Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-12-14T00:00:00

AL mas case came on tor further dircctions on the Master's report. lir. BELL, who had been in the cause frori its commencement, appeared to argue it on this occasion. le gtated it to have arisen on the will of one John Long, by which he devised certain tenements to two trustees, upon trust to permit his wife to enjoy them for her life; and after her death upon trust to pay the rents to his son John Long. on condition he remained sihgle, or if be married, that he spould do so with their consent. But he provided, that if his son s ould marry one Elizabeth Warner, with whom he then kept com- pany, " either with or withouit the consent of the trustees," then that the estate should become the property of his son Samuel. The testator providesi, by a codticil made after the death of his son Sa- muel, that if his son John married Elizabeth Warner, or if he mar. ried any other person without the consent of the trustees, the estate should be sold, and the proceeds divided armong persons named in the will. When the cause came on for hearing, it was referred to theI Mlaster to inquire whether John Long had married Elizabe-.h Picton I without the consent of the trustees. The Master reported that he S had so married without the consent of both of the trustees aud without the anpprobation of one of them, who thought the hunn- ble circumstances of Elizabeth Picton made her an unfit match for him. The learned coutnsel contented, on behalf of the heir at law, and the persons entitled under the will, that no estate vest- ed in John Loog; that his enjoyment of it was only to be upon a condition which he had broken; and that therefore the subsequent provisions ef the testator's will should be carried into execution to which effect, he prayed the further directions of the Court. Mr. KOE was.beard on the same side. M1r. HEALD, With whom waas Mr. Twviss, appeared for the in. fant children of John Lonz who was dead, and who had distribut- ed among them by his will the property to which he ltad believed he was enti- ed under the will of his father. He argued, that al- though the marriage had been without the consent of the trustees, there was no evidence that it had been against their consent. One of the trustees was dead ; and for any thing that appeared, he might have consented to the marriage, in which case the will would have been satisfied, because the consent of both was not required in strict The VICE-CHA-CELLOR said, that in order to entitle Joln Long to any benefit under the will of his father, he must show that he had married with the consent which his father had required. The A1aster's report was conclusive that he had not had any such consent, and that thereibre he took only an estate for life, this report was not excepted against. He overruled the objection, that because the marriage was not proved to be against,it was therefore not without the consent of the trustees. There was not, he said, the shadow of a case to prevent the property being divided amongst the other persons whom the testator bad intended to be the objects of his bounty in the event of his son's not obeying the conditions of his will. VICE-CHANCE}LLOR'S COURT. mODNDAY. DEC. 12. LONG V. RICKCETS.