Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/546

he never resided, or had so much as an apartment for his own use; but the whole undertaking was intirely carried on by agents and servants. That according to this construction, the respondent might have been entitled to the whole of her husband's personal estate, in case he had been of a trade wherein he might have employed his estate in household goods, or utensils of household, or wherein he might occasionally have laid out his money for improvement. That as so great a provision was, by the articles, made for the respondent and her three daughters, by her former husband, without any consideration, except that of marriage only; it was presumed, that she was not entitled to any strained construction of the articles in her favour; and that therefore the said order would be reversed.

On the other side it was contended (C. Talbot, J. Willes), that the goods in question were plainly within the description of the words of the articles, household goods, or utensils of household stuff; and their being used for the sick and wounded seamen, did not make them less so, That there were no words in the articles which shewed any intention to confine those general words to any special sort of household goods, in any particular place, or provided for any particular purpose; or, that when Mr. Jackson agreed his wife should have all, his mean-[225]-ing only was, that she should have some of his household goods: but, on the contrary, the words all or any in the articles, shewed an intention that they should be carried to their utmost extent, and that no such reservation or limitation was meant. That at the time of making the articles, the intestate was employed in the same business, and possessed of the same goods, and therefore could not make use of those general words, without having in view the case which had happened. That these goods were used by him, not in the way of trade or merchandize, but for the purpose of housekeeping in his own house, under the care of his own servants, and for the service of what might, in some sense, be called his own family. That there was no reason to apprehend that the parties would have excepted these goods, if the question had been put at the time of making the articles; as they were in the possession and power of the intestate, and it might very reasonably be agreed, that these, as well as others, should be a provision for his wife. But if it were doubtful whether the parties would have excepted them or not, if mentioned at the time of entering into the articles; even in that case, it would be safest to follow the words, which had a plain and certain meaning, rather than establish a sense upon the ground of a supposed intention, different from and unsupported by any words; which would tend to render the construction of deeds precarious and arbitrary, and in the present case, would make it very difficult to determine how far the words should extend.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of, should be reversed. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 26.)

By articles of agreement dated the 23d of December 1685, between Sir Peter