Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/262

omission, or forgetfulness, because there was a church lease for twenty-one years of another estate settled at the same time, and that was expressly agreed to be renewed; and yet that lease for twenty-one years being expired, and a stranger having got a new lease, the Lord Chancellor thought fit to make no order about it; and also, because there was no such right as respondents pretended, of obtaining a new lease from a college or church by the tenant, or his representatives, after the expiration of the old lease; and that Chancery never allowed of such a pretended right between the church and her tenants; and further, because the heirs in this case neglected to treat with the hospital for a new lease for above eleven months, and Mr. Stokes the elder purchased the new lease as any stranger might have done; and finally, because the heirs acquiesced, and never sued Mr. Stokes the elder till after his purchasing the new lease, and he never kept any account of the profits, considering himself an absolute purchaser; and it was hardly possible for appellant to enter into any account of profits and outgoings during the time of Mr. Stokes the father, and afterwards of his son: And that as to the houshold goods, the limitation of them after the death of Mary Ayliffe seemed uncertain and void; and if respondents had no right to the new lease, they could have none to the goods: And appellant shewed, that Mr. Stokes the elder had mortgaged the new lease for nine hundred pounds, and that afterwards two of the lives died, and the now lease was surrendered by the mortgages, and another lease taken in his name for three lives, for which another fine of 900l. was paid, and that second new lease remained rested in the mortgagee, as a security for 1800l. and that the mortgagee was no party to the decree; and that the mortgaged premisses were not worth above 120l. per annum, though the improvements had cost the Stokes's above 1000l. (Wm. Dobyns.)

The respondent on the other hand shewed, that by the second deed of the 15th August, 1683, respecting the houshold goods and plate, it was provided, that after the death of Mary Ayliffe, the trustees should deliver the goods (other than the plate) in the manner [195] shewed by appellant; and should deliver and dispose of the plate to such persons, and in such manner, as she, whether sole or covert, should, (by writing signed and sealed in the presence of two or more witnesses) appoint, and for want of such appointment, to her executors and administrators: And that, 30th July, 1684, Mary, then wife of Christopher Stokes the elder, by writing, under her hand and seal, executed in presence of three witnesses, purporting to be her last will, in pursuance of the said power, did give and appoint the said plate to Rebecca Jenkins, respondent Susanna, and the said Jane Brookes, whom she made executors of the said will, and desired that the plate should be sold by them to raise money towards putting in a life instead of Thomas Brookes, then deceased, into the rectory of Whitchurch, in case they wanted money to do it: And that Jane Brooks afterwards died in Mary's life-time; and that Christopher Stokes the elder received the profits of Whitchurch during his wife's life, and did not suffer the lease to be renewed while she lived; and that Mary Stokes died without issue, leaving Rebecca Jenkins, and respondent Susanna, her heirs at law; and the lease expiring by Mary's death, Christopher Stokes soon after renewed the lease, and possessed himself of the houshold goods and plate as shewed by appellant; and respondent contended that the decree was just, and ought to be affirmed, because Mary's estate for three lives in the rectory was a renewable interest, and that the tenant in possession had usually been preferred and allowed a right of renewal, and that therefore the benefit of such renewal ought to accrue to respondents according to the limitations, and manifest intent of the conveyance, made previous to the marriage: And respondents insisted, that the trust of the rectory did not expire on Mary's death, but continued and passed with the renewable interest to her heirs at law, and that by consequence they were intitled to the houshold goods on her death, being the persons pointed at by the trust of the said houshold goods; and the rather, because Christopher the father was privy and a party to such assignment; and moreover, the title of Christopher the father to the houshold goods was only as administrator to his wife, and that such title determined on his death; and it did not appear that the property of the goods was altered in his life-time, or divested out of the trustees: [196] and appellant not having taken out administration, de bonis non, to Mary Stokes, had no manner of right to the goods;