The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-21 00:00:00

Eau intelligence.
EQUITY COURTS.-YEATERDAT.

Putagn Low, Czarir. ai■ ('

EOSATON r. TO /HZ PROFFILTY OF
THI LAIN Dean OP BNILKIIIrATEIL—JI:IIOMENT.
Lord Cranworth sat this rimming at Lincoln's-inn for the
purpose of delivering judgment in this case, which has
been eonsidered of great importance as affecting the title
to the property of the late Duke of Bridgewater, amount-
ing. it is said, to about 70.0001. a year.
piss lordship said this bill was filed by John William
Spencer Brownlow Egerton, the infant son and heir of the
late Lord Alford, against the trustees of the will of
John William late Earl of Bridgewater and others, and it
prayed a declaration that be might be declared to be equit-
able tenant in tail male in possession of the estates thereby
devised, and that the UtotOCA might be decreed to account
with him for the relate and profits received by them sines
the decease of the late Viscount Alford. The question turned
on the validity of a clause in the will of the late Eat of
Bridgewater, which was fully act out in the bill. His lordship
then read throagh almost the whole of the will, which wee
shortly to the following effect The testator by his will, dated
the 31st March, 1423, after giving an annuity of 12,0001. to
his widow, gave his estates in 3lialdleecx,llertford, Bucking-
ham, Bedford, Northampton, Oxford, Salop, Chester, Flint,
York, and Durham, to Lord Brownlow, .Lord Clive, and
Sir Charles Long, for Vi years, upon the following terms
Upon trust ter Lord Alford for 99 yeurs, if he should so
long live, with remainder to his heirs male, and in default of
issue with a like trust for his brother, Henry Cust (now the
defendant Egerton). The will then continued several pro.
vitas, and among others that the devisee should take the name
of Egerton ; and then followed the clause upon which the
present question turned: " Provided always that if the said
lord Alford shell die without having acquired the title and
dignity of Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, to him and the
heirs male of his body, then in such case the use and estate
hereinhefore directed to ha limited to the heirs male of his
body shall case and be absolutely void ; and that if the earl-
dom of Brownlow shall descend to him and his heirs, and
be or they shall not ',Nolte such titles, &c., before the end
et Ave years neat after he shall become hart ISTOWDIOW,then
la such case the several uses and estates hen:We:fore directed
be be limited to Lord Alford and the trustees for his life shall
henceforth cease and be absolutely void ; and that my estates
shell pa,. under ney. Ilia re if lord Alford were actually
deadwithout Moo:. The will then contained a similar pro-
eieion in favour of Lord Alford'e brother, the present de-
fendant. Ili. lordship then said that the bill stated that the
testator died on the 21st of Oetuler, Ma. and shortly after.
wad. the three executors proved the will. At that time
Lord Alford was twelve years old. The debts and legacies
ware paid; arid on the death of the testator his brother
became Eat of Bridgewater, and the trustees executed the
pinta of the term. In 1820 Earl Francis died, having never
been married, or ha.ing obtained the title of Duke or
Marquis of Bridgewater, and his widow became tenant for
life of the estates. Sir Charles Long (one of the trustees)
was created Earl of lazuliarouirli ; anal his wile, who was
entitled as atenant for life with remainder to her issue,
having died chi:alias in 1871, Lord Alford (the eldest
son of the E irl Browidow) became heir at law of the
testator. Lord Farnborough died in 18:04; and other
deaths took place, which resulted in leaving Earls Brownlow
and ramie trustees of die will, conjointly with Wilbraham
Egerton. On the death of the testator'e widow in 1319,
Lord Alford entered into and remelted in pos.essi an of the
estates until his death iu January last. Since that time the
infant WOW of Lord Alford had aoinouid the name of Egerton
in conformity with the provision of the will, as did also
Mr. Curt ; hut the title of Duke or Marquis of Bridge- I
water was not ai:atained by Lord Alford, or since Ilistk•CeJSes
No settlement of the estates hail yet been made under the
will ; lust...much as on the one hand the plaintiff chinned the
estates on the ground that the clause of forte iture was
invalid, anal on the other, the principal defendant, the late
Lord Alford** brother, el:timed to be entitled, upon the
grouni that the clause was valid. The defendants, in order
to determine th:r qsa stion, had pat in a general demurrer.
Now, the plaintiff was bound to make out two propositions
—first, that the condition in question was a condition suttee-
qua rat ; and, secondly, that it was void in equity, ae imposei-
ble or contrary to public pulicy. It was necessary for the plain-
tiff to show that it war a condition subsequent, because if it
was a cunditien precedent it was immaterial, even whether
it was alleged or not. Where a devise was to take effect only
ea the happening of a particular event, unless it happened
there was no gift. This principle was too clear to need illus-
tration. The wily question war, whether, on the fair construc-
tion of the will, the obtaining by Lord Alleird of the title
of duke or marquis was a condition precedent to the vesting
of the estate in the plaintiff, us, if so, all farther inquiry
would, as he had Wild above, be quite immaterial. In his
opinion, the condition was clearly a condition precedent,
and nut subsequent. The proper course in determining such
a question was to leek at the whole will and nut at the
particular words, anal, taking this principle to guide him,
he thought the meaning clearly was, that no estate should
rest unlers a particular net was dune or a certain event
happened. Lord Alfor l's interest was for ninety-aloe
years, if he should x, long live, and therefore no interest
devolved on the plaintiff until his father's death, at which
time he would or would not have acquired the titles of
duke or marquis. At that point of time, either the plaintiff
would acquire his interest, or the defendant, Mr. Curt
(now Egerton), would acquire his interest. The happen-
ing of tha one alternative or the other was, therefore,
clearly a condition precedent. It was true that the expow-
sion was that the " tomb.: should be void," an expression
that, aarictly speaking, was applicable only to a condition
FCIAITICIA ; but stilt if the meaning clearly was that the
condition should precede the vesting of the (state, the pre-
cise words were immaterial. No estate in the heirs male
could cease, because it had never existed in them, or could
exist it. them, unitvi at Lord Alford's death the title had
been nequired. The contingency, which was directed by
the will to make the estate cease in the plaintiff, did not,
properly speaking, do that, but it dial what was equivalent
- -it prevented the estate from ever existing. Ile should
further otessrve that the provisiou was to apply to two con-
tingenciesame of which (Loral Alford's death with having ac-
quircal the title) had happened, and the other not. It was
said that the condition properly applied to that; but the
truth WAS, that the words might properly perform a double
function. Being, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiff
had tailed to make out the first proposition, hi, duty would
be simply to allow the demurrer • but, indsmuch as it ap-
peared that no settlement had been made by the trustees,
and inasmuch as there was a provision that if the Earl of
Brownlow should acquire the title of duke ur marquis, then
the conditions by which the estate pawed from Lora Alford
should ea ase ; that if that proviso were valid, then the
plaintiff was entitled that his rights should be secured in the
settlement. Then was this proviso valid? In his opinion it
was. His lordship observed that the condition certainly
was not impossible, though it wan not in Earl Brownlow •
power to acquire tar title M question, but neither was it ht '
the power of a married main to marry a particular woman,
though if he survived his wife he might de so. And such
was stated by Baron Comps to be a good condition. With
regard to the question of public policy, he thought the
crown must be taken to stand perfectly neuter between the
panics, anal there could not exist any. pressure ' • neither
could it be Said that thin will tended to induce lord Alford
to resort to corrupt means ; but to hold that view would be
to say that such means were the steps accessary to accomplish
the object in view. On the contrary, such a condition would
tend to produce good rather than dishonourable conduct.
A deviate to a son, if he entered holy orders, was a common
devise, but it was possible that he might have been guilty of
simony, but that possibility did not effect the gift. Upon
the whole case, therefore, he (Lord Cranworth) thought
that the gift to Lord Alford's heirs, iu case the Earl of
Brownlow should obtain the titles in emotion, was valid,
and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to have a proper
settlement of the estate made; he should consequently over-
rule the demurrer—the costs to be costs in the cause.
It was intimated at the conclusion of the judgment that
the case would be taken on appeal to the Howe of Lords at
'ace, without first going to the Lord Chancellor.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.—
Y attEitlifer.
napalm las. Sweater loxes.
bl'Lattnltt.roi e. fislattaY.
This was an action to recover of the defendant, who is
secretary to the Lorninq Adrertiser newspaper, the nun of
501., alleged to have been lent to him by the plaiutiff (who
was formerly publisher of that journal) vu long since us the
year ISti It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff
that on the 12th of J uly in that year, he was about t0..p.,.111
large sum of money into the bankers, which Mr. S
observing. requested witness to lend him a sum of 597.1711
until the following day. Mr. Smalley intimating that he was
short at his bankers. Plaintiff accommodated the defendant
with the sum he required, but had never from
that time to the present been able to effect a
settlement with him, and hail paid to the proprietor
met of his own pocket the amount so lent. The
*YOE stated that be had not had the means to institate
paiamediags in the superior court ; hence the delay in pr.
am *. the claim, which was now reduced to 501., in order
to being the ease within the jurisdiction of the county
OWL The can was very fully gone into on Monday, but
as the defendant pressed for an adjournment to enable him
110 reduce his bankers' book and other documents to dis-
prom the plaintiffs st dement, the learned Judge, although;
bit repressed his opinion that the plaintiff' hail made out his
ogee, allowed the matter to stand over to this day.
Mr. Child, who appeared for the defendant, now pro-
posed to cue: nine the plaintiff, a course which his Honour
objected to, on the ground that the plaintiff had closed his
ore. and that the express object of the adjournment was
Our the production of the defendant's books. He (his
Mesour) could not therefore allow the case to be re-opened.
Mr. Child urged that as this was a very serious matter,
mad reflected somewhat seriously upon the conduct of the
deitudant, who hail been upon the estableihnient upwards
of seventeen years, and was without a blemish upon his
Illlnseter, it was most important that he (Mr. Child)
*geld have an opportunity of removing what might
gothaps appear to lie a stigma upon his reputation, and the
iv* way in which that could be done was by testing the
sthibbility of the plaintiff.
His Honour-1 be defendant having given all the evidence
he could upon the last occasion, the ease was simply ad-
journed for the production of hooks, although the defend-
ant once contradicted the statement of the plaintiff as
to the loan of the mousy.
Mr. Child begged to say that the defendant had always
meet distinctly denied that the money was advanced.
His Honour—Most distinctly, not in my presence; and
that was remarked by the chief clerk as well as by myself.
Mr. Child—The Case is of great importance to my client's
nimstatiosi. and l trust your Honour will give me a patient
114"fllias cesear—As loos ea you please, so that you keep to
tie
pair. His Heineurobserved that both partws had con-
helaselns very improperly, and that the transaction