adjudged a good Devise though it were a possibility upon a possibility These Conclusions which I have thus laid down are but Preliminaries to the main Debate It is now fit we should come to speak to the main Question of the Case as it stands upon its own Reason distinguished from the Reasons of these Preliminary and so the Case is this The Trust of a Term for Two Hundred Years is limited to Henry in Tail provided if Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry so that the Earldom shall descend upon Henry then to go to Charles in Tail and whether this be a good Limitation to Charles in Tail is the Question for most certainly it is a void Limitation to Edward in Tail and a void Limitation to the other Brothers in Tail But whether it be good to Charles is the doubt who is the first taker of this Term in gross for so it is I take it now become and I do under favour differ from my Lord Chief Justice in that point for if Charles die it will not return to Henry for that is my Lord Cook 's error in Leonard Loveis's Case for he says That if a Term be devised to one Co. 10. 87. and the Heirs Males of his Body it shall go to him or his Executors no longer than he has Heirs Males of his Body but it was resolved otherwise in Leventhorp's and Ashby's Case 11. Car. B. R. Rolls Abridgment Title Devise fol. 611. for these Words are not the Limitation of the time but an absolute disposition of the Term. But now let us I say consider whether this Limitation be good to Charles or no. It hath been said Obj. 1. It is not good by any means for it is a possibility upon a possibility Answ That is a weak Reason and there is nothing of Argument in it for there never was yet any Devise of a Term with Remainder over but did amount to a possibility upon a possibility and executory Remainders will make it so Obj. 2. Another thing was said it is void because it doth not determine the whole Estate and so they compare it to Sir Anthony Mildmay's Case where it is laid down as a Rule that every Limitation or Condition ought to defeat the intire Estate and not to defeat part and leave part not defeated and it cannot make an Estate to cease as to one person and not as to the other But Answ I do not think that any Case or Rule was ever worse applied than that to this for if you do observe this Case here is no Proviso at all annexed to the legal Estate of the Term but to the equitable Estate that is built upon the legal Estate unto the Estate to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body to attend the Inheritance with a Proviso If Thomas die without Issue in Henry's life and the Earldom come to Henry then to Charles which doth determine the Estate to Henry and his Issue but the other Estate given to Charles doth arise upon this Proviso which makes it an absurdity to say that the same Proviso upon which the Estate ariseth should determine that Estate too Obj. 3. The graet matter objected is It is against all the Rules of Law and tends to a perpetuity Answ If it tends to a perpetuity there needs no more to be said for the Law has so long laboured against perpetuities that it is an undeniable Reason against any settlement if it can be found to tend to a perpetuity Therefore let us examine whether it do so and let us see what a Perpetuity is and whether any Rule of Law is broken in this Case A perpetuity is the settlement of an Estate or an Interest in Tail with such Remainders Expectant upon it as are in no sort in the power of the Tenant in Tail in possession to dock by any Recovery or Assignment but such Remainders must continue as perpetual clogs upon the Estate such do fight against God for they pretend to such a stability in human Affairs as the nature of them admits not of and they are against the Reason and the policy of the Law and therefore not to be endured But on the other side future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory remainders that are to emerge and arise upon Contingencies are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long consideration but such as by a natural and easie interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to their right Channel again Let us examine this Rule with respect to Freehold-Estates and see whether there it will amount to the same Issue There is not in the Law a clearer Rule than this that there can be no Remainders limitted after a Fee simple so is the express Book Case 19 Hen. 8. in my Lord Dyer but yet the nature of things and the necessity of commerce between Man and Man have found a way to pass by that Rule and that is thus either by way of Use or by way of Devise Therefore if a Devise be to a Man and his Heirs and if he dye without Issue in the life of B. then to B. and his Heirs this is a Fee simple upon a Fee simple and yet it has been held to be Good. My Lord Chief Baron did seem to think that this Resolution Cro. Mich. 18 Jac. 590 did take its Original from Pells and Brown's Case but it did not so the Law was setled before you may find it expresly resolved 19 Eliz. in a Case between Hinde and Lyon 3 Leonard 64. 3. Leonard Which of the Books that have lately come out is one of the best and it was there adjudged to be so good a limitation that the Heir who pleaded riens peer descent was forced to pay the Debt and it had the concurrence of a judgment in 38 Eliz. grounded upon the Reason of Wellock and Hammond's Case cited in Beraston's Case where it is said Crooke Eliz. 204. in a devise it may well be that an Estate in Fee shall cease in one and be transferred to another all this was before Pells and Brown's Case which was in 18 Jac. It is true it was made a Question afterwards in the Serjeants Case but what then We all know that to be no Rule to judge by for what is used to exercise the Wits of the Serjeants is not a governing Opinion to decide the Law. It was also adjudged in Hil. 1649. when my Lord Rolls was Chief Justice and again in Mich. 1650. and after that indeed in 1651. it was resolved otherwise in Jay and Jay's Case but it has been often agreed that where it is within the compass of one Life that the Contingency is to happen there is no danger of a perpetuity And I oppose it to that Rule which was taken by one of the Lords the Judges That
in possession it had been the stronger but as this Case is I conceive the Trust will wait upon the Estate of H. H. for so long as Tho. lives and hath Heirs Males of his body and until the Earldom come unto him and the Trust of Henry determines and then a new Trust springs up to the younger Children which is a future contingent trust so as a common Recovery can bar this Trust so long onely as they did wait upon the Estate of H. H. which is now determined by a collateral Limitation and the Recovery cannot enlarge the Trust to H. H and make that to continue which in its Creation was to end when such a Contingent happens which hath now hapned if H. H. had not suffered a common Recovery he had had an Estate-tail yet no Trust this is a future contingent Trust to the younger Children which cannot be barred by a common Recovery W. Ellis 8 Martii 1677. 1. The Surrender or Grant of the Lease for 200 years to Serj. M d for the Brothers Henry nor the extinguishment of the legal Interest of the term doth not prejudice the equitable Trust of the term so long as the Lands comes not into other hands viz. of a Purchaser without notice of the Trust which is not in this Case 2. An Intail cannot be made of a term in Gross as if a Lease for 1000 years be made in trust for J. S. and the Heirs of his body with Remainders over J. S. may dispose of the whole term and such disposal is good against his Issue and those in Remainder and if he die without such disposition made by him his Executors shall have the benefit of the Trust and not his Issue or the Remainder 3. But a Term may be limited to attend and wait on the Inheritance by way of a trust as if a long term of years be the Reversion in Fee if the Reversion be purchased in Fee or setled in tail the term may be setled to the use of the Fee or Tenant intail and in that case if the Tenant intail die or the Tenant in Fee die the Heir or Issue shall have the benefit of the trust and not the Executors c. 4. But in that Case if the Tenant in Fee die in debt and no other sufficient Assets to pay the debt in that case the Executor shall be preferred before the Heir although the debt be such as the Heir is not bound or liable unto 5. And I conceive that in that case if the Tenant intail that hath the Equity of a term waiting on it do purchase the term and alien or obtain the Trustee of the term to make an alienation of the term it shall bind the Issue intail and him in Remainder though the Alienation be by Deed without Fine or Recovery because the term in Law is well aliened without Fine c. And the Statute of Westm 2d de bonis extends not to a Case of a term 6. Yet it is true this doth not absolutely determine the Case in question upon three accounts First It is a new Case not yet brought in question Secondly Because here is a springing and a new trust by accident subsequent and alters the Trust and changes the Intail of the term to other persons from Henry to the younger Children and on such accident takes away the Trust wholly from Henry the first Tenant in tail And Thirdly the Change seemeth to be grounded on great reason for the Lord Maltravers being in such condition as he was in there was great reason to disable him and provide for the younger Children as is done by Case and if Henry should come to be Earl and have addition of Estates that the other younger Children should also have accession of Estate to them and so it is by this Deed of trust provided But notwithstanding these reasons and this difference of the Case in these circumstances from other Cases already resolved and the contrary Opinions that I have seen I am rather of the opinion that in this Case the younger Brothers are bound by the Recovery suffered by Henry than convinced that they are not bound for I find that the Reasons given e contra touch not my doubt fully The Reasons of my Opinion are viz. 1. For the Recovery suffered and the time when it was suffered to wit before the Lord Maltravers dyed for till he dyed Henry was Tenant in tail and had power by a Recovery to bar and dispose of the whole Inheritance as well of his his own Estate tail as of those in Remainder The term of years was but accessary to serve and attend the Inheritance which was principal 2. And the onely reason that made such intailing or limitation of the term good was because it was to wait on the Inheritance first to Henry in tail and so successively to the other Brothers or else as it is abovesaid the limitation had not been good And when that reason fails and the cause why it was a good limitation ceaseth and is taken away the effect of it doth likewise cease 3. The change of the term into thirds doth not change the Estates tail of the younger Brothers and cannot stand with the intention of the Deed of Trust For I think it clear if Charles admitting he come to the Inheritance as owner or if in the life of Henry he could get a Tenant of the Freehold of all or any part of the Land to joyn with him should then suffer a Recovery it would bar Edward Francis and Bernard of so much of the third part whereof such Recovery should be suffered viz. of the whole Inheritance and a third of the term and the residue to wit the other two parts would respectively cease and be intailed as to the term and be wholly in the respective disposition of Edward and the rest and go to their Executors not to their Issues or the Remainders And yet upon long consideration of the Case there is another and a further ground of my doubt of what hath been said viz. not onely because it is a new Case and concerneth a Great and Noble Family but on another and further ground observed and insisted upon by such great Opinions contrary to what I have above observed viz. that it is not onely a springing and contingent use to the younger Brothers respecting them but because the Original Trust to Henry viz. that the Trust to him and his Issue is as to him and them under a Limitation and that not so long as he the Tenant in tail shall have Issue but so long as the Lord Maltravers shall have Issue Male and on that reason the Case is more doubtful M d. 1. I agree that if a man have a term for a 1000 years and Sir W. Ellis he grants and demiseth this to one and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to another and his Heirs that this term cannot be intailed nor a Remainder limited upon it and that
the Kingdom and ought to take place in this Court as well as any other Court. So I take it then that the Trust of a Term is as much a Chattel and under the consideration of this Court as the Term it self and therefore I cannot see why the Trust of a Term upon a voluntary Settlement should be carried further in a Court of Equity than the Devise of a Term in the Courts of Common Law. It is true where there is a long Term in being upon Mortgage and as a security which is determined it is of great conveniency that it should be kept on foot to protect the Inheritance and so it will lie still to wait upon the Inheritance and thereupon in many Descents it will go from Heir to Heir and that upon a particular consideration to attend and protect the Inheritance But for a meer Chattel to go from Heir to Heir is not the same case nor do I see any reason why this Court should carry such a Chattel any further than Devises of terms are carried at Common Law. Now let us see and a little consider what those Rules are and how they are appliable to this Case In both cases a Term may be limited for life to one with Remainders over though in the bare consideration of Law an Estate for life is a greater Estate than a Term for years but in case of an Estate-tail there can be no such thing therefore in Burgesses Case the Trust of a term is limited to A. for life the Remainder to his Wife for life the Remainder to the first second and other Sons successively and the Issue of their bodies and for default of such Issue to the Daughters of A. and their Issue the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. A. had no Son at that time living nor after but the Remainder over was to the Daughter of A. in being It was strongly urged that the Daughter should have the Trust vested in her and that the Trust for the Daughter should close with the Estate for life till A. should have a Son. But because there was a Limitation to the first Son of A. and the Issue of his body and the Remainder of the Daughter was but to take place after that Son died without Issue and so the others though it was not to a Son then in being But his Estate was in contingencies which did never happen yet the Court did not allow of any such thing as any Remainder that the Daughter should have but made a Decree for the execution of the Devisee so that it is clear there can be no direct Remainder of the Trust of a term upon an Estate-tail The Question then is whether there can be any contigent Remainder for this for this Case depends upon that consideration i. e. it is limited upon a Contingency if such a thing should happen in the life of a man and so it is a springing Trust and good that way My Lord I take it in this case where there can be no direct Remainder there can be no contingent Remainder though it happen never so soon Therefore if a Term be limited to one and his Heirs of his body and he die without Issue of his body within two years the Remainder over there can be no such Remainder limited at all and therefore no contingent Remainder for this Remainder is limited at the end of an Intail and that is so remote a consideration that as the Law will not suffer a direct Remainder upon it so upon a Contingency neither Now in this Case there is onely this difference if the Estate-tail in this Term had been limited to my Lord Maltravers as 't is here to Henry Howard and the Heirs of his body and if he die without Issue in the life of Henry c. then the Remainder over then it had been clear the Contingency had been limited upon the expiring of the Intail and though it be said that it expires within the compass of the life of a man yet that helps not in this Case at all as I conceive for I will put a case upon a Fee-simple upon Pell and Brown's Case A man limits an Estate in Fee-simple to a man and his Heirs and if he die without Heirs during the life of J. S. then to J. D. this is void and the Lord shall have it by Escheat and that though it be brought within the compass of the life of a man shall never be a good Limitation And if that Case of Pell and Brown had been that a man devised Land to a man and his Heirs whereby it would appear that it was intended the Devisee should have had a Fee-simple with a Remainder over upon a Contingency I take it this could not be good by way of executory Devise because a mans dying without Heirs which to lose his Fee-simple he must do comes not under the intention of the Law as of a Contingency An Estate for life in the judgment of the Law is of longer duration than a Term for years and the Rule in Child and Baily's Case is firm that the expiring of the Limitation of a Term in Tail within the life of a man will not make good a Limitation of the Remainder over which I hold to be a good Rule and the reason of it I conceive will reach to this Case For what is the difference here is a Contingency indeed but it is to have an Estate-tail expire within one Life which I take to be the same case Suppose the Term had been limited to Henry and the Heirs Males of his body so long as Thomas shall have Heirs Male of his body that would sure have cut off the Remainder and what is the difference For it doth depend upon Thomas dying without Issue whereby the Earldom should descend then when it is limited to Henry and the Heirs Males of his body And if Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry then over this can no more abridge it than if he had said if Henry die without Issue during the life of another man. So that I think the whole Term is swallowed in the Estate-tail upon this consideration and there can be no Remainder of it no executory Devise nor any springing Trust to Charles upon this Contingency and my Lord upon that reason I think this Settlement fails and is disappointed as to the younger Brothers If it had been limited to Henry for Life onely and no further then let the Contingency have been what it would that were to happen in his life if complicated with several ascendents yet it should be good in Remainder because the Law doth allow a Remainder directly upon an Estate for Life and so it would also in Contingency if that were to happen during the continuance of the particular Estate But I take this to be a step further than any of our Resolutions in Law have gone yet and therefore I cannot see reason to extend the Exposition any further but
discerned there was the same reason for after twenty mens lives as after one and so then it was held and agreed that so long as the Limitation exceeded not Lives in being at the creation of the Estate it should extend so far That came to grow upon them then and now if this be admitted no man can foresee what an ill Effect such an ill Allowance might have there might such Limitations come in as would incumber Estates and mightily entangle Lands This is certain such an allowed Limitation would adde a greater check to Estates than ever was made by Limitations of Inheritance For when an Estate of Inheritance was limited to a man and his Heirs Males of his body with Remainders over and a Term was limited accordingly to wait upon the Inheritance In that Case he that had the first Estate-tail had full power over the Term to alienate it if he pleased for it is not an Estate within the Statute De Dominis and I doubt not that had a great Influence upon the Judges when they made the difference between Terms for years in Gross and Terms attendant upon the Inheritance For Terms in Gross they could not be aliened in such a Case but Terms attending upon the Inheritance though under such Limitations the parties could alien them But now if this Limitation in question were good then Henry could not part with it because it is to him and his Heirs Males of his body under a collateral Limitation of his brothers dying without Issue and the Earldom descending to himself and then his Estate was to determine and so it would fetter that which if it had been a Term attendant c. would have been alienable I have seen the time often when they have refused to carry Cases further than the Precedents have been in former times and peradventure it would be dangerous if we should do so here and it seems to me to be an odd kind of Estate as this Limitation makes it and if such a construction as the Plaintiff would have should be made it would bring it under a great uncertainty To take this Estate as it stands in Henry and the Heirs Males of his body it is by this Limitation made and so indeed I think it is a Term that waits upon the Inheritance But if this that is contended for be admitted to be a good Limitation upon the Contingency of Thomas's dying without Issue Male then the Estate in Charles would be a Term in Gross for it hath no Inheritance to attend upon Then suppose Henry had died without Issue Male in Charles's life-time then it is a Term attendant upon the Inheritance again If Charles die in the life of Henry it goeth to the Executors If Henry in the life of Charles it goes to the Heirs Therefore I think that this Estate being limited in another way and being it would endure a strain further than any yet has been attempted and it being to commence upon Thomas's dying without Issue Male and not attendant upon any Inheritance it is such an Estate as the Law cannot allow of but void in Limitation and Creation and so I take it the Plaintiffs Bill ought to be dismissed THE Lord Chancellor NOTTINGHAM'S ARGUMENTS The First Argument THIS is the Case The Plaintiff by his Bill demands the benefit of a Term for two hundred Years in the Barony of Greystocke upon these settlements Henry Fredericke late Earl of Arundel and Surry Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant had Issue Thomas Henry Charles Edward Francis and Bernard and a Daughter the Lady Katharine Thomas Lord Maltravers his eldest Son was Non compos Mentis and care is taken to settle the Estate and Family as well as the present circumstances will admit And thereupon there are two Indentures drawn and they are both of the same date The one is an Indenture between the Earl of Arundel of the one part and the Duke of Richmond the Marquess of Dorchester Edward Lord Howard of Eastcricke and Sir Thomas Hatton of the other part it bears date the Twenty first day of March 1647. Whereby an Estate is conveyed to them and their Heirs To these uses To the use of the Earl for his life After that to the Countess his Wife for her life with power to make a Lease for 21. Years reserving the antient Rents The remainder for 200. Years to those Trustees and that upon such trusts as by another Indenture intended to bear date the same day the Earl should limit and declare and then the remainder of the Lands are to the use of Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body begotten with like remainders in Tail to Charles Edward and the other Brothers successively Then comes the other Indenture which was to declare the Trust of the Term for 200 Years for which all these preparations are made and that declares that it was intended this Term should attend the Inheritance and that the profits of the said Barony c. should be received by the said Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Thomas and any Issue Male of his Body should live which was consequently only during his own life because he was never likely to Marry and if he dye without Issue in the life-time of Henry not leaving a Wife privement Enseint of a Son or if after his death the Dignity of Earl of Arundel should descend upon Henry Then Henry or his Issue should have no farther benefit or profit of the Term of 200 Years Who then shall But the benefit shall redound to the younger Brothers in manner following How is that To Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body with the like Remainders in Tail to the rest Thus is the matter settled by these Indentures how this Family was to be provided for and the whole Estate govern'd for the time to come These Indentures are both sealed and delivered in the presence of Sir Orlando Bridgman Mr. Edward Alehorn and Mr. John Alehorn both of them my Lord Keeper Bridgman's Clerks I knew them to be so This Attestation of these Deeds is a Demonstration to me they were drawn by Sir Orlando Bridgman After this the Contingency does happen for Thomas Duke of Norfolk dies without Issue and the Earldom of Arundel as well as the Dukedom of Norfolk descended to Henry now Duke of Norfolk by Thomas his death without Issue presently upon this the Marquess of Dorchester the surviving Trustee of this Estate assigns his Estate to Marryot but he doth it upon the same Trusts that he had it himself Mr. Marryot assigns his interest frankly to my Lord Henry the now Duke and so has done what he can to merge and extinguish the Term by the signing it to him who has the Inheritance To excuse the Marquess of Dorchester from cooperating in this matter it is said there was an absolute necessity so to do Because the Tenants in the North would not be brought to renew their Estates while so Aged a
where no Remainders can be limited no contingent Remainder can be limited which I utterly deny for there can be no Remainder limited after a Fee simple yet there may a contingent Fee simple arise out of the first Fee as hath been shewn Thus it is agreed to be by all sides in the Case of an Inheritance but now say they a Lease for Years which is a Chattel will not bear a contingent Limitation in regard of the poverty and meanness of a Chattel Estate Now as to this point the difference between a Chattel and an Inheritance is a difference only in Words but not in substance nor in Reason or the Nature of the thing for the owner of a Lease has as absolute a power over his Lease as he that hath an Inheritance has over that And therefore where no perpetuity is introduced nor any inconveniency doth appear there no Rule of Law is broken The Reasons that do support the springing Trust of a Term as well as the springing use of an Inheritance are these 1. Because it hath hapned sometimes and doth frequently that Men have no Estates at all but what consist in Leases for Years Now it were not only very severe but under favour very absurd to say that he who has no other Estate but what consists in Leases for Years shall be incapable to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family tho' these are directly within his view and immediate prospect And yet if that be the Rule so it must be for I will put the Case A Man that hath no other Estate but Leases for Years Chattels real treats for the Marriage of his Son and thereupon it comes to this agreement These Leases shall be setled as a Joynture for the Wife and provision for the Children says he I am content but how shall it be done Why thus You shall assign all these Terms to John a Styles in Trust for your self and your Executors if the marriage take no effect But then if it takes effect to your Son while he lives to his Wife after while she lives with Remainders over I would have any one tell me whether this were a void limitation upon a Marriage settlement or if it be what a strange absurdity is it that a Man shall settle it if the Marriage take no effect and shall not settle it if the Marriage happen 2. Suppose the Estate had been limited to Henry Howard and the Heirs Males of his Body till the death of Thomas without Issue then to Charles there it had been a void limitation to Charles if then the addition of those words If Thomas dye without Issue in the life of Henry c. have not mended the matter then all that addition of Words goes for nothing which it is unreasonable and absurd to think it should 3. Another thing these is which I take to be unanswerable and I gather it from what fell from my Lord Chief Justice Pemberton and when I can answer that Case I shall be able to answer my self very much for that which I am doing Suppose the Provisoe had been thus penned And if Thomas die without Issue Male living Henry so that the Earldom of Arundel descend upon Henry then the Term of 200 Years limited to him and his Issue shall utterly cease and determine but then a new Term of 200 Years shall arise and be limited to the same Trustees for the Benefit of Charles in Tail. This he thinks might have been well enough and attained the end and intention of the Family because then this would not be a Remainder in Tail upon a Tail but a new Term created Pray let us so resolve Cases here that they may stand with the reason of Mankind when they are debated abroad Shall that be reason here that is not reason in any part of the World besides I would fain know the difference why I may not raise a new springing Trust upon the same Term as well as a new springing Term upon the same Trust that is such a chicanery of Law as will be laught at all over the Christian World. 4. Another Reason I go on is this That the meanness of the consideration of a Term for years and of a Chattel Interest is not to be regarded for whereas this will be no reason any where else so I shall shew you that this Reason as to the Remainder of a Chattel Interest is a Reason that has been exploded out of Westminster-Hall There was a time indeed that this Reason did so far prevail that all the Judges in the time of my Lord Chancellor Rich did 6 Edvardi 6 deliver their Opinions That if a Term for Years be devised to one provided Dyer fol. 74. that if the Devisee die living J. S. then to go to J. S. that remainder to J. S. is absolutely void because such a Chattel Interest of a Term for Years is less than a Term for Life and the Law will endure no limitation over Now this being a Reason against Sense and Nature the World was not long governed by it but in 10 Eliz. in Dyer they began to hold Dyer f. 277 the Remainder was good by Devisee and so 15 Eliz. seems too and 19 Eliz. it was by the Judges held to be a good Remainder and that was the first time that an executory Remainder Dyer f. 328 Dyer f. 358. of a Term was held to be good When the Chancery did begin to see that the Judges of the Law did govern themselves by the reason of the thing this Court followed their Opinion the better to fix them in it they allowed of Bills by the remainder Man to compel the Devisee of the particular Estate to put in security that he in Remainder should enjoy it according to the Limitation And for a great while so the practice stood as they thought it might well because of the Resolution of the Judges as we have shewn but after this was seen to multiply the Chancery Suits then they began to resolve that there was no need of that way but the executory Remainder Man should enjoy it and the Devisee of the particular Estate should have no power to bar it Men began to presume upon the Judges then and thought if it were good as to Remainders after Estates for Lives it would be good also as to Remainders upon Estates Tail That the Judges would not endure and that is so fixed a Resolution that no Court of Law or Equity ever attempted to break in the World. Now then come we to this Case and if so be where it does not tend to a perpetuity a Chattel Interest will bear a Remainder over upon the same Reason it will bear a Remainder over upon a Contingency where that Contingency doth wear out within the compass of a life otherwise it is only to say it shall not because it shall not For there is no more inconvenience in the one than in the other Come we then at last
agreed If the Limitation be not good then there was no need at all of a Surrender to bar it nor of the common Recovery to extinguish it But then we come to consider the Limitation and there it agreed all along in point of Law That the measures of the Limitations of the Trust of a Term and the measures of the Limitations of the Estate of a Term are all one and uniform here and in other Cases and there is no difference at Chancery or at Common Law between the Rules of the one and the Rules of the other what is good in one Case is good in the other And therefore in this Case the Court is agreed too that the Limitations made in this Settlement to Edward c. are all void for they tend directly and plainly to Perpetuities for they are Limitations of Remainders of a Term in gross after an Estate Tail in that Term which commenceth to be a Term in gross when the Contingency for Charles happens Thus far there is no difference of Opinion but whether the Limitation to Charles if Thomas die without Issue living Henry whereby the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel descends upon Henry I say whether that be void too is the great Question of this Case wherein we differ in our Opinions It is said that is void too and yet sever it from the Authority of Child and Baylie's Case which I will speak to by and by I would be glad to see some tolerable Reason given why it should be so for I agree it is a Question in Law here upon a Trust as it would be elsewhere upon an Estate and so the Questions here are both Questions of Law and Equity It was well said and well allowed by all the Judges when they did allow the Remainders of Terms after Estates Tail in those Terms to be void I shall not devise a Term to a Man in Tail with Remainders over the Judges have admirably well resolved in it and the Law is setled and Matthew Mannings Case did not stretch so far because this would tend to a Perpetuity Now on the other side I would fain know when there is a Case before the Court where the Limitation doth not tend to a Perpetuity nor introduceth any visible Inconvenience what should hinder that from being good For tho' if there be a tendency to a Perpetuity or a visible Inconvenience that shall be void for that reason yet the bare Limitation of the Remainder after an Estate Tail which doth not tend to a Perpetuity that is not void Why because it is not I dare not say so see then the Reasons why it is so The Reasons that I lie under the load of and cannot shake off are these The Law doth in many Cases allow of a future Contingent Estate to be limited where it will not allow a present Remainder to be limited and that Rule well understood goeth through the whole Case How do you make that out Thus If a Man have an Estate limited to him his Heirs and Assigns for ever which is a Fee-simple but if he die without Issue living J. S. or in such a short time then to J. D. tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet it is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee. And they that speak against this Rule do endeavour as much as they can to set aside the Resolution of Pells and Browns Case which under favour was not the first Case that was so Resolved for as I said before when I first delivered my Opinion it was resolved to be a good Limitation 19 Eliz. in the Case of Hinde and Lyon 3 Leonard 64. which by the way is the best Book of Reports of the later ones that hath come out without Authority If that be so then where a present Remainder will not be allowed a Contingent one will. If a Lease for years come to be limited in Tail the Law allows not a present Remainder to be limited thereupon yet it will allow a future Estate arising upon a Contingency only and that to wear out in a short time But what time and where are the bounds of that Contingency You may limit it seems upon a Contingency to happen in a life what if it be limited if such a one die without Issue within 21 Years or 100 Years or while Westminster-hall stands Where will you stop if you do not stop here I will tell you where I will stop I will stop where-ever any visible Inconveniece doth appear for the just bounds of a Fee-simple upon a Fee-simple are not yet determined but the first Inconvenience that ariseth upon it will regulate that First of all then I would fain have any one answer me where there is no Inconvenience in this Settlement no Tendency to a Perpetuity in this Limitation and no Rule of Law broken by the Conveyance what should make this void And no Man can say that it doth break any Rule of Law unless there be a Tendency to a Perpetuity or a palpable Inconvenience Oh yes Terms are meer Chattels and are not in consideration of Law so great as Freeholds or Inheritances These are words and but words there is not any real difference at all but the Reason of Mankind will laugh at it shall not a Man have as much power over his Lease as he has over his Inheritance If he have not he shall be disabled to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family that are within his view prospect because it is but a Lease for years and not an Inheritance or a Freehold There is that absurdity in it which is to me insuperable nor is the Case that was put answered in any degree A Man that hath no Estate but what consists in a Lease for years being to Marry his Son setled this Lease thus In Trust for himself in Tail till the Marriage take effect and if the Marriage take effect while he lives then in Trust for the Married couple is this future Limitation to the married couple good or bad If any Man say it is void he overthrows I know not how many Marriage-settlements If he say it be good why is it not a future Estate in this Case as good as in that when there is no tendency to a Perpetuity no visible Inconvenience All Men are agreed and my Lord Chief Justice told us particularly how that there is a way in which it might be done only they do not like this way and I desire no better argument in the World to maintain my Opinion than that For says my Lord Chief Justice suppose it had not been said thus if Thomas die without Issue living Henry then over to Charles but thus if it happens that Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry c. then this Term shall cease and there shall a new Term arise and be created to vest in Charles in Tail and that had been wonderful well and my