seeing to the application of the purchase-money; and then he appointed the said trustees and his wife his executors: held that the trustees did not take the legal estate in the real property of the devisor. Hilton v. Kenworthy. 3 East, 552. 88 Under a devise of lands, arrears of rent, and a bond and judgment, to trustees and the survivor, and the executors, &c. of such survivor, in trust, out of the rents and profits of the said estates and arrears, &c. to pay certain annuities for lives, and a sum in gross; and from and after payment of the said annuities and money, the testator devised successive estates for lives, remainder to C. W. in tail, remainder to his own right heirs; and he also gave a general power of leasing to the trustees for the best rent, with an allowance of 10l. a year to each for their trouble; held that the purposes of the trust being all answered by the death of the annuitants, and the raising of the money for legacies, the remainder-man in tail (the life estate being spent,) took the legal estate in the premises. Doe deın. White v. Simpson. 5 East, 162. 89 A. by will gave to his wife an annuity of 2001. for her life, in addition to her jointure (which was seeured upon an estate in the WestIndies,) and 6000l. to his two younger children, to be paid at 21, and appointed B, C. and D. as trustees of inheritance for the execution thereof; held that no interest passed to B. C. and D. in the testator's real estates. Trent v. Hanning. New Rep. 116.

90 A. devised to B. his wife for life, and empowered her to devise the same to any one or more of his child or children in such manner, share, and proportion as she should appoint, "but so as the said estate should not be divided, but transmitted whole and entire to his heirs;" and in another part (after devising an adjoining estate in the same way) he added that his will

was that "they should be considered as one estate, and be transmitted entire to his family ;" and in default of appointment, to his own right heirs; B. by will devised and appointed to their son C. for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the first and other sons of C. in tail general, remainder to the daughters of C. in tail general, and with like limitations to D. and E. two other children; all their children C. D. and E. were alive when A. devised; Qu. what estates did they severally take? Per Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. and Grose J. they respectively took estates in tail general; per Ashhurst and Buller, justices, they respectively took life estates, with remainders in tail to their respective children. Griffith v. Harrison. 4 Term Rep.

737.

91 Under a devise of all the devisor's lands to his niece S. E. for life, and after that estate determined, the same to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, and after her decease then to remain to her first and other sons successively in tail, remainder to her daughters as tenants in common in tail; and for default of such issue then to the issue of the devisor's four sisters in such manner as he had limited the same to his niece's issue; and for default of such issue of his sisters to his own right heirs; held that the devise is in effect to his niece S. E. for life, remainder to her first and other sons successively in tail, remainder to her daughters as tenants in common in tail, with cross remainders (by implication) between those daughters; remainder to the issue of the four sisters of the devisor in tail; and one of the four sisters having issue a son and two daughters living at the death of the testator, at all events they took vested estates in remainder; and whether that son took conjointly with his two sisters in tail, or whether the son would have taken first in tail,

with remainder to his two sisters in tail, made no difference in the event, as the son died without issue. And the three other sisters of the devisor, and his niece S. E. having all died without issue after the death of the devisor; held that the two surviving daughters of the fourth sister were entitled to all the estate against the devisee of the niece, who was the devisor's heir at law. Roe d. Wren v. Clayton. 6 East, 628. 92 A. by will bequeathed to his wife (besides some other legacies) a leasehold estate at N. for her life, and a leasehold estate at W. to B.; and by his codicil he directed that the bequests to his wife in his will should be in full of all claims she should be entitled to on his real or personal estate, except the estate for life of his wife in the premises at W.; held that the wife was not thereby entitled to the estate at W, it being clear that W. was put by mistake for B. Skerratt v. Oakley. 7 Term Rep. 492.

93 Where two legacies of the same sum are bequeathed to the same person by different instruments, viz. one by will, and the other by codicil, the le gatee is entitled to both; unless it appear from the context of the two instruments, or there be some other circumstance, to shew the intention of the testator, that he should take but one. James v. Semmens. 2 H. Black. 213. 94 One devises to his natural son, and in case of his marriage with certain persous, or his dying without issue, then to his nephew for life, and after his decease, then for and amongst such person and persons, his and their heirs, &c. as shall appear and can be proved to be his next of kin, in such proportions as they would, by virtue of the statute of distributions, have been entitled to his personal estate if he had died intestate: held that the distribution was to be made amongst those who were the testator's next of kin at the time of his death, though the nephew, to

whom a prior life-estate was given, were one of them. Doe d. bruther v. Lawson. 3 East, 278. 95 Parol evidence may be admitted to explain a latent ambiguity in a will, or codicil. thomas d. Evens v. Thomas. 6 Term Rep. 671: Walpole, Lord v. Cholmondeley, E. 7 Term Rep. 138.

96 But where the devisor made one will in 1752, and another in 1755, without disposing of his personalty, and by a codicil (reciting that by his last will dated in 1752, he had made no disposition of his personalty) disposed of his personalty and appointed executors; it was ruled that there was no latent ambiguity so as to let in parol evidence to show that the testator intended by the codicil to confirm the will of 1756, and not to republish that of 1752. 7 Term Rep. 138.

97 A. devised lands to B., and afterterwards upon his marriage conveyed them by lease and release is trustees to other uses, with the usual limitations in marriage settlements; on a trial at bar the court of C. P. refused to admit parol eridence to show that A. meant his will to remain in force, unrevoked by the subsequent conveyance. Goodtitle d. Hotford et al. v. Otway.

2 H. Black. 516.

101 But parol evidence of declarations made by the testator before the making of a will eannot be received to contradict the will. Term Rep. 671,

6

to

102 If a devise be to A. by name, with a description annexed not applicable to A. but shewn by parol evidence to be applicable to B., so that it is uncertain which of them was intended, the devise is void, and the heir at law shall take; and no parol evidence can be admitted shew, that previous to the making of his will, the devisor had declared that he meant to leave the premises to A. Thomas d. Evans v. Thomas. 6 Term Rep. 671. 103 But if the description annexed to A's name be not applicable to any other person, it may be rejected as surplusage; and then A. will take under the devise. 6 Term Rep. 671. 101 Parol evidence may be admitted

to shew that the name of A. was inserted by mistake for the name of B. Ibid.

105

. devised his estate at Lushill in the county of Wilts, and Hearne and Buckland in the county of Kent, "to his son in fee;" at the time of the devise A. had lands in the parish of Hearne, and also in the several parishes of C. W. S. R. and S. all which he purchased by one contract of one person, and used to call his "Hearne estate," or "HearneBay estate ;" the estate at Lushill in Wills, and also a farm called Buckland farm in Kent, were sold before the testator's death, and at the time of his death he had no estate in Kent, except that which lay in the parishes of Hearne, C. IV. S. R. and S.: Qu. Whether the above facts were admissible in evidence to shew that the testator intended to pass the land in the several parishes of C. W. S. R. and S. as well as that in the parish of Hearne ? Whitbread v. May.

2

Bos. & Pull. 593. 406 One having purchased of A. the mauor and certain lands of and in

a

Hampreston in the Counties of Dorset and Hants, and having settled a rent-charge on his wife out of his manor of Hampreston in the county of Dorset and all other his lands, &c., in Hampreston aforesaid, which Le bought of A.; and having afterwards purchased of other persons other lands in Hampreston in Hants, (which were near to another estate of his called Uddens in Dorset ;) by his will, reciting and confirming the settlement, devised to trustees, "the said manor, &c. and other hereditaments of and in Hampreston AFORESAID, and all other the manors, lands, farms, &c. and other hereditaments in or near Uddens aforesaid, or elswhere in the said county of Dorset," to trustees for different uses; mongst others, giving his wife an additional rent-charge, payable out of the manors and hereditaments in the said county of Dorset ;" and as to all and singular the said manors, and other hereditaments in the said county of Dorset, with other appurtenances, &e charged as aforesaid," he devised the same to the first and other sons of his body, remainder to his daughters, in strict settlement; and if all but one of his daughters died without issue," then as to the entuity of the said manors and other hereditaments," to the daughters of his remaining daughters in tail. &e; remainder to the lessor of the Plaintiff, his nephew, and heir at law: remainder to his sons and daughters in strict settlement; remainders over to other junior nephews in like manner: with power to the trustees to raise money on the security" of the manors and other hereditaments in the said county of Dorset" and also to sell the devised lands, except such as were situate at Uddens or Hampreston aforesaid, and to purchase other lands in fee within the said

devise to the lessor of the Plaintiff. Held that the Hampreston lands lying in Hants, and not purchased of A.; though situated within and surrounded by the general acubitt of Dorsetshire, and also near Uddens, and holden together with and as part of a Dorsetshire farm, did not pass by the will; which was confined in express terms to the manor and lands in Hampreston, purchased of A. (by force of the words "said manor, &c. and hereditaments aforesaid," referring to the recital of the settlement,) or which lay in the county of Dorset, (by the addition of the latter words; which would not have been necessary if the devisor had meant to pass all his lands near Uddens, in whatever county situated.)

For though where a thing is certainly expressed at first, the addition of another certain description may be rejected as superfluous; yet it is otherwise where the thing at first described is uncertain; as here, lands, &c. near Uddens. Doe v. Greatbed, 8 East, 91. 107 One seized in fee, having only one daughter A. married to N. B. and two grandsons, W. T. B. and M. B. devised, "as for my worldly and temporal estates, &c. I give to N. B. 1 s.; and devised that he shall not come upon my premises or hereditaments on any account whatsoever. Then after giving a legacy to his graudson M. B.; he devised to his daughter 20l. a year out of the profits of his ESTATE or lands at Eaton;" and then devised to his grandson W. T. B. "all his messuage and dwelling house situate at Eaton aforesaid, with all hereditaments. &c. thereunto belonging, &c.; and that W. T. B. when 21, shall enter upon and enjoy the abovementioned EsTATE, situate at Eaton aforesaid; but that if he should leave his profession, all his right and title to the estate devised should devolve and descend to his brother, M. B.: held that in order to effectuate the intention of the devisor to exclude, at all

events, his son in law N. B. from coming upon his premises, &c. (which he would otherwise be entitled to do as tenant by the curtesy, if his son W. T. B. died before his Mother); W. T. B. took a fee. Aided too as that construction was, by the introductory words as to his worldly estate; by giving N. B. 1 s.; by the annuity for life to his daughter, payable out of the same estate; and from the direction for the estate to descend and devolve to M. B. if his elder brother W. T. B. should leave his profession; (in which event M. B. would only have taken pur autre vie.) But held that the annuity devised to his daughter A. out of the profits of the estate, being no charge upon the devisee, or upon the estate given to him, would not have passed the fee to W. T. B.: nor would the word estate, as here used in the devise to him; being by reference restricted to the antecedent words. Doe v. Clayton. 8 East, 141. 108 A. having an estate in the county of Monmouth, of which he was seized in fee in possession; and another estate in the county of Radnor, of which he was also seized in fee, subject to the uses of his marriage settlement; (by which he covenanted to convey to the use of himself and his wife for life; remainder to his first and other sons in tail) which left him in equity a disposing power over the reversion only; both which estates had formerly belonged to an uncle, and came to him, the one by descent, the other by purchase from another co-heir of his uncle; by his will, misreeiting the estate of which he was seized in fee in possession to be in the county of Radnor instead of Monmouth; and misreciting his disposable reversion to be in the county of Monmouth instead of Radnor ; devised his estate, so misdescribed to be in Radnor, which was in truth the reversionary estate, to his wife for life; remainder to his only son for life; remainder to his sons and daughters in tail,

striet settlement; remainder to his own daughter, &c. and devised the reversion only of his estate, so misdescribed to be in Monmouth, of which in truth he was seized in fee absolute, after the death of his wife, and only son without issue, to his daughter, &c.: Yet held that enough appeared on the face of the will, which also described these estates as formerly belonging to his uncle, to shew that the devisors' intent was to pass the present interest of his estate in fee absolute, which was in the county of M. and the reversion of his settled estate in the county of R.; although he had respectively misdescribed their local situations. Moseley v. Massey. 8 East, 149. 109 The devisor having devised certain estates to A. in fee; and to his executors "all his money," &c. stock upon his farm, with the impli ments of husbandry, and all other his personal estate of what nature or kind soever, iu trust to pay debts and legacies, &c.: held that the devise of the stock upon his farm carried the standing crops of corn growing there at the time of his death, from the devisee of the land to the executors; although there were assets sufficient to pay all the debts and legacies without that aid. West v. Moore. 8 East, 339. 110 A mere right of entry (the estate of the remainder-man having been devested by the fine of a tenant for life) is not deviseable. Goodright v. Forester. 8 East, 552. 111 A devise to one by the name of Mary, whose christian name was Elizabeth, is good; if the jury find, from the circumstances, that she was the person meant to be designated. Doe, d. Cooke and Wife v. Danvers. 7 East, 299. 112 An estate, whether strictly copyhold to all purposes, or customary estate, the freehold of which is in the lord, may well pass under the description of copy-hold in a will; the intention to pass it under that description being apparent. ibid.

113 One having an only child Rebecca, who was married and had three children, Thomas, Rebecca and Ann, devised his copy-hold to Rebecca, his daughter for life, remainder to his grand daughter Rebecca for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the use of the issue of the body of his granddaughter, Rebecca in such parts, shares and proportions, manner and form, as she should by deed or will appoint; and in default of appointment to the use of all and every the children of his said granddaughter, and their heirs, as tenants in common; and in default of such issue to the use of all and every the other children of his daughter Rebecca and their heirs, as tenants in common, &c.; and in default of such issue, to his own right heirs. Held that upon the death of the testator's daughter and of his granddaughter Rebecca, without any appointment, an only child of the latter took an absolute fee: on whose death, under age and unmarried, the premises descended to her unele Thomas, as her heir at law; and that the subsequent limitations to the other children of the testator's daughter, Rebecca, did not take effect. For the devise to the children of his granddaughter Rebecca, and their heirs prima facie carries a fee; and the subsequent words, "In default of such issue," refers to her children, and not to their heirs; though the limitation over, in dedefault of such issue be made to those who might take as heirs to the children of Rebecca the granddaughter. And the intention of the devisor that her children, if any, should take a fee is further evinced by this; that the limitation to them and their heirs is in default of appointment under a power given her to appoint "to the use of the issue of her body in such manner and form (as well in such parts, shares and proportions) as she should direct," under which words "manner and form" she might