case Bellamy versus burrow June a be in possession of the office of clerk of  the crown c in the king bench in which b have also a estate for life procure b  to surrender and solicit a patent for himself and c and take a note from c  promise to declare a trust for a the patent afterward be obtain a die in debt  and without call for a declaration of this trust this note be hold to be a  sufficient declaration of trust Reg lib a fol the late Mr Bellamy the  plaintiff father be by letter patent g entitle to the office of king coroner  and attorney in the king bench to hold by himself or his sufficient deputy  during his life after the death of Simon Harcourt and William Bordrigge Mr  Harcourt die in the year and on the that of may in the same year Bordrigge  surrender to the crown whereupon Mr Bellamy enter upon and enjoy the office  about this time Mr Bellamy be desirous to have another life in the office  obtain new letter patent may grant the office to Mr burrow who be his near  relation to hold by himself or deputy during his life after Mr Bellamy death  Mr Bellamy acquaint the defendant that he have insert his name in a warrant  from the king for a grant of the office write a note in the follow word  videlicet may which be the day before the surrender by Bordrigge and some day  before the date of the letter patent case tempt Talbot whereas Mr Bellamy have  cause my name to be insert in a warrant from the king for a grant of his  majesty coroner and attorney in b r in order for the pass of a grant thereof I  do promise at his request to execute in due form any declaration of trust with  proper and usual covenant that shall be reasonable declare my name be use in  trust for the say Mr Bellamy his executor and assign this note be then sign by  Mr burrow the defendant and deliver by he to Mr Bellamy no other declaration  of trust be ever execute by the defendant but in February Mr strut be employ  in Mr Bellamy affair receive order from he to draw his will and have receive  instruction from he for that purpose but none particular concern the  crownoffice and apprehend from his general instruction that Mr Bellamy intend  to devise his patentoffice and the profit thereof in the same manner as he  have direct all his other estate real and personal to be devise insert in the  draught which he prepare the follow clause videlicet and as to the office  common call the crownoffice whereof I be patentee determinable upon my life  and the life of burrow Esq I give the say patent and all benefit arise  therefrom to my executor their executor and administrator in trust to apply  and dispose of the profit arise therefrom in the purchase of land to be settle  to the use last above mention and it be my will that my executor do not give  up my right to appoint clerk general to act in the say office nor to the  benefit of fill and copy affidavit but to have recourse to all lawful mean in  the confirm my right in the say office and to the profit arise therefrom c and  it be my will that the say burrow do act in the say office as master thereof  for the benefit of my son or appoint a deputy as he shall think proper Mr  strut attend Mr Bellamy soon after with the draught of the will at the read of  this clause Mr Bellamy be great surprise say he have give no such instruction  and direct the clause to be leave out of the ingrossment of his will it case  tempt Talbot be no part of his intention some day after Mr Bellamy be desirous  to see the state of his affair as draw up by Mr strut direct he to make a  alteration in relation to the crownoffice in the follow word videlicet that Mr  burrow may insure the crownoffice for the first year or until he shall obtain  a far grant and act in the same office himself or appoint a deputy as he shall  think proper and a day or two after he order this clause to be leave out of  his will which accord be do and his will duly execute by he whereby he after  payment of his debt and legacy devise his personal estate to his executor in  trust to invest the same together with other money arise from the sale of some  land in the purchase of land to the use of the plaintiff his only child and  the heir male of his body remainder to his two sister for life remainder to  the defendant burrow in tail male and make the defendant one of case tempt  Talbot er p his executor the testator soon after die leave a great load of  debt far exceed his real and personal estate the question be whether Mr burrow  be upon this whole case to be look upon but as a trustee or whether he shall  hold the office in his own right the case be first hear at the bolls where the  plaintiff bill be dismiss and the office decree to Mr burrow in his own right  upon the follow reason master of the roll the ability of any person to who a  patent be grant for the execution of a office relate to the administration of  justice be the foundation upon which the patent passes as appear from winter  case die b which be a grant of this very office and from the Lord hobart  opinion in the case of glover versus bishop of Litchfield hob and if it  afterward appear that the person to who such grant be make be unskilful and  unable to execute it such grant be void as it be hold by all the judge in  winter case the reason be that a office relate to the administration of  justice high case tempt Talbot concern the public and be not consider as the  private property of the person enjoy it independent of his skill and integrity  in the discharge of his duty and therefore grant of this kind be make upon  this foundation if there be any trust to be declare by the person to who such  office be grant the crown ought to be privy to it and the ability and  integrity of the person for who benefit it be shall be know and approve nor do  I think that a private deal between two person concern a public office  especial the crownoffice the due execution of which so great concern the  public ought for the reason before mention to receive any countenance in a  court of equity and there can in this case be the least pretence to determine  it as a trust between the crown and the nominee since the crown be no way  privy to any trust declare or intend between the party perhaps indeed it may  be too hard to say that all trust of office of this kind which be hold by  patent be void and therefore the nature of this office the circumstance under  which the trust be declare and the ability of the person for who benefit it be  declare to execute it himself or appoint a proper deputy be to be take into  consideration and will in some measure govern the opinion of the court but  still whatever may be the circumstance of any case relate to a office that  concern the administration of justice I shall always be very careful how I  sever the profit from the duty of it the reason of which be find in the  relation of thing since without the observance of this the dignity can be  support nor the attendance recompense which be necessary for the due execution  of it by which mean the public will suffer the more in order to increase the  gain of a private person the objection to Mr burrow enjoy the office in his  own right be first that he have give a memorandum which in a court of equity  will amount case tempt Talbot to a declaration of trust second that subsequent  to this and even short after the testator death he declare that his name be  use in the patent only in trust for Mr Bellamy or to that effect three that  the testator die insolvent and therefore the grant to Mr burrow ought to be  declare a trust for the benefit of his creditor to support the first objection  it have be say that although the declaration be but earn and executory and  import in strictness a far act which be never hand by Mr Bellamy and  consequent never do by Mr burrow yet that part of it relate to the execution  of a far deed make it unnecessary since the word be I do promise at his  request in due form to execute any declaration of trust with proper and usual  covenant declare my name be use in trust for he from whence it be collect that  the word be use in trust be a immediate declaration and in strictness take  place when the paper be sign but I do not think that any stress can be lie on  this part of the memorandum since the word be use in trust do manifest refer  to a future and can be therefore construe into a present declaration nor will  any court strain or torture word to make they import what be evident contrary  to their plain meaning beside the limitation in Mr Bellamy will in favour of  Mr burrow do prima fancy prove that he intend to provide for he and from Mr  strut evidence it be plain that he decline at two several time ascertain the  trust or explain himself concern the crownoffice from all which it seem plain  to ine that the memorandum sign by Mr burrow be only take to make such use of  it as from the future behaviour of Mr burrow Mr Bellamy may think proper with  regard to this office and not as a actual declaration of trust and Mr Bellamy  conduct at last do prett clear explain what his meaning be at the first as to  the second objection Mr burrow may possible declare that he look upon himself  as a trustee for Mr Bellamy know that he have execute that memorandum but this  only show case tempt Talbot er p what Mr burrow sentiment case tempt Talbot be  not Mr Bellamy by which the present case must be govern as to the last  objection videlicet the insolvency of Mr Bellamy it can affect a matter of  this consequence relate to the execution of a office of so great a trust in  which the confidence of the crown and the good of the public must be consider  before the case of creditor and so dismiss the bill express in a particular  manner his approbation of Mr burrow with regard to his skill and probity in  the discharge of his duty and declare that he do not doubt that if the Lord  chancellor shall upon a appeal be of opinion that Mr burrow be but a trustee  for Mr Bellamy creditor yet he will think as his honour shall have do have he  be of that opinion that Mr burrow be entitle to a very liberal allowance this  case be now reheard by the Lord chancellor upon the sole point of the trust Mr  attorney general Mr solicitor general Mr Chute and Mr daval argue for the  defendant that there be a plain intention of kindness appear by the will from  Mr Bellamy to the defendant and that such intention have always in  construction of trust of this kind have a great weight with the court that Mr  Bellamy intent at the time of the grant obtain seem uncertain and to be  ascertain afterward by his future choice that the word of the note give by the  defendant show clear that it be not intend as a present declaration of trust  but only to secure a future declaration upon Mr Bellamy request in case the  defendant who be then very young shall not behave to his satisfaction here be  no demand ever make nor the least pretence of misbehaviour in the defendant  and have Mr Bellamy intend the profit of this office as a additional estate he  will sure have say somewhat of it in his will wherein he be very particular in  the disposition of all his estate both real and personal nor can he be say to  have case tempt Talbot forget Mr burrow have limit several estate to he in  remainder and make he executor of his will that when the person who draw his  will have officious insert a clause whereby this be declare to be a trust he  blame he and order that before the will be engross this clause shall be leave  out and nothing of it to be mention which be a strong presumption that he  intend it sole for the defendant benefit it be very strange to suppose that  have he intend he to be but a bare trustee he shall make no provision for he  but make he execute the office without any consideration at all that though  the intent seem so strong with the defendant it be also worthy the  consideration of the court whether such a office so high concern the  administration of justice can be grant in trust the public be very much  concern in the execution of it and as it must by law be grant to a person who  be fit and expert otherwise the grant be void whether it be not proper and  reasonable that the officer shall have the profit to his own use that the  office of marshal be hold in sir George reynold case   not to be grantable for  year for many reason which will weigh as strong against deal of this nature  particular that which say that in office concern the administration of justice  the trust which the law repose in the officer be individual and personal and  that the law will not repose confidence in matter relate to the administration  of justice in person unknown and that this be the case of creditor who be  likely to remain unsatisfy can not vary the nature of this office which be no  more liable to become legal asset than a office in fee or a stewardship of a  manor grant for life can be deem so upon judgement obtain against the ancestor  either in the hand of the heir in the first case or against the grantee  himself in the second case dyer b be a express authority that office of trust  be not asset for here the question be whether the profit of the Philazers  office can be take in execution and hold they can not for execution can only  be of such thing as case tempt Talbot be grantable or assignable which a  office of Philazer be not it be a personal trust that can be assign this  resolution likewise show how careful the law be in not sever the profit of a  office from the duty of it and in this great case of the earl of Oxford sir  William Jo it be hold by I dodderidge that no use can be of a office at  commonlaw there never be a instance of a trust of such a office be carry into  execution in this court that of a master of this court be never yet attempt to  be grant upon a trust nor if it have be it likely that such a trust will be  countenance here and yet the office now in question be of as great confidence  in the court of king bench as that of a master be in this court nor can the  court of king bench in case this shall be construe to be a trust get at the  beneficiary and trust to make he answerable in case of any misdemeanour the  person execute the office be the only one that they can take notice case tempt  Talbot er p of in sir George reynold case   b it be say that this very office  of clerk of the crown and other office of other court relate to the  administration of justice be to be grant in the same manner as they always  have be grant for that otherwise good clerk will be deter from apply  themselves to knowledge if such office shall become saleable or transferable  from one to the other for lucre and upon that also will arise corruption in  the office and extortion from the subject if therefore this office be neither  legal asset nor liable to be take in execution because not assignable accord  to dyer b nor saleable nor grantable for money by stat e cap then the profit  of it can be account for upon a trust the latter be as much within the statute  as the former for there be but little difference whether I convey my office  for a present sum of money or upon condition that the grantee shall pay the  profit of it to I and all corrupt bargain relate to the sale of office be void  by the statute if such a proceed as this be to meet with any countenance that  good and wholesome law may be entire elude so that take the memorandum to be  even a case tempt Talbot present declaration of trust it be void by the  statute of e and consequent the office must be decree to the defendant to hold  and enjoy it in his own right discharge from any trust Mr Verney Mr fazakerley  and Mr strange argue on the other hand that Mr burrow be a mere trustee and  that the memorandum he have sign be a clear and plain declaration of trust and  that a trust may well be annex to a thing which be neither grantable nor  extendible but if this shall be construe to come within the statute e cap then  not only the declaration of trust will be void but likewise the grant itself  to the defendant but this office may well be grant in trust notwithstanding  the statute for that only avoid corrupt agreement between the grantor and  grantee of a office and can be construe to extend to such as come in  nomination only to execute the office without have any thing to do with the  profit of it but only to such as be themselves the beneficial officer here be  no corrupt agreement between the grantor and grantee but a grant of this  office obtain at the sole charge of Mr Bellamy and no consideration at all  move from the defendant that though a office be not strict speak legal asset  yet if a officer convey the profit of a office to trustee for payment of his  debt this court will carry such a trust into execution as appear from the case  of thynn versus Jacob June where the Lord gore have a grant of the office of  clerk of the counsel and clerk of the signet of the court of the precedent and  council of the march of Wales convey the profit to two trustee for the payment  of his debt Mr thynn a subsequent creditor bring his bill against the trustee  for a execution of the trust and to have his debt pay and so decree by the  then commissioner of the great seal and upon a rehear in before the Lord  Clarendon the decree be affirm the validity of the trust be never question the  like determination be in the case of Powell versus drake may in this court  where Mr case tempt Talbot drake have a grant of the office of chirographer in  the court of common bench in the name of Bennett and champion who have declare  the trust to be for the benefit of Mr drake he devise it for payment of his  debt and legacy and decree upon the master report that the office shall be  sell for satisfaction of his creditor and so it be afterward for pound the  argument that the profit of the office be not to be sever from the execution  of it be not warrant by any of the case cite sir George reynold case be  adjudge upon the great inconvenience that may ensue upon a grant for year as  if the grantee shall die intestate there will be none to execute it until  administration grant which perhaps may not be for a long time and indeed if  that doctrine be to prevail it will overthrow all the benefit which the law  give to the grantee of a office who grant be to hold it by himself or  sufficient deputy which word be so beneficial and strong that in young and  foul case cro car a grant of the office of register to a infant of eleven year  of age to be execute by he or his deputy be hold good for that he may appoint  a sufficient deputy which if he do not or if the deputy misbehave it be a  forfeiture of the office and there a difference be take between such a grant  and where the grant be to the infant alone nor can any thing be infer from the  case cite in dyer but that the public be concern that the office that relate  to the administration of justice be execute by proper person which do not at  all preclude the grantee from make a deputy for the office be execute by a  sufficient person the public weal be satisfy in the case Culliford and  Cardonell salk case tempt Talbot er p a difference be take between a bind for  the payment of a sum in gross for a office and a bind for account for part of  the profit as his deputy which come pretty near our case and that the law will  in some case allow the profit of a office to be sever from the execution of it  appear from the common case of sequestration of the profit of a benefice for  payment case tempt Talbot of debt where the benefice videlicet the cure of  soul be as much a office as that now in question Lord chancellor the first  question be whether Mr burrow be to be look upon but as a trustee for Mr  Bellamy creditor or whether he be to hold this office in his own right  discharge from any trust it must be consider that at the time of this grant Mr  Bellamy be himself in the office for his own life and also for the life of  another who surrender in who stead a grant be obtain to Mr burrow for his life  upon which he give such a paper as I think amount to a declaration of trust it  have be say that this relate to a future act and be not intend as a present  declaration but I can think so it seem to be quite proper for a declaration in  present there be a express promise which will not perhaps have be so strong if  at that time the grant have be actual pass and perfect but it be not so at  this time and therefore the transaction be sufficient as thing stand nor can I  think it right to admit of Mr strut evidence to oust a construction which  appear from the nature of the transaction itself the intent must be collect  from the word of the note and from the circumstance appear at the time of the  note give the not mention any thing of it in his will may be to leave the  defendant at liberty to execute this office either by himself or deputy or for  many other reason as well as those that be insist on and by the instruction  give to strut he have order his executor to insure this office for pound so  that if these instruction be admit to weigh any thing they will rather weigh  against the defendant than in his favour the next question be whether by law  there can be a trust of this office if this case be within the statute of  Edward I shall do Mr burrow but little service in decree for he if it be  within the statute in that case the whole be void and the office vacant the  statute disable the party buy as well as sell so that it will lead we case  tempt Talbot far perhaps than the defendant desire the design of the statute  be to restrain corrupt agreement between the grantor and grantee but here be  no such thing this be a gratuitous grant from the crown of this office without  any consideration at all either from Mr Bellamy or Mr burrow here be a bare  nomination of Mr burrow to act but nothing at all to bring it within the  statute for want of a corrupt agreement between the trustee and the  beneficiary and trust indeed the reason of the thing speak itself for where  the officer be to have no part of the profit to his own use but bare his name  make use of what inducement can he have to give a sum of money for a office  the profit of which he be to be no way benefit by the case that have be cite  for the defendant do not come up to the present case for here can be no want  of a office nor of a proper officer he be officer still though not to his own  use so that this differ wise from the reason in sir George reynold case and  the other case as I be therefore persuade that here be a trust intend I think  it ought to be carry into execution it have be object by the defendant counsel  that it be mere executory but I do not think it more so than any other trust  every trust be in some sort executory for they all relate to some future act  to be do and this do no more and whatever may hereafter happen in case a  deputy be make and that he misbehave the loss must be bear by the trust estate  and consequent no damage to Mr burrow who be but a nominal officer only and so  reverse the decree but order that after the account settle the waster shall  make a very liberal allowance to Mr burrow for the time he have actual execute  the office and also for the time to come case tempt Talbot er p