersede or affect the right of an heir at law.

On behalf of the defendant in error it was contended (A. Wedderburn, J. Mansfield), that the advowson in question was expressly devised to the testator's wife, in the following words of the will:

Also, I give, devise, and bequeath unto my said wife and her heirs, to and for her and their own proper use and benefit, all the manors, messuages, advowsons, farms, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and real estates whatsoever, situate and being in the county of Hants, for the purchase whereof I have already contracted and agreed.

And it appeared by the special verdict, that the advowson in question was in the county of Hants, and not only contracted for, but actually conveyed to the testator before the making of the will. That unless the advowson in question was construed to pass, the word advowsons made use of in the plural number, would have no effect; it appearing by the verdict, that the testator at the time of making his will had not contracted for any [386] other advowson in Hampshire, but the one in question, and the advowson of Abbots Ann; and in the exposition of all instruments, and most particularly of wills, that construction is to be preferred, which gives effect, as far as possible, to every expression found in them.