Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-10-15
]. B. BoRDLY.
The Rridgewater VIII Case.

The House of Lords met on Friday last TO give
| final Judgment in the case of Egerton VS.. Brown
low, 1t will be remembered that the case relates
TO the singular will of the late Earl of Bridgewa-
ter by which certain estates, said to produce be-
tween S60, 900 and ETC, 600 year, were bequeath-
ed to the late Lord Afford, on condition that du-
ring his lifetime he attained to the dignity of Mar
qus OF Duke of Bridgewater. The case was ar
gued at great length before their lordShips, assist
ed by the learned judges of the Common Law
Courts. The appellant is John William Spencer
Brownlow Egerton formerly John William Spen-
Ger Brownlow Horne Gust, he having assumed the
name and arms of Egerton,) commonly called Lord
Afford oldest son of the late Lord AIloTd,) in
FAINT who appears by his next friend, the Hon. Pc
regime Francis Gust and the respondents are
John Earl Brownlow and the Earl OF PoweS (truS-
tees under the will of the Earl of Bridgewater,)
Lady Marianne Margaret Egerton, formerly Afford,
widow Of the late Lord Afford, whose jointure is
charged on the estates in question, the Hon. Chas
Henry Egerton, second sou Of Earl BIownlow, who
is the party interested being next in remainder TO
Lord Afford on the failure of the provisions under
which he was 10 inherit; Wilbraham Egerton, the
elder, William Tatton Egerton, and Wiibraham
Egerton the younger, who were parties in contin-
gent remainder under the will. The late Lord Al.
ford in whom the estates were verted, having died
without attaining the dignity of Duke or Marquis
of Bridgewater, the respondent Charles Henry Eg-
erton, the next in remainder claimed the estates,
and the present appellant, the and heir OF Lord
Afford, ieir-at-law of the testator, filed bill in
chancery, praying that it might be declared TINT he
was under the will equitable tenant in tail male OF
the estate other than leaSehold for years. and at
soutely entitled to the estates held upon lease on
the ground that the condition in The will, the mon-
fulfilment of which it was alleged determined the
right of the late Lord Afford and his heirs, was
void, on the ground OF public policy. The cause
was heard before Lord Cranworth, when lord JUS
tice. who decided that the provision of the will
not having been complied with by Lord Afford, no
fota ted n / q he'll INIT
EgeIton, the respondent, was entitled 10 the es-
tates. The present appeal was then brought. On
Friday week, the learned judges gave theic opin-
ion OIL the queston submitted to them, which went
in substance TO the decision of the appellants
right TO succeed to the estates majority of thei
lortls.ips were of opinion that the appellant did
not take any estate after the death of his father
the late Lord Afford, but that they passed 10 the
next in remainder, the respondent, Charles Henry
Egerton. The lord chief baron and Mr.. Baron
Plat gave an opinion in favor of the right of the
appellant, the present Lord Afford. When the
case came before the House of Lords last Fridayl
Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, and
Lord ST. Leonards delivered their opinion at length
and decided against the opinion of the majority of
the Judges, that the appellant, the present Lord AL
ford was not barred by the provisions of the will
from taking the estates in succession to his father
the late Lord Afford, and that the judgment of the
court below must be reversed. The Lord Chan
cellor stated that he had fully stated his reasons
for the judgment he delivered when lord Justice
that he should confne himself to saying that none
of the arguments he had heard, even the great
weight of the judgments of his noble and learned
friends had altered the opinion he expressed when
he delivered the judgment of the court when lord
justice; and to that opinion he still adhered, be-
lieving that compliance with the provision Of the
late Lord Afford was condition precedent to the
veStng of the estate in his heirs. AS the majority
of their lordshipS were Of contrary opinion, the
judgment of the court below was reversed. The |
effect of this decision is, that the present Lold Al
ford becomes the posseSSor of the vast property in
dispute. The following judges and law lords |
were for the will: Lord Chancellor, Baron Alder |
son, Baron Parke, Justice Crompton, Justice Cole
ridge, Justice Williams, Justice Tafourd, Justice
Creswell, Justice Erie, Justice Wightman. The |
following were against the will: Lord Lyndhurst,
Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, Lord ST. Leonards,
Chief Baron Pollock, Baron Platt--Liuefp00I
Courier.