The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-04-26 00:00:00

ROACH V. BLAKE.

The Court of Error in the Exchequer Chamber gave
judgment on Saturday in the above case of Roach v.
Blake, which raised& question on the will of Sir Francis
Blake, who died in 1786, as to the title to large estates
when had belonged to his will, and which were now
claimed by various parties. Sir Francis Blake was an
old baronet who had large estates in Durham and
Northumberland, and he was, it appeared, very anxious
to keep his estates as long as possible in the same name
and family. Tnere was every prospect of his being
able to do so, for he had a son who had several eons and
daughters, and he had his will made with every care to
secure the transiniseitin of his estates, first, to his heirs
male—that is, the male issue of his eons, who would
bear his name as well as be of his blood—and next, to
the incur of his daughters or his son's daughters who,
if not of his name, would at all events be of his blood.
His will, therefore, left the estates first to his
son for life, and then to his son's sons succesively
for life, and their children's male home in sue-
ceseion, and in default cf such borne then to one
of his daughters (then unmarried) and her male issue;
another daughter whom he had—who had married ap
parently agamat his will -not being named in the will;
and on failure of such issue, i.e. or the daughter
named, then to his son's daughters and their male issue
successively—provided that they would take his name
and arms. 'lnns the eetate WEIS to to on in succession
to his eon and his SOD'S children, and then to one of his
daughters and her children; and, in short, every per-
son then in being and their male issue, except the dis-
inherited daughter, were included in the provisions of
the will, and apparently these provisions were &bond-
ant to attain the object in view, and no one antici-
pated that the issue of all these parties would in the
course of One or two generations tail. As, however, it
is a rule with conveyancers to psovide for every pos-
sible contingency, it war thought proper, at the last
moment apparently and as a kind of afterthought, to
add a provision with that view, and upon the clause so
added the question had ultimately arisen. That pro-
vision was that in the eveot of the failure of all these
limitations the estate should go to his other "issue."
This worn "issue," an Lord St. Leonardo has observed,
has occasioned an immense amount of litigation, and
on it turned out in toe present case. It happened,
strangely enough, that the very thing which no one
Mid anticipated as probable actually occurred—that
is to say, the failure of the issue of all the parties
specially mentioned in the will. The estate de'
scended to the old baronet's son Francis, and he trans.
mated it to his eltlest son, another Sir Francis ; but
there the male line stopped, at lead the legitimate line.
For this, the third baronet, never married, and though
he left two eons they were not his legal heirs. He had,
indeed, anxious that they should succeed to the estates,
done all in his power to secure their succession; and
assuming that under the last limitation he had an estate
tail, he had "barred the entail" so as to create an
estate in fee, and had left the estate to them. Ant
the question Was whether he was entitled to do this,
and that depended on the effect of the above provi-
sion in the will in the event which had arisen.
His brothers, the other sons of the second baronet,
had also died without issue, and so did his daughters,
and so did that daughter of the old baronet whom
he had named in the will. But he had, as
already mentioned, another daughter, whom he
had diminherite d, having married, a person named
Herd; and she had proved the fruitful mother of
children. all equally prolific. Then there was a num-r-
-ous band of her do s,enelants in the third generation, all
of whom claimed the estate at her issue, and as equally
entitled to share i, while her eldest grandson, • Mr.
Reed, claimed the whole slit, as her heir. The second
baronet, however, after the death of his father, the
twiner., had a ilanghter, to whom the estate desceniled,
and a daughter of hers, her sole child, a eider of the
I last baronet, now claimed the estate, ae heir at law of