So where a man conveyed a term for 500 years, upon trust to raise 1500l. for such child or children as he should have living at his death; and died, leaving no child, but his wife ensient of a daughter, which was after born: it was decreed, that this daughter was a child living at his death, within the meaning of the trust. And the direction of a trust is not so strictly construed as the limitation of an estate at law; and in Lutterel's case, in lord Bridgman's time, a bill was brought on behalf of an invent in ventre sa mere to stay waste, and an injunction was granted. Hale and Hale, Prec. Ch. 50.

And by the 10 & 11 W. c. 16. Where any estate shall, by any marriage or other settlement, be limited in remainder to, or to the use of the first or other son or sons of the body of any person lawfully begotten, with remainder over to the use of any other person; or in remainder to, or to the use of a daughter lawfully begotten, with remainder over to any other person: any son or daughter of such person lawfully begotten, that shall be born after the decease of his father, may by virtue of such settlement take such estate so limited, in the same manner as if born in the lifetime of their father, although there shall happen no estate to be limited to trustees, after the decease of the father,

at the age of twenty-one. Sir L. Kenyon M. R. decreed that a child born after the death of testatrix shall take. Congreve v. Congreve, 1 Bro. C. C. 530.

[Under a devise "to all the children of A. except B.," a posthumous child is entitled. Clark v. Blake, T. 1795, 2Ves. jun. 673. 2 Bro. C. C. 320. So where A. devised lands to be sold for increase of children's portions, a child born since the will shall have a share. Coles v. Hancock, 2 Cha. R.211. So where A. gave 207. a-piece to "all the children of his sister B.," this legacy extends to a child born after making the will, and before testator's death; the word "children” comprehending all. Garbland v. Mayot, T. 1689, 2 Vern. 105. 2 Freem. 105. S. C. But where a sum was given to be divided among "children," all who were born before the time of division shall take. Pulsford or Jennings v. Hunter, H. 1792, 3 Bro. C. C. 416. And on this general rule, a child by a subsequent marriage was included, notwithstanding a strong implication in favour of children by the prior marriage. Barrington v. Tristram, 6 Ves. 345. So where a specific sum was given by will among the six children of A.; A. had six children at the time, one more was born after testator's will, but before a codicil: the seventh takes no share. Sherer

v. Bishop, 4 Bro. C. C. 55. A bequest to the child of which an unmarried woman is enceinte, without reference to any reputed father, is good, for the object is sufficiently pointed out by the description. Gordon v. Gordon, H. 1816, 1 Meriv. R. 141. Evans v. Massey, 8 Pri. R. 22. S. P.; and see Wilkinson v. Adam, 1V. &B. 446. Earle v. Wilson, 17 Ves. 528.]

to preserve the contingent remainder to such after-born children until they shall come in esse. (c)

T. 11 G. 2. Jones and Fulham. The testator, being possessed of a term, devised it in these words: "To my wife for her life; "and after her decease, to such child as my said wife is now sup"posed to be with child and ensient of, and his heirs for ever: "Provided always, that if such child, as shall happen to be born " as aforesaid, shall die before it has attained the age of 21 years, leaving no issue of its body; then the reversion of one"third part to my said wife, and the other two-thirds to my "sisters." The testator dying within a month after, the wife entered, and enjoyed during her life, but had no child or miscarriage. And upon her death the question was, whether, as no child had ever been born, the remainders, limited upon his dying under 21 without issue, could take effect. And after several arguments, it was held by the court of king's bench that they might; that though formerly there had been opinions to the contrary, yet according to the law now settled, the devise to the infant in ventre sa mere was well limited, and if any child had been born, would have passed the term accordingly. Secondly, that though no child was ever born, yet the remainders are notwithstanding good; for there being no devisee, the devise, though void only ex post facto, falls to the ground as much as if it had been void in its creation, and this lets in the remainders immediately that though the clause by which the remainders are limited is in words, strictly speaking, conditional, yet they do not make it a condition, but only a limitation. Lastly, that the contingencies must happen within a reasonable time; and therefore it may well operate by way of executory devise. And they said they had seen the decretal order in the court of chancery, by which it appeared that the same question, arising upon this same will, and concerning the same premises, came before lord Harcourt; and that he was of opinion, that the devise over of the reversion in thirds to the wife and two sisters was good, notwithstanding the wife was not ensient with any child. Vin. Devise, L. 53.

[168]

25. The father settled a lease, with reference to his will: in In what which he gave 500l. to each of his daughters, to be paid at the

(c) In Reeve v. Long, Salk. 228. 3 Lev. 408. The objection, that there were no trustees to preserve contingent remainders, and that therefore the freehold must be in abeyance, prevailed in the opinion of all the judges. The house of peers, perhaps influenced by the hardship of the case, reversed the judgment of the courts below, and soon after procured this statute to be passed, to settle the point. See Ld. Kenyon's opinion in Lancashire v. Lancashire, 5 T. Rep. 60. See also 1 T. Rep. 634. Hargr. Co. Lit. 298. n. Bul. N. P. 105.

case maintenance

shall be implied.

Household stuff.

Household goods and furniture.

age of twenty-one; and if any or all died before that age, then to others; but devised no maintenance to them till their portions became payable: By the court, A maintenance cannot be decreed, because of the devise over. 1 Chan. Cas. 249. 3 Salk. 127.

But if there is no devise over, the court will decree a maintenance in the meantime: Thus in the case of Harvey and Harvey, E. 1722, the father seised of a real estate, and possessed of a personal estate, and having several children, deviseth all his real and personal estate to his eldest son, charging the same with 1000l. a-piece to all his younger children, payable at their respective ages of twenty-one; but in the will no notice is taken of maintenance for the younger children in the meantime. The younger children bring their bill, in order to recover interest, or some maintenance during their infancy. Upon which the master of the rolls, having taken time to consider of the case, and having been also attended with precedents, decreed, that the younger children should recover maintenance. He observed, that these being vested legacies, and no devise over, it would be extreme hard that the children should starve, when entitled to so considerable legacies, for the sake of their executors or administrators, who in case of their deaths would have the said legacies: That in this case, the court would do, what in common presumption the father, if living, would (nay ought to) have done; which was, to provide necessaries for his children. 2 P. Will. 22.

26. It is usual in wills to devise all the household stuff; by which words plate about the house, and not for ornament, passeth; but books, cattle, clothes, coaches, corn, carts, ploughs, waggons, and any thing fixed to the freehold, will not pass by that word. Swin. a. 185.

27. By a devise of household goods, plate will pass. 2 Vern. 628. 3 Atkyns, 370.

T. 1727, Nichols and Osborne. The testatrix devised all her household goods to J. S. The question was, whether by the devise of the household goods the plate should pass. Though it was reported on a reference to a master, that there were mani[169] fest intentions and declarations of the testatrix, that she did not intend the plate should pass; yet the master certifying that the plate was commonly used in the house, all the evidence touching the intention of the party was rejected, there being a complete and plain will in writing, which must not be altered or influenced by parol proof. 2 P. Will. 419. (9)

(9) S. P. In Masters v. Masters, E. 1713, 1 P.Wms. 424. See Lillcott v. Compton, 2 Vern. 638. Nicholls v. Osborn, 2 P.Wms. 420. Snelson v. Corbett, 3 Atk. 370. Kelly v. Powlett, Ambl. 605. Bequest of" the use of a house with all the furniture, stock of carriages and horses,

If a man deviseth 1200l. to J. S., and by general words deviseth all his goods, chattels, and household goods in and about his house to the said J. S.; money in the house will not pass, he having a particular legacy devised to him. Swin. a. 185.

By a devise of jewels, plate, pictures, medals, and furniture; it was decreed by lord Hardwicke, that a library of books did not pass under the word "furniture." 3 Atk. 202. (d)

28. It is usual likewise to devise all the goods moveable and immoveable: Now by the civil law, actions and rights of actions pass by the word "moveables," especially when the words of universality are repeated in the will; as, I give to T. S. all my moveable goods and immoveable, of what kind soever, or wheresoever found. Swin. a. 185.

One deviseth all his goods; and whether a debt by bond passed to the devisee was the question: Decreed by lord chancellor Cowper that it did; that these words seemed at common law to pass a bond, and to extend to all the personal estate; but this being in the case of a will, and a will relating to a personal estate too, it ought to be construed according to the rules of the civil law: now the civil law makes bona mobilia and bona immobilia the membra dividentia of all estates: bona immobilia are land, bona mobilio are all moveables; which must extend to bonds;

and other live and dead stock, for life:" plate was held to pass, but not wine and books. Porter v. Tournay, 3 Ves. 311. By the words "other effects" in general, is meant effects ejusdem generis; and money therefore cannot be said to be ejusdem generis with plate, linen, and household goods; neither can "stock" be held to pass by the name of money. Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. 326. Boon v. Cornforth, 2 Ves. 277. S. P. As to the word "things," see Boon v. Cornforth, id. But a bequest of the furniture and pictures at the houses of A., B., and C., will not pass plate which the testator constantly used, and removed with him when he went from one house to another. Franklyn v. E. of Burlington, Pre. Ch. 251.; S. C. reported contra, in 2 Vern. 512. As in Jesson v. Essington, Pre. Ch. 207. See also Laud v. Devaynes, 4 Bro. C. C. 537. contra; and see note (g).

(d) [Bridgman v. Dove, Kelly v. Powlett, Ambl. 605. S. P.] Under a bequest of household furniture, plate in the house at the testator's death, whether in common use or not, if suitable to the rank of the testator, pictures hung up, linen, and china, will pass; but books in a library will not. Sir G. Kelly v. Powlett, Amb. 605. Neither will jewels occasionally worn pass by the bequest of "a cabinet of curiosities," although usually shewn with it. Cavendish v. Cavendish, 1 Bro. [C.C. 467. 1 Cox, 77. Where current coin is curious, and kept with medals, it shall pass as such. Bridgman v. Dove. Devise of "furniture at A.," part is removed by devisor to B.: that will not pass. Heseltine v. Heseltine, 3 Madd. R. 276.]

"All his goods," what it

implies.

[170]

and therefore by the devise of all the testator's goods, a bond must pass. 1 P. Will. 267. (e)

By a devise of all his goods, a lease for years will pass, if there be not some other circumstance to guide the intent of the devisor. Swin. a. 200.

But where a man devised to his niece all his goods, chattels, household stuff, furniture, and other things which then were, or should be in his house at the time of his death, and died, leaving about 2651. in ready money in the house; it was decreed, that this ready money did not pass; for by the words other things shall be intended things of like nature and species with those before mentioned. M. 1729, Trafford and Berridge, 1 Abr. Eq. Cas. 201.

So where a man devised so much of his personal estate as should be and remain on such an estate at his death; and there were, amongst other things, corn, household goods, plate, and 400/. in money; it was decreed by the lord chancellor Hardwicke, that all stock on the farm, live and dead, and all stores on the lands, did pass; but that the 400l. did not pass by the devise. Incledon and Northcote, Mar. 2. 1746, 3 Atk. 437. (g)

(e) But where the testator gave to "R. M. all his goods and chattels in Suffolk," and died, having goods and chattels there, and also in other counties, lord Thurlow C. held that a bond found in Suffolk did not pass, because though accounted inter bona notabilia of the diocese where it is found (1 Ro. Ab. 909.), being a chose in action it has not the locality which can attach it to a particular place. Moore v. Moore, 1 Bro. C. C. 127. See also Chapman v. Hart, 1 Ves. 271.; where lord Hardwicke says, that such a devise relates to the death of the testator; and the goods if removed before, (except contingently, as for fear of fire, or by the owner being ordered from ship to ship,) do not pass. See also Green v. Symonds, 1 Bro. 129.; [and see 111. note.] (g) But ready money in a house, (including bank notes,) if not an extraordinary sum, will pass by a devise of all things in the house. Prec. in Cha. 8. Chapman v. Hart, 1 Ves, 271. [Popham v. Lady Aylesbury, Ambl. 68. S. P.] Stuart v. E. of Bute, 11 Ves. 657.

[Again in Timewell v. Perkins, 2 Atk. 103., agift of " plate, jewels, linen, household goods, and coach and horses, will be confined to things of the same nature; and notes and bills will not pass by such words. See 1 P. W. 303. 2 Ves. 279. 2 Atk. 113. Nor will a devise of "all household goods, and all implements of household," pass the malt, hops, beer, ale, and other victuals in the house; or the guns and pistols, if used as arms in riding or shooting game: but the clock, if not fixed to the house, will pass. Slanning v. Style, 3 P. Wms. 334. "China" passes under the word "furniture," unless in a bequest by a shopkeeper. Hele v. Gilbert, 2 Ves. R. 430. "Running horses" pass under "all goods and chattels soever, in and