case SORRESBY against Hollins by consent Lincolnsinn hall August follow  Grimmet v Grimmet Ambl explain attorneygeneral v Tyndall Ambl Eden principle  approve Faversham corporation v rider de g m g discuss carter v green king I  apply London university v yarrow de g I discuss Lewis v Allenby l r Eq adopt  in re Holborn l t refer to in re Piercy Ch a by will desire his executor  within twelve month after his decease to settle and secure by purchase of land  of inheritance or otherwise as they shall be advice a annuity of l to be  distribute for ever by his executor their heir and assign among the poor of  leek this be a good charity notwithstanding the statute of mortmain by reason  of the word or otherwise case John Naylor in after the statute of mortmain  make his will in these word I will and desire that my executor within twelve  month after my decease do settle and secure by purchase of land of inheritance  or otherwise as they shall be advice out of my personal estate one annuity or  yearly payment of fifty pound to be pay yearly and distribute for ever by my  executor their heir and assign among the poor and indigent people of leek in  the county of Stafford in modern report er p such manner as they shall think  fit and my will also be that my executor do also settle and secure one other  annuity of five pound to be pay yearly to the vicar of leek for the time be  for ever for preach a annual sermon on every twelve day of October and the  testator devise the residue of his personal estate to be equal divide between  his sister mrs Sorresby and mrs Hollins Hardwicke Lord chancellor the only  question in this case be whether the devise of the two annuity of fifty pound  and five pound to charitable use be void by the late statute of mortmain  modern report it be insist upon by the plaintiff the residuary legatee that it  be void because the direction of the devise be to settle and secure the  annuity of fifty pound by a trust of land of inheritance and that though the  word or otherwise be add they will not vary the case for Mr naylor intention  be to assure the annuity out of land of inheritance but I be of opinion upon  this Act of parliament that this bequest be not void and that there be no  authority to construe it to be void if by law it can possible be make good the  Act of parliament be not at all aim against perpetual charity mere as such or  to prevent the establishment or creation of they but be design against the  case of perpetual charity in land and as the title import to restrain the  disposition of land whereby the same become unalienable the whole recital and  enact part of the statute take notice only of the unalienable disposal of land  whereby heir be disinherit and therefore the alienation or conveyance of land  to such purpose be prohibit and though there be a clause to prohibit money be  pay out in land to such purpose as will make they unalienable yet there be no  restriction whatsoever upon any one from leave a sum of money by will or any  other personal estate to charitable use provide it be to be continue as a  personalty and the executor or trustee be not oblige or under a necessity of  lie it out in land by virtue of any direction of the testator for that purpose  consider then whether this clause and devise in the will fall within the  restraint and prohibition of the statute and in the first word they do fall  within they for the testator direct that his executor shall settle and assure  by purchase of land of inheritance c and if the testator have rest upon such  first word his devise will have be clear void but then he go on in the  disjunctive or otherwise as my executor shall be advice and if a devise in a  will be in the disjunctive and leaves to the executor two method to do a  particular thing by the one lawful and the other prohibit by law can any court  say because one method be unlawful that therefore the other be so and the  whole bequest void No for if one bequest be lawful that shall be pursue and  take effect it have be further argue against the devise that the word for ever  show the annuity must arise out of some real estate which be only capable of  supply they for ever for personal fund be too perishable and transitory in  their nature to answer such everlasting annuity and suppose a particular sum  be vest in stock with design to purchase a particular yearly sum or annuity it  may so happen that the company may be quite dissolve or that stock may fall or  interest be so reduce that half the annuity may not be produce but these  objection may be overrule for if the company shall be dissolve the principal  stock may be take out and vest in some other company and there may be annuity  that may probable continue for ever and yet not Payable out of land and I will  mention a instance of one which have last a century and a half and may exist  perpetual which be sir Thomas white charity be a disposition of money to be  employ by continual rotation in loan to poor modern report tradesman of  several sum to be let out for a state number of year and then to be repay and  any man may at this day give by will a perpetual charity in this manner but if  a man by will secure such loan by land or purchase of land his devise will be  void and contrary to the late statute of mortmain if this case have be to be  consider by the court before the Act it will as the safe method to secure the  charity for ever have recommend and direct a purchase of land but when this  court be preclude from do it in this manner if it can be obtain in any other  there be no reason to say the devise be void it be say too that the word heir  and assign import a purchase in land or some real thing for no personal thing  can descend to heir and if the money be to be revested in a personal security  it will not go to the heir but to the executor and so the intention of the  testator not pursue modern report er p I will suppose that a obligor bind  himself his heir executor and administrator in a sum of money to a papist who  obtain judgement upon the bind and take out a elegit in this case I think it  have be hold at the assize or at least it may very well have be so hold that  the papist can maintain a ejectment and yet the bind be good to bind the  person of the obligor and his personal representative but not to charge his  land or his heir who represent he in his land capacity and this come up to the  present case which may secure the charity in a double sense either upon land  or personalty if the law will allow both and if the law prohibit one only it  certain allow the other and I be of opinion upon the whole that there be  nothing that make this bequest void in every part but that it be good in that  way which the law do not forbid but I will not have it question that if a man  shall by his will direct a sum of money to be lie out in land or upon  rentcharge to be secure upon land for any charity and in the mean time till it  can be so lie out to be invest in government security for the benefit of the  charity but that that bequest will be void because the final end and intention  of such testator be to dispose of his money in land and the investiture of it  in government and personal security be but to secure it until a proper  purchase of land or rentcharge offer as to the annuity of five pound there be  few objection to that than the other for there be no direction at all for any  money or personal estate to be lie out in land for the executor be only will  to secure and settle five pound ayear c and it must be secure upon a personal  fund consistent with the will and intention of the testator and not  contradictory to the word of the Act of parliament it be often say in the old  book by the judge I be by at the make the Act of parliament and the meaning  and intention of it be then say to be so and so and I be by at the make of  this statute and it be say at that very time by the legislator that it will  not binder any charitable distribution of a personal estate therefore I decree  the devise good and the money to be modern report invest in SouthSea stock for  the charitable purpose mention in the will in favour of the devise be cite  porter case   contra roper v Radcliffe in the house of lord and Adlington v  lamb before Lord Hardwicke