Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/64

Reasons it was prayed that that Appeal might be dismissed, and the Dismission below confirmed, and 'twas accordingly adjudged so.

S.C. 1 Ver. 179, 356. 2 Ch. C. 172. Dower whether to be defeated by a Term attending the Inheritance in Equity. Argument for the Appellant. 2 Ver. 324.—Appeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery; the Case was to this Effect: The Earl of Warwick, upon Marriage of his Son, settles Part of his Estate upon his Lady for a Jointure, and after Failure of Issue Male limits a Term for 99 Years to Trustees, to be disposed of by the Earl either by Deed or Will: And for want of such Appointment, then in Trust for the next in Remainder, and then limited the whole Estate in such Manner, as that a third Part of a Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn (the Appellant's late Husband) in Tail general, with the Reversion in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs. The Son died without Issue, the Earl by his Will appoints the Lands to his Countess for so many Years of the Term as she should live, and to her Executors for one Year after her Death, and charges the Term with several Annuities, some of which remain in Being. The Respondent's Father purchased Part of these Lands from the Lord Bodmyn after his Marriage, and had the Term assigned to him. The Lord Bodmyn dies, the Appellant brings her Writ of Dower in C.B. the Respondent pleads the Term for 99 Years; and she exhibits [70] her Bill, praying that she may, after the Discharge of the Earl's Incumbrances, have the Benefit of the Trust as to a Third of the Profits of this Term; and upon hearing the Cause, the Lord Chancellor saw no Cause to give Relief, but dismissed her Bill. There were many particulars in the Case, and many Proceedings before, both in Law and Equity; but this was the whole Case as to the general Question, Whether a Tenant in Dower shall have the Benefit of the Trust of a Term which is ordered to attend the Inheritance, against a Purchaser after the Marriage? The Lord Chancellor Jeffryes had been of Opinion with the Appellant, but the Cause coming to be heard again, a Dismission was decreed; and now it was argued against the Decree on Behalf of the Appellant, that Equity did intitle her to the Thirds of this Term; that a Tenant by the Curtesy is intitled to it, and by the same Reason a Tenant in Dower. That the Term created by the Settlement was to attend all the Estates limited by that Settlement, and in Trust for such Persons as should claim under it: Which the Appellant doth as well as the Respondents. That it was in Consequence to attend all the Particular Estates carved or derived from the others. The Term was never in its Creation designed for this Purpose, to prevent or protect against Dower. That in the Case of Snell and Clay, the Tenant in Dower^[1] had it in Chancery against the Heir at Law. And that this was the same Case: A Purchaser with Notice of that Incumbrance of Dower, the Vendor being then married; this was an Estate of which the Husband was full Owner, and received the whole Profits: That in Proportion, 'tis as much a Trust for her, for her Thirds during Life, as it is a Trust for the Respondents for the Inheritance: She claims under her Husband who had the Benefit of the whole Trust. If there be a Mortgage by an Ancestor upon the whole, Equity will permit her to redeem, paying her Proportion according to the Value of her Thirds for Life: And the same Reason holds in this Case: And there's no Precedent in Equity to the Contrary. And many Precedents in Favour of Tenant in Dower were cited, and much Reason well urged from parallel Cases, to entitle the Lady to her Proportion of the Trust of this Term.

Argument for the Respondent.—On the other Side 'twas said, that Dower is an Interest or Right at the Common Law only: That no Title can be maintained to have Dower, but where the Common Law gives it: And that is only to have