1829. JOY v. CAMPBELL. sent case the word "from" is used in the first devise; and in the second devise the word "when" is used, which shews the intention. The last limitation is to the daughters. The testator must be presumed to have intended an equal benefit to all the children. Now the devise to the daughters is without any condition, and if their father died without leaving sons, they would take absolutely. This proves the intention of the testator was that all should take alike. In Bromfield v. Crowder, it was contended the remainder was gone, yet the Court was unanimous in the opinion that the estate had vested; and there is no distinction between the present case and that, where the devise was held to be an immediate devise, but to go over in case of death before twenty-one. Lord Manners. When I find that Sir William Grant, who had so much experience, sent that case to a Court of Law, I ought not to decide the present question, which is purely legal; however, I shall hear the argument. The Solicitor-General on the same side. We contend that this is an executory devise, although I may argue differently from the course pursued by Mr. Dunn, yet we have the same interest. If the father had no estate for life, it would be clearly an executory devise to the eldest son, and would vest. This estate was intended to vest in possession when any of the nephews attained twenty-one, till then the father of the devisees was to enjoy as a rent-charger; then does any inconsistency arise by giving the father an estate for life? It is only a condition subsequent, that if the first nephew should die before twenty-one, his father living, the second nephew should take; but if he died after twenty-one, then the estate would go to his representatives. The attaining twenty-one is the period looked at by the testator, and when one of the nephews should attain it, the estate would then vest. The father was an incumbrancer for the rents and profits. Suppose the testator had devised an annual sum to the father, or that the sons should pay the rents and profits to him, would that make any difference ? 2ndly, Here the words of the will are transposed in order to make out a contingent remainder, it is not the rule of construction thus to defeat the will. Mr. Plunkett for the legatees. Lord Redesdale has decided that this is not a vested interest, and then the question is, whether it be a contingent remainder or an executory devise. Mr. Burston for the legatees. From the decision of Doe v. Morgan, 3 T. R. 763, it is manifest that this is not an executory devise, it must be either a vested or contingent remainder,-whether the testator intended it should be one or the other, is never attended to. Here is an estate for life to Thomas, remainder to his first son attaining twenty-one, remainder to the daughters. As some of the sons have attained twenty-one, the daughters cannot take; here the condition is, if any of the sons attain twenty-one at the death of the father: a remainder may be limited of an estate per autre vie, and a freehold estate must support it. The Lord Chancellor. I must direct a case to be made for the opinion of a Court of law on the following question: Whether any of the children of Thomas Brown, in the events which have happened, took any and what interest under the will of William Brown, in the lands called the Throne farm. On the 21st of May, 1812, the case was argued in the Court of Common Pleas, upon nearly the same grounds which had been urged before the Lord Chancellor: The following certificate was afterwards sent by the Judges to the Lord Chancellor. "We are of opinion, that in the events which have happened, the defendant William Brown took upon the death of his father, Thomas Brown, the whole interest in the term of lives and years in the lands called the Throne farm, under the will of the said William Brown, subject to be divested, if the said William Brown, the defendant, had died before he attained the age of twenty-one years." On the 13th of May, 1813, the cause was heard on the Judge's certificate, and also on the question specially reported by the Master, whether the executors of Campbell should be charged with interest on the sum of three thousand two hundred and thirty-two pounds, part of a sum of five thousand two hundred and eighty-five pounds, applied by Campbell, in paying the debts due to Thomas Brown and John Oakham; when the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the certificate of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas should be affirmed, and that the executors of Campbell should be charged interest, and the following decree was made. Court. Decree the defendant, William Brown, entitled to the farm called the Throne in the pleadings mentioned, devised to him by the will of the late William Brown deceased. Decree the defendants, the executors of John Campbell, deceased, chargeable with the several sums of three hundred and eighteen pounds six shillings and twopence, and three thousand seven hundred and twenty pounds fourteen shillings and tenpence, being the interest reported due by 1829. JOY v. CAMPBELL. 1829. JOY บ. CAMPBELL. them on the sum of three thousand seven hundred and eighty-five pounds one shilling and fivepence, unapplied by Thomas Brown in said report named out of the sum received by him from the discount company in the pleadings mentioned, together with interest on said sum of three thousand seven hundred and eighty-five pounds one shilling and fivepence, from the 20th day of January, 1811, to which day interest was so reported thereon until paid, and let said several sums be forthwith paid by said defendants to the plaintiff, William Brown Joy, as administrator, De bonis non, with the will annexed of said William Brown deceased, and after payment thereout of plaintiff's costs, refer it to the Master to apportion said several sums so to be paid the plaintiff, William Brown Joy, amongst the several legatees of said William Brown according to the sums reported to them, and the sums paid them on foot of their respective legacies, and let the several sums so to be apportioned be paid by the plaintiff, William Brown Joy, to the several persons entitled thereto out of the fund so to be apportioned and paid to him as aforesaid. Refer it to the Master to apportion the stock transferred to the credit of the plaintiffs, Isabella Joy, Robert Joy, and George Joy, minors, pursuant to the said order of the 9th day of May, 1812, together with such interest as hath accrued thereon, to and amongst the said Isabella Joy, Robert Joy, and George Joy, minors, and let the Accountant-General then forthwith draw in favour of and transfer to the said Isabella, Robert, and George Joy, respectively, on their attaining their respective ages of twenty-one years, so much of said stock and the interest thereof as shall be so apportioned to them respectively, either party, plaintiffs or defendants, to be at liberty to proceed on said references. Reserve the question of costs as against the assignees of Thomas Brown, and the creditors of John Campbell. JOHN DALY, Depy. Regr. 1829. ENGLAND. (GREAT SESSIONS, CHESTER, AND KING'S BENCH) 66 By the stat. 31 Eliz. c. 6, s. 5, it it enacted, that "If any person, &c. shall, for any sum of money, reward, gift, "profit, or benefit, directly, or indirectly, or for or by reason "of any promise, agreement, grant, bond, or other assurance ❝of, or for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit "whatsoever, directly or indirectly, present or collate any "person to any benefice with cure of souls, dignity, prebend, ❝or living ecclesiastical, or give or bestow the same for or in "respect of any such corrupt cause or consideration, that "every such presentation, collation, gift and bestowing, and "every admission, institution, investiture, and induction "thereupon shall be utterly void, frustrate, and of none "effect in law." In quare impedit it was found, by special verdict that B. the incumbent of a rectory was on a certain day afflicted with a mortal disease of which he died at eleven o'clock at night, and that at three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day T. the patron of the living, and F. both knowing the condition of B. in pursuance of an agreement, executed a deed by which in consideration of 6000l. T. granted to F. the advowson for a term of 99 years, if F. should so long live, with a proviso that as soon as F. by vacancy or otherwise should have made presentation to the Rectory, he should re-assign to T. the residue of the term. It was found also by the verdict that this agreement and deed was a device to convey the next presentation: But that the deed was executed without the knowledge or privity of H. (the person afterwards presented by T. and rejected by the Bishop Ordinary), and without any intention to present him. Upon this finding, judgments having been given for the Defen dant in the Courts of Great Sessions, Chester, and the King's FOX v. BISHOP OF 1829. FOX v. BISHOP OF CHESTER. Bench, they were reversed in the House of Lords upon writ of Error, the House being of opinion that this sale of the next presentation was not void under the statute. THIS was a Writ of Error, brought by the plaintiff below, from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench at Westminster, affirming a judgment of the Court of great Sessions at Chester, on a special verdict in a quare impedit commenced in the latter Court. In the declaration in the Court below, the first count stated that the advowson of the rectory of the church of Wilmslow was appurtenant to the manor of Bollyn, and set out specially the title of Thomas Joseph Trafford to the manor, with the appurtenances for life; and shewed that J. Bradshaw, the last incumbent, was presented by virtue of a grant of the next avoidance made by Trafford, through whom Thomas Joseph Trafford claimed; and then proceeded: "And "the said Thomas Joseph Trafford being so "seised thereof afterwards, to wit, on the 12th day of November 1819, at, &c. (the said church being then and there full of the said J. Bradshaw, the then incumbent thereof,) by a cer"tain indenture then and their made, between "Thomas Joseph Trafford of the one part, and plaintiff of the other part, of which profert is "made, he the said Thomas Joseph Trafford, for "the consideration therein mentioned, did grant, bargain, sell, and demise unto the plaintiff, his "executors, &c. All that the said advowson, donation, right of patronage, presentation, and "free disposition of, in, and to the said Rectory "and Parish Church of Wilmslow in the County |