Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"tenements, or hereditaments; or of any stock, money, "goods, chattels, or other personal estate, or securities "for money, to be laid out or disposed of in the pur"chase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or "of any estate or interest therein, or any charge or "incumbrance affecting or to affect the same, to or in "trust for any charitable uses whatsoever, which shall "at any time from and after the 24th day of June “1736, be made in any other manner or form than by "this act is directed and appointed, shall be absolutely "and to all intents and purposes null and void;" therefore, between the first and third clauses of the act not only is the conversion of money into land by will for charitable purposes restrained, but likewise the conversion of real estate into personal; and when no option is given to the trustees, but the direction to purchase land is mandatory, a bequest of money to enable the trustee of a charity to complete a contract for the purchase of land, or to enable the trustee to pay off a mortgage sum (part of the purchase money) secured upon an estate conveyed to religious purposes, are equally void, as coming under the statute.*

[ocr errors]

The only instance in which an interest in land (if such it can be called) appears to have escaped the severity of the act, seems to be that of allowing a charity to have the money arising from the sale of estates, which had only been contracted for in the testator's life time, and were in his possession at the time of his death. '

Kirkbank v. Hudson, Dan. 259. Corbyn v. French, 4 Ves. 418. 1 Middleton v. Spicer, 1 Bro. C.C. 201.

Substitution of land for money to be invested, &c.

Connected with this part of our subject, may be considered that implied performance of covenants to invest money in land, which springs from the supposition, that when a person lies under an obligation to do any thing, it is more natural to ascribe it to the obligation he lies under than to a voluntary act independant of the obligation."

And although money and land, being things in their nature entirely different, cannot exactly be said to be taken in satisfaction for each other, yet there are circumstances under which land will be presumed to be taken as a substitution for that which was covenanted to be purchased and settled to certain uses.

In the case of Wilcocks v. Wilcocks", A. covenanted on his marriage to purchase lands of 2001. per annum, and settle them on the wife and issue of the marriage in strict settlement. He afterwards purchased lands of that value, and died intestate, having made no settlement, but permitted them to descend to his eldest son; and it was held, that the lands descended being of 2007. per annum, and upwards, ought to be deemed a satisfaction of the covenant. But the Court will direct the land to be conveyed to the uses of the settlement, for they do not arise by force of the covenant; since, at the time of entering into the covenant, there was no seisin in the lands to serve the uses.

So, where a man covenants to convey and settle

m Lechmere v. Earl of Carlisle, 3 P. Wms. 211. Forr. 80 n2 Vern. 558.

G

lands, and afterwards purchases lands, but dies without making any settlement, the after-purchased lands were held in satisfaction of the covenant; the case was held to be still stronger than a mere covenant to settle lands."

And where, in a covenant to settle lands, and the heir was not bound, nor the lands specified, the lands descended to him were taken to be in performance of the covenant.P

And if the lands descended are in fee, they may be taken in satisfaction of a covenant to settle lands in tail, if they are of equal value."

In the case of Lechmere v. Carlisle, it was taken as a principle in equity, that, where a man covenants to do an act, and he does that which may pro tanto be considered as a completion of his covenant he shall be presumed to have done it with such intention, Hence, where A. covenanted for himself and his heirs with certain trustees, to lay out a sum in the purchase of freehold lands and tenements in fee simple in possession, with their consent; and, subsequent to the marriage, purchased at different times lands of less value than those covenanted for, and died without making any settlememt; the after-purchased freehold lands, though not of the amount of those covenanted for, were held as part performance of the covenant; as it was doubtful whether one entire pur. chase could be met with for just the sum covenanted to he laid out.

Nor is it considered necessary that every parcel should be conveyed so soon as bought, as it was never

• Deacon v. Smith, 3 Atk. 323.
a Wilcocks v. Wilcocks, ut supra.

Roundell v. Breary, 2 Vern. 481. r3 P. Wms. 211. Forr. 80.

intended that there should be several settlements under

the same articles.

And even if the

And even if the money covenanted

to be laid out in lands has been paid to the trustees, or part only has been paid over to them, and part remain in covenant, and the covenantor himself pur chases the lands, such lands have been taken in satisfaction for the covenant; though, as to this circumstance, in the case of Sowden v. Sowden', the Master of the Rolls declared, that if it had been res integra he should have thought the distinction worthy of great consideration. :

Nor will it alter the case that the money is to be laid out with the consent of the trustees, and no cons sent be given; or within a specified time, and the purchase be not made within that time; as the trustees not enforcing by the means in their power a per formance of the articles or covenant, ought not to pre judice the rights of third persons."

As Equity considers a bond in consideration of marriage as an agreement, when it is decided at law that there has been a breach of the condition of the bond, the obligee will be entitled to such compensation or performance as a Court of Equity may decree. And where one of the conditions was ", that if the marriage should take effect, and J. P. the husband, at any time during his natural life should become seized of any messuages, tenements, lands, and heriditaments, in pos session, and should settle the same on M. T. his in tended wife, and the issue of the said intended marriage, by such good conveyances in the law as counsel should

8 Lechmere v. Carlisle, ut supra.

1

[ocr errors]

t 1 Bro. C. C. 582. & 1 Cox, 165., & Cox's note, 3 P. Wms. 228. ▾ Lechmere v. Carlisle, ubi supra.

w Prebble v. Boghurst, 1 Swanston, 309. Cusack v. Cusack, 5 Bro. P.C. 116. Banks v. Ivers, 5 Bro. P.C. 127.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

advise, in such parts and proportions, and to such use advise, in such and uses as should be thought requisite, the better to make a provision for M. T. in case she should happen gif To to survive J. P., then the bond to be void: the wife died in her husband's life-time, and he, having again married, subsequently became seized of freehold estates of considerable value, and disposed of the greater part MOD PAROD of them amongst the children of the second marriage; and as the obligation to make a settlement on the wife and the issue, clearly included an obligation to make a settlement on the issue, after the death of the wife, the lands purchased after the death of the wife were held to be comprehended in the bond, and the words during the natural life of the covenantor were not construed to mean during the first coverture: and the parties were were held to be entitled to a relief in Equity.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1

[ocr errors]

But such bond, conditioned to settle lands of which the obligor shall become seised, will not affect lands of which he is seised at the date of the bond, nor be construed to ed to affect lands to which he has only an equitable title. If the words of the articles are future the lands then in the possession of the covenantor will not be affected by them. 20 leg burgerud odt 1: tada

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The lands must, however, be similar in their nature with those covenanted or articled to be settled, so as to answer the purposes of the settlement. Hence, under a covenant to purchase and settle lands of inheritance in fee simple, the purchase of leasehold estates for lives, or years, or reversions expectant on estates

• Prebble v. Boghurst, 1 Swanston, 309. Cusack v. Cusack, 5 Bro. P. C. 116. Banks v. Ivers, 5 Bro. P.C. 127. y Ibid. Attorney General v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. sen. 534. Lewis v. Hill,

1 Ves.sen. 274.

a Lechmere v. Carlisle, ut supra.

Alleyn v. Alleyn, 2 Ves. sen. 37.

« AnteriorContinuar »