Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1449

to exclude his son and heir from taking his estates, and to devise them to any other persons, either by devising them to such persons by names or by words of description, denoting such persons, and if the intention was apparent, no technical or formal words were necessary in the description of such persons. That in this case the testator took notice, that his son was his right heir, and specially excluded him, and then devised his estates to others, by the description of "the right heirs of me the testator, my son "excepted," which clearly and apparently denoted and intended those persons who would have been the testator's right heirs if he had no son, and consequently, under that description, the testator's three daughters took the estates. See Baker v. Wall, 1st Lord Raymond, 185.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, the following question was put to the Judges; "Whether any person, and who, took any and what estate under the will mentioned in the special verdict, by way of devise and purchase?" And the Lord Chief Baron having delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges present, that no person took any estate under the will mentioned in the special verdict; it was thereupon ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of King's Bench should be reversed. (M. S. Jour. sub anno 1787. p. 372.)

John Duke of Newcastle, was seised of several honours, castles, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, freehold, copyhold, and leasehold, in eighteen different counties, of about £40,000 per ann.; some parts of which was his paternal estate, as coming from the Holles's family; other part was of his own purchase; and the residue was, for distinction sake, called the Cavendish estate, as formerly belonging to Henry Duke of Newcastle, the appellant's father. This latter estate came to the appellant, under the settlement and will of her said father, but it was incumbered to the amount of £80,000 and upwards; and therefore, after her marriage with Duke John, they came to an agreement for his discharging, these incumbrances; and accordingly, by fines and recoveries, and a deed leading the uses thereof, dated the 17th of January 1693, the Cavendish estate was limited, subject to the appellant's estate for life in great part thereof, and after other limitations, to Duke John and his heirs.

Duke John afterwards made his will, dated the 29th of August 1707; and thereby devised to the appellant his wife in fee, his lands in Huntingdonshire, of about £700 per ann. but desired her to dispose of the same to his daughter the Lady Henrietta, if, by her duty, she should deserve it; and he confirmed such jointure, as his said wife was to have, under any settlement by him made. The testator then devised to his said daughter Lady Henrietta and her heirs, all his lands in the counties of Stafford, York, and Northumberland, (except such in the county of York as were of his own purchase,) of about £5000 per ann. over and besides £20,000 provided for her by his marriage settlement, which he thereby confirmed; provided, that if she should die before marriage, and under 21, or should enter upon, or sue for any other part of his real estate, the said devise to her should cease and be void. And, as to the premises so devised to his said daughter, subject to this proviso, and all other his lands, both free-