The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

•
was a petition on behalf of the Marquis of Hertford that
certain money paid intO eosin by the Louden and North-
Western and Leamington Railway Company for the
purchase of lands, might be paid out to two persons
for the purpose of paying off a portion of an incum-
twanoe upon the estate of the late Marquis amount-
ing to 47,0001. —Mr. Shomberg appeared in support
of the petition, and asked that the costs might be paid by
the railway company, and contended that the application
tame within the terms of the act of parliament. By the
North-Western Railway Act it was provided that the costs
of obtaining moneyoutof court should be paid by the:company
when it was required to he laid out in the purchase of lands
to be resettled, and by the Leamington Railway act (the
clauses of which were incorporated in the North-Western
act) the same provision was made upon obtaining out of
wort the principal of any Inch moneys by the person bane.
Melly interested in the fund.—Mr. Bacon opposed the ap-
plication on the part of the railway company.
The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared to him that the Lord
Chancellor had already put a construction upsn this thaw
in the case of ex parte Northwichc, 1 Young and Collier,
166, where be directed the costs to be paid by the company
where money was required to be obtained Out of court for
redemption of the land-tan. He therefore thought that the
present case was decidedly within the meaning of the
statute.

Before vice Chancellor WW2=
BULL V. P RITC HARD. —CONIST RUCTION OF Wtte.—ln
this case a testator named Evans, by will dated in 1309,
directed that the treaters therein named, to whom he had
devised the whole of his Teal esiate, should pay the rents
end profits thereof to his daughter, Mary Bull, during her
life for her separate use, and from and after her dece -se to
convey and assure the same unto and equally between and
among all and every the child and children of his said
daughter who should live to attain the age of 23 yeav, and
to his, her, and their heirs and assigns for ever, as tenants in
common, and not as joint tenants, and if there slruld be
but one such child, then to such only child ; and in ease
there should be no such child, or being such all should die
ender the age of 23, then over to the testator's brothers and
sisters; and the trustees were empowered to lay out and
apply the rents and profits of each child's expectant share
towards their maintenance,education, and bringing up, not-
withstanding such child's share should not be then abso-
lutely vested. The will contained a similar clause as to the
redduary personal estate of the testator. Upon the death of
the testator, in 1817, a bill was filed by the daughter, Mary
Bull, and her husband, against the treaters and executors of
the will, and the persons who claimed under the ultimate
bequests and devises, praying that the trusts declared by the
will concerning the freehold and residuary personal estate of
the testator. after the death of his daughter, might be de-
clared void for remoteness. Upon the hearing of that suit
lector, Lord Gifford, M.R., in 1826, his lordship said that it
would be premature before the death of Mrs. Bull to decide
upon the rights of the parties in the freehold estates, but he
made a decree with reference to the personal estate, declaring
that the gift to the children was too remote. The propriety
of that determination haring since that time been frequently
questioned, the present bill was filed upon the depth of Mrs.
Bull, the tenant for life, for the purpose of having the
same point decided with reference to the real estate of the
testator.
Hie Honour now delivered judgment upon the case, the
argument in which was heard in December, His Honour
said that, setting 'Mils for the moment the chum as to main-
tenance, there were two classes of cases, under one or the
other of which the case before him must fall. One class
was, where there wasa devise to a piety at a given
age,age or
when he should attain • given age, followed by ise
over if the devisee should die under that age. The second
class was where the description of the devisee was such
as to make the given age a part of that description,
and the property was given over in the event of the
devisee dying under that age. He was clearly of opinion,
omitting the clause as to maintenance, that the present
case fell within the second of the two classes he had
mentioned, and the clause as to maintenance did nit appear
a sufficient reason for his altering that view of the case. No
doubt a provision of that description wee in many cases ma-
terial upon the question of vesting ; but es there was no-
thing unreasonable or improbable in a provision giving the
benefit of money to • party to whom it was given upon a
contingency, he could not allow that clause to have any
effect upon the description of a devisee, which, without that
provision, made the age of 23 years a part of the description
of the devisee. His Honour decided, in conformity with
Lord Gifford's previous decision, that the devise to the
children after the death of their mother, Mn. Bull, was void,
as too remote.