brown case earl OF stamford et ux appellant sir John Hobart respondent that  march Mews dig xiv see Sackville west v viscount holmesdale l r h l a devise  his estate to trustee in trust for h and e his wife for their life and the  life of the long liver of they remainder to the first son of e for ninetynine  year if he shall so long live remainder to the heir male of the body of such  first son remainder to all and every the son of the say e for ninetynine year  if every such son respective shall so long live remainder to the heir male of  every of they to take not joint but successive one after the other accord to  the birth of each of they the son to take the term of ninetynine year with  immediate remainder to his say heir male on a bill bring for a conveyance of  this estate accord to the testator will it be decree that in such conveyance  where any part of the estate be limit in use to the plaintiff for ninetynine  year if he shall so long live there shall be a limitation over to trustee and  their heir during his life to preserve the contingent use in remainder and  then to the first and other son of the plaintiff successive viner vol p can  cite in Lord glenorchy v Bosville case tempt Lord Talbot p sir John Maynard by  his will date the saint of march devise to his wife afterward countess of  Suffolk his capital house and manor of Gunnersbury and all his land in the  parish of Ealing and Acton in the county of Middlesex for her life to her own  use and the reversion thereof together with the manor of Clifton Hardmead  Burleon and beer and all other his estate in England he devise to his say wife  Richard Lord gorge and Maynard Colchester Esq and their heir upon the several  trust in his say will mentioned then follow this clause my will be that my say  trustee and their heir after the death of my say wife convey the say manor of  Clifton and Hardmead to the use of or in trust for sir Henry Hobart and  Elizabeth his wife for their life and the life of the long liver of they the  remainder to the first son of the say Elizabeth for ninetynine year if he  shall so long live the remainder to the heir male of the body of such first  son the remainder to all and every the son of the say Elizabeth for ninetynine  year if every such son respective shall so long live the remainder to the heir  male of every of they to take not joint but successive one after the other  accord to the birth of each of they the son to take the term of ninetynine  year with immediate remainder to his say heir male the remainder thereof to  mary Maynard now countess of Stamford for her life the remainder thereof to  all and every her son for such like term of ninetynine year and with remainder  to the heir male of the body of every such son immediate after each term and  that the say manor and advowson of beer and the reversion of the say capital  message and manor of Gunnersbury and the manor of Burleon shall be by advice  of counsel convey to or to the use of mary Maynard now countess of Stamford  for life without impeachment of waste other than in house and after the  remainder to all and every her son and son for ninetynine year if such son  shall so long live with several brown remainder to the heir male of the body  of every such son they and all the heir male of their body to take successive  accord to their age and birth and seniority of every such son respective each  son to take the say term with remainder immediate to his say heir male and  after the determination of the say estate and failure of such heir male of  their respective body the remainder thereof to the say Elizabeth Hobart and  the son of the say Elizabeth with such term and remainder to the heir male of  their body as be former for the other land express the remainder of all the  estate in England to John leigh Maynard Colchester and Henry Colchester and  their heir during the live and life of the say sir Henry Hobart brown er p and  dame Elizabeth his wife and of the say now countess of Stamford for to  preserve the contingent estate and to no other use or purpose in October the  testator die leave dame Elizabeth Hobart and the countess of Stamford his  granddaughter and coheir at law but neither of they have any male issue live  at the time of his death diverse controversy afterward arise between sir Henry  Hobart and his lady the appellant and the countess of Suffolk relative to the  testator will a act of parliament be pass in the year entitle a act for settle  the estate of sir John Maynard Knt decease whereby it be inter alian enact  that the real estate by the say sir John maynard will give or appoint shall go  unto and be hold and enjoy by such person and person to and for such estate  and interest and under and subject to such charge limitation and appointment  and in such manner and form as be in the say will express and subject to the  provisos in the say act and the say trustee be thereby authorize and empower  to convey the say manor and land immediate unto such person and person and for  such estate and estate as the same be in and by the say will limit and appoint  to be convey as if the say countess of Suffolk be dead and in this act be a  proviso that the earl of Stamford and sir Henry Hobart shall have several term  of ninetynine year in case they shall so long live and survive their say wife  in the premise to their respective wife limit or appoint by the say will sir  Henry Hobart and his lady afterward die leave issue the respondent their only  son and several daughter in easter term the respondent exhibit his bill in the  court of chancery against the appellant and the earl and countess of Suffolk  the Lord gorge and Maynard Colchester and other pray that the trustee may  convey the say manor and premise accord to the testator will and the say act  of parliament on the that of January the cause be hear before the Lord  chancellor Cowper when his lordship decree that the defendant the earl and  countess of Suffolk Richard Lord gorge and Maynard Colchester shall forthwith  execute conveyance of brown the say sir John maynard real estate accord to his  say will and the word of the act of parliament and that a master shall settle  the conveyance so to be execute accord the master settle and allow the draft  of a conveyance whereby the say estate be mention to be convey to Thomas  carter and Charles Clayton and their heir habendum to they and their heir to  the several use intent and purpose in the say will and act of parliament limit  express and declare and to and for no other use intent or purpose whatsoever  to the master report of this draft the plaintiff except for that the premise  ought at least to have be limit to the use of the say carter and Clayton and  their heir and only in trust for such person and person and such estate and  estate as be in and by the say will and act of parliament limit whereby the  legal estate may be vest in the say trustee for the better preservation of the  contingent limitation which otherwise as the draft be prepare be liable to be  destroy and the testator intention plain defeat the matter of this exception  come on to be hear before the Lord chancellor on the that of December when his  lordship declare that in matter executory as in case of article or a will  direct a conveyance where the word of the article or will be improper or  informal that court will not direct a conveyance accord to such improper or  informal expression in the article or will but will order the conveyance or  settlement to be make in a proper and legal manner so as may best answer the  intent of the party and in this case his lordship conceive the true intent of  the will to be that the estate shall be secure as far as the rule of law will  admit to the issue male of the respective devisees before the crossremainders  shall take place and that it be design to be as strict a settlement as  possible by law his lordship therefore decree that in the say conveyance where  any part of the estate be limit in use to the plaintiff for ninetynine year if  he shall so long live there shall be a limitation over to trustee and their  heir during his life to preserve the contingent use in remainder and then to  the first and other son of the plaintiff in tail male successive and where any  part of the estate be limit to the defendant the countess of Stamford for life  and then to the earl for ninetynine brown er p year if he shall so long live  that there shall also be a limitation over to trustee and their heir during  the life of the say earl I and countess and the survivor of they to preserve  the contingent use in remainder and then to the first and every other son of  the countess of Stamford and the heir male of the body of such first and every  other son and then to the right heir of sir John Maynard from this decree the  defendant the earl and countess of Stamford appeal and on their behalf it be  argue e Northey S Dodd that the act of parliament express enact that the real  estate of the say sir John Maynard by his will give or appoint shall go unto  and be hold and enjoy by such person and person brown and for such estate and  interest and in such manner as in the say will be express and that the trustee  shall immediate convey the say real estate to such person and person and for  such estate and estate as the same be in and by the say will limit and appoint  and accord the decree on the hear of the cause direct the conveyance to be  pursuant to the will and in the word of the act of parliament and it can not  be deny but that the draft of the conveyance as approve by the master settle  the premise to the person and to the same estate and estate as be limit and  appoint by the will it be therefore difficult to imagine that the act of  parliament which be so very express in confirm the estate appoint by the will  ever intend that a court of equity shall have power to direct a conveyance to  other use than what be mention in the will but the decree complain of do so  and be therefore repugnant both to the will and act of parliament as well as  to the former decree that sir John Maynard very well know how and in what  manner he can devise and dispose of his real estate and be Willing to try the  limitation of a remote remainder to the issue male of the son of his daughter  respective when neither of they have any son live which by the rule of law he  can not limit in certainty but may perhaps in contingency he think fit to run  the risk of those limitation take effect since one daughter and her son as  well as the other will have a chance for the advantage by the contingency not  happen and this chance have now happen for the benefit of the countess of  Stamford it be hope a court of equity can not take it away from her that as  the appellant have not the least desire to alter the will and act of  parliament in any thing it be not reasonable to put they in a worse condition  than the will and act have put they by which the appellant the countess be to  have a estate in law convey to her for her life with such remainder over as in  the will be mention but by the last decree some estate direct both by the will  and act be total omit and other estate not mention therein be new create and  this under pretence of preserve the contingent remainder when it have not yet  be determine whether they be good or not and which by this order be endeavour  to be make good so that in effect a new will be thereby make and the validity  of these remainder prevent from be try at law that if sir Henry Hobart and his  wife be live it may very well be suppose no objection will have be make to the  draft of the conveyance as settle by the master for then they and the  appellant will have be upon a equal foot but the life estate of sir Henry  Hobart and his lady be determine and the first term for ninetynine year be now  vest in possession in the respondent their only son the limitation to the heir  male be endeavour by this newintended conveyance to be make good after the  advantage of its be void have accrue to the appellant and to carry the  limitation of the estate far than can brown be do with respect to the countess  she have at present no son to take the term for ninetynine year so that as to  her that term by this conveyance be quite lose although there can be no reason  give why the death of sir Henry Hobart and his lady shall prejudice the  appellant that it must be agree several of the limitation in the will be  contingent and may either never happen or be destroy the will itself be a  attempt to create a perpetuity and a new mode of fetter estate which have not  be countenance either in the court of law or equity and therefore there can be  no reason to assist this project in equity beyond the word of the will and act  of parliament and if all the contingent use in remainder after the term of  ninetynine year to the first son be void the reversion of the whole estate  will descend to the appellant the countess and the respondent as heir at law  of sir John Maynard which will be equal for their advantage that it be  considerable how far the act of parliament will make good these contingent  limitation and supply the brown er p want of particular estate to support they  but as the testator himself be not positive they be good so he intend to leave  they to the determination of the law when there shall be a proper occasion and  to let they stand or fall by legal rule and therefore it be conceive to be  unjust for a court of equity in direct a conveyance to be execute by trustee  which be only a collateral matter to attempt the omission of some estate and  the creation of other to make good these newinvented contingency and  limitation and to prevent the legal determination of their validity on the  other side it be contend t powys r Eyre that the decree complain of be perfect  right and just and that a conveyance conformable thereto be most agreeable to  the will and act of parliament for that sir John Maynard do not intend his  will for a conveyance but only as direction for a strict settlement and that  his real estate shall be convey in such manner as that they may be sure to go  to such person and for such estate as he have by his will appoint and for this  reason he direct his trustee to convey by advice of counsel and to the use of  or in trust for sir Henry Hobart and Elizabeth Hobart for their life with  remainder over thereby give his trustee a latitude either of vest a legal  estate or convey a trust as may best consist with the law and serve the intent  of the testator when such conveyance shall be execute which he design shall  not be do till after the death of his wife during which time son may happen to  be bear that in case of executory article for the settle of estate in prospect  of future conveyance to be afterward make it be usual for court of equity to  help informalities and supply defect especial when the thing supply be  necessary to support the main intent of the party and to carry such article  into execution accord to that intent so far as it may agree with law though  not strict accord to the word and pen of the article and a strong will court  of brown equity do so in the case of a will where the same be only executory  by a conveyance to be make that the plain intent of the testator be that the  manor of Clifton and Hardmead which by the will be limit to the respondent for  ninetynine year if he shall so long live shall go to the issue male of his  body before the remainder limit to the countess of Stamford shall take place  in her and her issue male and in like manner that the Devonshire Lincolnshire  and Middlesex estate which be limit to the countess shall go to her issue male  before the remainder thereof limit to the respondent shall take place in he  and his issue male and this intent be not only well pursue by the decree but  can not be support by a conveyance make in any other manner than as thereby  direct for by a conveyance make pursuant to the draft allow by the master and  contend for by the appellant the issue male of sir John Hobart will be total  defeat of that part of the estate which be allot to they and the same will  immediate upon the death of their father come to the earl and countess of  Stamford because at the instant of execute such a conveyance the contingent  remainder intend by the will for sir John issue male will be entire void for  want of a freehold to support they and therefore such a estate be always  insert in conveyance for the sole purpose of support these contingent  remainder although a freehold so limit to trustee be only artificial and mere  matter of form to make the conveyance good beside immediate after execute such  a conveyance as be contend for on the other side it will be in the power of  Lord Stamford alone by fine feoff or other conveyance to destroy the  contingent estate and interest in the whole real estate limit by the will to  the issue male of the countess and likewise the contingent estate and interest  thereby also limit in the Devonshire Lincolnshire and Middlesex estate to the  issue male of the respondent which be utter repugnant to the whole intent and  design of the will that the act of parliament make no alteration in the will  as to the point in question it only hasten the time for the trustee to convey  even in the lifetime of the countess of Suffolk and in some other particular  not relative to the question but in all other respect the act confirm the will  and be strict relative to it the intent of the will ought to be the rule for  the conveyance accord after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and  adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the decree therein complain of  affirm jour vol p brown er p