Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/577

obliged, in prejudice of the said Thomas Vernon's children, to make any such settlement as was prayed by the bill. Issue being joined, and witnesses examined on both sides, the cause came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor King, on the 8th of May 1731, when his Lordship declared, that the articles ought to be carried into execution, and that lands of the value of £350 per ann. ought to be purchased and settled to the uses mentioned in the articles, which were still subsisting; and decreed that the appellant, who had by her answer admitted assets of her testator sufficient to answer the respondents demands, should, with the approbation of the Master, purchase lands and tenements of the yearly value of £350 according to the description in the articles mentioned; and should likewise, with the approbation of the Master, settle the same to such of the uses and trusts mentioned in the articles as were then subsisting, so far as the death of parties would admit. The purchase was to be made in the names of trustees, to be approved of by the Master, and any of the parties were at liberty to propose a purchase or purchases before the Master, for the purpose aforesaid.

From this decree the present appeal was brought; and on behalf of the appellant it was insisted (C. Talbot, N. Fazakerly), that neither Henry Vernon's estate, nor the advancement of Thomas Vernon by his father, were any consideration for the limitations in the articles to the respondents; nor ought the appellant to be prejudiced by any letters written by her since her husband's death, when she was under great affliction, and utterly ignorant of the law. That these limitations to the respondents were merely voluntary, the respondents George and Sir Charles Vernon being no parties to the articles, nor did any consideration move from them, or any other person on their behalf. That though Sir Thomas Vernon the father was a party, yet there was no covenant moving from him, not so much as one acre of land, or a shilling in money, though the said Thomas Vernon was then his eldest son; nor was the covenant of Thomas made with his father, but with Dibble, who was a relation of the appellant. That although Thomas Vernon lived above thirty years after the articles, yet he was never desired by any of the respondents to make the settlement, nor did he ever think himself obliged to make any settlement on them; and it would be a very great hardship upon the appellant and her children to be now obliged to make it. That if the settlement had been made by Mr. Vernon in his life-time, he would have been tenant in tail, and consequently, by suffering a recovery, might have barred the remainders limited to the respondents, whenever [271] he had thought proper. And, that the respondents being merely volunteers, were not, under the circumstances attending this case, entitled to any assistance or relief in a Court of Equity.

On the other side it was urged (P. Yorke, T. Lutwyche), that Henry Vernon made his will in a place, where he could not have proper advice and assistance to make it agreeable to the forms of law; but his intention was clearly expressed, that his personal estate should be so disposed of, that it should go to his youngest brothers the respondents George and Sir Charles Vernon, in case of the death of their elder brother Thomas without male issue; and a Court of Equity will always pursue the intent of a testator, if it appears clear in his will, as far as it can be carried into execution. But if the testator's intention in this case could not be directly fulfilled, yet as it appeared that there was time more than sufficient after his death, for Thomas Vernon to receive the news of it, and an account of his estate before the making of his marriage-articles; it was to be presumed to be part of the consideration for the remainders thereby limited to the respondents George and Sir Charles Vernon. And as Sir Thomas their father insisted upon that limitation, and afterwards declared that it should never have been a match, if the appellant and her friends as well as Thomas Vernon had not agreed to make the settlement in that manner; the father thereby contracted for a benefit to the other branches of his family. Besides, it appeared in proof, that this marriage was proposed in the life-time of Henry Vernon, but rejected; and after his death, by whom the estate came, was agreed to, so that it could not be called voluntary, but was part of the marriage-articles. As to a pretence mentioned in the appellant's answer, that Sir Thomas Vernon's promise to give the rectory of Farnham to his son Thomas, was the consideration of his including his brothers in the articles, it was totally. without foundation; for it was proved in the cause that Sir Thomas Vernon often declared, that as the parsonage was given to him being a younger