thority, were to ascertain, that, according to the true meaning and effect of the foundation and endowment, a certain portion of the fund ought to be applied for spiritual purposes, even in a particular manner, there is nothing in this act to entitle the ecclesiastical commissioners, or the Queen in Council, to prepare and ratify a different scheme, that is, a scheme inconsistent with the true meaning and effect of the foundation and endowment; and I am of opinion that this Court is not at liberty to withhold the exercise of its proper jurisdiction and authority, or to abstain from the exercise of that jurisdiction and authority in the absence, or without the permission, of the ecclesiastical commissioners, in the vain imagination that the authority of the Queen in Council may be exercised in such a manner as not to ratify and give the force of law to a legal decree of this Court made in conformity with the trusts of the foundation. I am well satisfied that no such suthority will be exercised by the Queen in Council, and I am far from thinking that the ecclesiastical com missioners will ever think of proposing that any such authority should be exercised. It is to be hoped, that, on consideration, they will be rather disposed to assist than to counteract the due administration of the law, and the legal application of this charity estate. As the act of Parliament contained this clause in relation to Wimborne Minster, it was quite reasonable and proper that the ecclesiastical commissioners should give their attention to the subject; they might most reasonably have suggested to the Attorney-General, that the act imposed on them, or at any rate might be held to impose on them, a duty, and might have requested the Attorney-General to consider the case, and afford them any assistance which might be useful in the perform ance of that duty, and, if necessary, to bring the subject under the consideration of the Master and of this Court. If they had done this, they would probably bare met with respectful and willing attention from the Attorney-General; and if they had not met with the attention which they were entitled to, I think that the means of setting that matter right would have been open to them; but, instead of asking the assistance of the Attorney-General, they have on this occasion claimed the right to be heard independently of him, separate from him, and against him and the scheme he proposes. When the Attorney-General offers to consent to their appearance at their own expense, by which their assistance may be obtained, they reject the offer, and still insist on their right. It may be admitted that they have a very important duty to perform under the eet. They have a political and ecclesiastical duty; they may have a right to the assistance of the Attor ney-General; but they have not vested in them any such trusts as can be recognised or administered in this court; they have no estate and no interest in the matters in question, and I am of opinion that they have no right to be treated as independent parties in the court, or to appear as such. In this case we have already, as parties to the cause, the Attorney-General, whose duty it is to attend to all public interests involved in the case; the governors, whose duty it is to state to the Court everything necessary for the protection of the property, and its due application; we have, further, the Bishop of Bristol, who is said to be the visitor of the charity, and the master, who is attended by three clergymen, who are interested to increase the amount of revenues applicable to the cure of souls, besides the choristers, singing boys, and organist. Believing that the ecclesiastical commissioners are very competent to give useful assistance in the settlement of the scheme, I should be glad to have the benefit of it, if they would give it without burthening the charity with increased expense; but advancing their claim, as they do, as a right, I am bound to say that they have no right to interfere at the expense of the charity. No doubt, the Attorney-General, in the consideration of any scheme, will not omit to notice the clause in the act of Parlia ment which refers to Wimborne Minster; and it is to be hoped, that, even without the assistance of the ecclesiastical commissioners, or their solicitor, we may be able to proceed without violating the law, or coming into conflict with any order which may be made by her Majesty in Council. The commissioners will probably admit that the exercise of their proper functions is not to bring them in conflict with her Majesty's courts of justice. If they think fit to accept the offer made to them to come in before the Master, paying their own expenses, I shall most willingly comply with it, and give it the sanction of this Court; but if not, the petition must be dismissed, with costs. VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND'S COURT. WALL v. WALL.-Feb. 20 and 22, and April 13. Husband and Wife-Election Dissent Annuity Property-tax-Parties. On the Marriage of A. and B., 14,000l. was vested in Trustees, upon Trust for A. for Life, then to B. for Life, then for such Persons as A. and B. should jointly appoint, and, in Default of Appointment, to the Children or Child of A. and B., exclusive of an eldest Son. This Trust Money was subsequently invested in the Purchase of Real Property. There were two Children of the Marriage, a Son and a Daughter: the Daughter married, but no Settlement was made previously. No joint Execution of the Power of Appointment was made, but A., by his Will, devised and bequeathed his Real and Personal Estates to Trustees, upon Trust to pay his Widow, B., an Annuity of 1800l., “clear of all Taxes and Deductions whatsoever;" he then devised all his Real Estates in strict Settlement to his Son; then he directed his Trustees to invest the Sum of 18,000, as soon as conveniently might be, in Government or Real Securities, and pay the Interest and Di vidends thereof to his Daughter, during her Life, to her separate Use, with a Clause against Anticipations Remainder to her Children, The Testator, reciting that his Wife and his Daughter were provided for by the said Settlement, declared, that the Provisions by his Will made for them should be taken by them respectively in full Discharge of the Provision made for them respectively by the said Settlements and he directed, that his said Wife and Daughter should, when thereunto requested, seal and execute to his said Trustees all such Releases, Acquittances, and Discharges of such their Claims, and also convey, and cause to be effectually conveyed, the Estates purchased with the Monies in the said Settlement, upon the Trusts of his said Will. First Tenant in tail filed his Bill to carry the Trusts of the Will into Execution, making the Widow of the Testator, his Daughter, and her Husband, Codefendants, for the Purpose of compelling them to elect whether they would take under the Will of the Testator or the Settlement, and to execute Releases and Discharges. The Daughter submitted, by her Answer, to take under the Will; her Husband, by his Answer, submitted, that he was not bound to elect, and could not be bound by the Election of his Wife. The Master res ported, that it would be more for the Benefit of the Daughter to take under the Will:-Held, that the Interest under the Settlement, being a reversionary Chose in Action of the Daughter, could not be released or assigned; and that an Election, in Accordance with the Master's Report, could not be carried into Effect against the Dissent of the Husband, in a Suit where Husband and Wife are Co-defendants. The Gift of an Annuity, "clear of all Taxes and Des ductions whatsoever," does not exempt it from the Property-tax. By the settlement made upon the marriage of Wil liam Wall and Elizabeth Williams, dated 11th Septem-inafter expressed and declared of and concerning the ber, 1802, certain sums of Government Stock, amount same, that is to say as to the sum of 18,000 of lawful ing to about 14,000%, were vested in trustees upon trust money of Great Britain, part of the said personal estate, to pay the dividends to the said William Wall for life, and which I charge upon my real estates in case my per then to the said Elizabeth Williams for life, then upon sonal estate shall be insufficient, upon trust that they my trust to sell all the said trust-monies, and pay, apply, said trustees for the time being do and shall, as soon as and dispose of the monies arising therefrom unto such conveniently may be after my decease, lay out and inperson and persons a and for such estate and estates vest the same in their or his names or name, at interest, as the said William Wall and Elizabeth Williams in the purchase of some or one of the parliamentary should jointly direct or appoint; and, in default of ap- stocks or public funds of Great Britain, or at interest pointment, unto all and every the children and child of upon Government, or freehold, leasehold, or copyhold the said William Wall by the said Elizabeth Williams, securities in England, and do and shall from time to not being an eldest or only son, in such manner as the time alter, vary, and transpose the said trust monies, said William Wall, in the event of his surviving the stocks, funds, and securities into or for other stocks, said Elizabeth Williams, should by deed appoint; and, funds, or securities of the like nature, with the privity in default of such appointment, unto and amongst all of my said daughter, during her life, and, after her de and every such child and children, not being an eldest cease, of their or his own discretion, and do and shall or only son, in" equal parts, shares, and proportions. stand possessed of and interested in the said last-menAnd if there should be but one such child not being an tioned trust-monies, stocks, Funds, and securities, and eldest or only son, then to such child for his or her use the interest, dividends, and the annual produce thereof, and benefit; the shares of sons to become vested inter- upon and for the trusts, intents, and purposes herein ests at twenty-one, and of daughters, or a daughter, at after expressed and declared of and concerning the twenty-one or marriage, , but the actual payment same, that is to say, upon trust, during the life of my thereof to be postponed until six calendar months after said daughter Millicent, to pay the said interest, divithe decease of the survivor of them the said William dends, and annual produce of the stocks, funds or Wall and Elizabeth Williams, when the same should securities in or upon which the said sum of 18,0001, shall be respectively paid to such son or sons, daughter or or may be laid out or invested, unto such person or perdaughters, &c. The marriage took effect, and there sons, and for such intents and purposes as my said was issue of the marriage only two children, the Rev. daughter, by by any writing or writings to be signed with W. E. Wall and Millicent Wall. In the year 1825, the her own hand, shall, whether sole or under coverture, trustees of the settlement converted a portion of the from time to time when and as the same shall become trust-fund into money, and invested it in the purchase due, but not by way of assignment, charge, or other anof a freehold estate, and in the year 1880 they sold out ticipation thereof, direct or appoint, and, until and in the residue of the trust-fund and invested it also in the default of such direction or appointment, unto her own purchase of a freehold estate. Both of these estates proper hands for her own sole and separate use and were conveyed to the trustees upon the trusts of the benefit," &c. The testator then gave his said daughter settlement of 1802. In 1835, Miss Wall intermarried a power of appointment by deed or will over 9,000, with the Baron de Thoren, who was shortly afterwards part of the said 18,000, amongst all or any of her naturalised by act of Parliament. No settlement was children, and so much of that 9,000% as she should not executed previous to this marriage; but, by settlements appoint, together with the remaining sum of 9,000l. to made after the marriage, the said W. Wall conveyed cer- be equally divided amongst her children. The testator tain real property and stock in the funds to trustees, by then proceeded as follows And whereas my said way of provision for the Baron and Baroness and the daughter Millicent, under my marriage settlement, will issue of the marriage; and there have been issue of the Become entitled, as a younger child, to upwards of marriage children. William Wall and Eliza- 12,000l., how, I do hereby declare my will to be, that so beth his wife never made any joint execution of the much of the said "sums of 9,000%, and 9,0008, so hereby power of appointment reserved to them in the settle-given to or in trust for her, shall be abated and reduced ment of 1802. William Wall, by his will dated 29th to such an amount as she shall be entitled to receive as July, 1842, after directing payment of his debts, &c, a younger child aforesaid, it not being my intent and devised to his wife for life, or so long as she should meaning that my said daughter should be entitled under continue his widow, a certain freehold messuage therein the said settlement to her said portion as a younger mentioned, and after her decease or second marriage, child as well as the said sum of 9,000% and 9,000 then he devised the said messuage and appurtenances And I do hereby will and direct, that the provisions in unto his daughter Millicent in fee. He then devised and by this my will made for my said wife and children certain freehold estates to trustees upon trust that they respectively are so made for them, and that they shall should, out of the rents and profits thereof, as also out respectively accept and take the same in full discharge, of the dividends, interest, and produce of his, residuary lieu, and satisfaction of and for all and every the estate, personal estate and effects, permit and suffer his said sum and sums of money, and other provision given to wife, for and during the term of her natural life, to have, and made for them respectively in and by the settle receive, and take one annuity, or clear yearly rent-ment made previous to my marriage with my said wife, charge of 18002 of lawful British money clear of all Elizabeth, and bearing date on for about the 11th of taxes and deductions whatsoever. He then devised all his September, 1802 that my said wife, Elizabeth, shall real estates, subject to the before-mentioned devises and also accept and take the same in lieu, and satisfaction, bequests, unto his son William Ellis Wall, with limita- and discharge of all her claims of dower and thirds at tions in strict settlement; then, upon failure of his issue, common law and freebench, by custom or otherwise, of to his daughter Millicent, with like limitations in strict in, to, or out of all and every my real and personal essettlement. And as to all and every his money in the tate and effects. And I do hereby accordingly will and funds, bonds, bills, notes, mortgages, and securities for direct that my said wife and children shall, when there money, and other his personal estate, whatsoever and unto requested, seal and executes to my said trustees, wheresoever, not thereinbefore disposed of, he gave and for the time being, all such releases, acquittances bequeathed the same unto his trustees, William Ellis and discharges of such their respective claims and Wall and Edward Jones Williams, their executors, ad- demands, and also convey, and cause to be well and ministrators, and assigns, upon the trusts and for the effectually conveyed, all and every the estates purseveral intents and purposes, and subject to the several chased with the monies in the said settlement menpowers, provisions, declarations, and agreements there-troned upon the trusts of this my will, as by my sid trustees or their counsel shall be reasonably devised or advised and required. And I nominate, constitute, and appoint the said William Ellis Wall, and Edward Jones Williams, executors of this my will. And I declare that the provisions hereby made in favour of my children are intended to be in addition to the property settled upon them at their marriage. The testator, William Wall, died in the month of Oc tober 1844, leaving the said Elizabeth Wall, his widow, and the said William Ellis Wall, his only son and beir-at-law, and the Baroness de Thoren, his only other child, him surviving. The bill was filed by William Ellis, Wall, the younger, the eldest son of the said William Ellis Wall, the first tenant in tail in remainder, expectant on his father's death, against the trustees and executors and all parties interested under the will praying general administration of the testator's estate, that the Baroness de Thoren and the widow of the testator might be decreed to elect whether they would take under the settlement of 1802, or under the will, and that all proper parties might be decreed to carry into effect, such selection. The bill, amongst other things, stated that it would be more Beneficial to the Baron and Baroness de Thoren respectively to accept the devises and bequests in their favour contained in the will than to take the provisions made for them by the settlement; and that they respectively ought to elect whether they will take under the said will or under the said settlement; that the said Baroness was unwilling to declare her election, and insisted that she was entitled to have proper inquiries; and the judgment of the Court, whether it would or not be for her benefit, or for the benefit of herself and infant children to elect and take the benefit of the will in preference to those provided by the settlement, and whether her election could extend to any benefits given to her infant children by the will, or to her own life interest only, and whether, in any event, the bequest of the said, legacy, in trust for the Baroness and her issue is by the will directed to be reduced by the Amount of the settled property to which the Baroness would be entitled under the settlement, and so as not to exceed such amount; that the Baron alleged that he could not be bound by the election of his wife, charging that whatever rights the Baron acquired by operation of law in right of his wife under the said setlement were subject to the sole right of election of the Baroness band that, if she elected to take under the will, the whole of the trust funds comprised in the set tlement, or the real estates purchased therewith, should sink into and form part of the testator's residuary estates.The bill prayed an account of the personal estate of the testator and due administration, thereof; also an account of the residuary (real estates devised by the testator's will, and also of the estates comprised in the settlement of 1802, or which were now subject to the trusts thereof, &es; and that defendants, Elizabeth Wall, the widow of the testator and the Baroness de Thoren, might be deereed to elect whether they would take ander the will of the testator, or under the said settlement; and that all proper parties might be decreed to carry into effect such election, and to execute such releases, &c, as might be necessary to effect the election, & The Baron de Thoren and his wife answered jointly the latter stated, that she was advised that it was more for her benefit to take the devises and bequests, under the testator's will, than to take under the settlement.It appeared from the answer of these defendants, and that of defendant Elizabeth Wall, that the Baron de Thoren had charged and incumbered, all such estate and interest as he might be entitled to in the trust estates and premises comprised, in and subject to the trusts of the settlement of 1802, with the payment of the sum of 7001. and interest, and that such charge had became vested in the said Elizabeth J. Parker, for the infant children of the Baroness. There is no question as regards the children. They are entitled under the will (subject to the previous interest) to a clear sum of 18,000, and there is no possibility of reducing that sum as against them. Koe and Stinton, for the trustees of the settlement of 1802. then I contend that the declaration of the Court, that the wife has elected, will bind the wife, and the trustees having the legal estate, they can convey to the uses of Stuart, in reply. The first question is, what is to be the will; and this will be sufficient. Next, I contend done with the 18,000l. given by the will? It is per that the Baroness is entitled to interest on this legacy fectly clear that the wife and the daughter taking from the death of the testator. To make interest pay-under the will are to release the money in settlement. able immediately it is sufficient that it should appear Can any one contend that, co-existing with the elec from the will that the parent intended the legacy as tion of the daughter to take under the will, there should maintenance for the child: Lowndes v. Lowndes, 15 Ves. be in her husband a right to claim under the settlement if 301; Newman v. Bateson, 3 Swanst. 689; and Dowling he should happen to survive his wife? The testator, by v. Tyrell, 2 R. & M. 343. Under the present will no- his will, shewing an intention that the daughter should thing is given which the daughter could anticipate; not take both, the Court will declare that no parties are and the 18,000l. is given as a part of the residue,"to to take both. The other side contend that the Court is be invested as soon as conveniently may be," which not to decide the question of election until the Baroness might not be for many years. survive the tenant for life; but I contend that the Baroness can elect now, and can bind her husband by that election, (Ardesoifev. Bennett, 2 Dick. 463), and that an effectual release can be given to the trustees of the settlement. (Gage v. Acton, 1 Salk. 325). It is plain, then, that, if the Master finds that it is most beneficial Bethell and Malins, for the Baron de Thoren.-The to the wife to take under the will, the Court can com plaintiff contends that there is thrown upon the Ba- pel the husband to give effect to that election. (Vaner. roness a clear obligation to elect, and that, as a conse-Dungannon, 2 Sch. & Lef. 118; and Parsons v. Dunne, quence of law, that obligation must be fulfilled by the 2 Ves. sen. 60). As to the interests of the children, Í husband. There is nothing better settled than that the submit that they have a right to the 18,000%.; but that daw will not interfere with the rights created by mar- they must take it subject to the condition as to reriage. It has been very common of late years, where leasing the property in the settlement. As to the there has been a covenant by the husband that he and question of interest in the 18,000, this case is the case his wife should levy a fine; the Courts have held that of a gift to an adult child. (Raven v. Waite, 1 Swanst. the wife could not be compelled to do so, it being 553; Leslie v. Leslie, Lloyd v. Goold, Temp. Sug. 6). against the policy of the law. (Jordan v. Jones, 2 Phil. But besides the rule of law which is against the interest 107). In what manner could the Court bind the hus- being payable from the death, the gift here is of the band in this case? it has no power over him. There is dividends of the money when invested. As to the quesa reversionary interest in a chose in action which at tion of property-tax, the testator does not say free from present cannot be reduced into possession, and there is any tax which may be imposed upon her. The Viceno power of dealing with it. The testator did not in- Chancellor. It was not a gift of so much as, after de tend to affect the marital rights of the husband, but ducting the property-tax, would give her an annuity only the contingent right of the daughter,-namely, in of 18,000%.] the event of her surviving the tenant for life, and the husband predeceasing the tenant for life. This was all the testator intended when he said that she should release all her interest in the settled property; the more extended construction would make the condition impossible, and therefore void. [The Vice-Chancellor. -If the Court should declare that the Baroness should execute a release, &c. when she survives her husband, it would seem to put an end to the difficulty.] The words are, "when thereunto requested;" but that means when a request is made to a party able to do the thing, namely, to the wife being a widow at the death of her mother. The argument on the question of election is quite untenable. In Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. 127, Sir Wm. Grant held that the marital rights of the husband could not be affected by the election of the wife. In all the cases cited by the other side, the question was about real estate; but here the property is personal, and is in this position:-by the marriage the property under the settlement was transferred to the husband; but unless he subsequently acquired the power of reducing it into possession, the gift by the marriage amounts to nothing. If he die before the tenant for life, the interest of the wife is unaffected by the coverture, and upon that event the wife can elect, and can release the property in settlement; but if the husband survive the tenant for life, he becomes entitled to a transfer of the fund in the settlement; how, then, is his right to be bound by the election of the wife? In Cavan v. Pulteney, the wife was entitled to an estate tail in real property; the last proprietor of the estate, having been in a position to obtain the absolute owner. ship, gave interests both to the husband and the wife by his will; but it was for the interest of both husband and wife that the wife should take her estate tail. So, in Bradish v. Bradish, there was no contest between the husband and wife; their interests were identical. April 13.-VICE-CHANCELLOR,I have read over these papers in Wall v. Wall, and there is no difficulty, as it appears to me, with respect to any one of the ques tions which were brought before me, except that which regards the election. In the first place, with respect to the question, such as it was, about the interest for the first year, it appears to me that interest cannot be pay. able for the first year, because the provision, such as it is, is a general legacy, certainly made to a child, but to an adult child, and also to a child with respect to whom it appears there was a provision made; nor is there any direction with regard to maintenance, and therefore I think, with regard to the law as it is laid down in that case of Raven v. Waite, which appears to me to state the law very clearly, that it is quite plain, that interest for the first year is not payable! Then, with respect to the question about the pay ment of the annuity free from property-tax, it really appears to me that there is nothing in it, because I have looked at the language of the 102nd section of what is now called the Property-tax Act, and it is quite plain there, that by the express law the thing that is given is the thing that is to pay, and this expression can never be so twisted as to mean this, that, whatever may be the fate of the country with respect to any property-tax that may be imposed during the continuance of the annuity, it is to be taken as if it were the gift of an annuity with such a variable per petually increasing or decreasing proportionable addition as shall have, after payment out of it what the property-tax claims, the annuity of a given amount. The words amount to nothing like that; and my opinion therefore is, that the annuitant is liable to pay the property-tax. Then, with respect to the question about the election, this is to be observed, that, in the first place, it is not a case of election in the common sense of the word, where the election arises simply by a person making a heirs, executors, and administrators, all his freehold disposition as his own of that which is not his own, and leasehold messuages and hereditaments in the pabut here there is a double declaration. In the first rishes of St. Lawrence, St. Mary, and St. Giles, in place, in the will, the testator expressly directs, in very Reading, as well all such parts thereof, as were his own singular words, that the amount which he has given separate estate, the chief of which were let on leases by the will shall be diminished by the amount of the for long terms of years determinable on lives, and reprovision which has been made by the settlement; newable on the death of every life on payment of fines and then, in a subsequent part, he expressly declares, certain, and the remainder thereof let at rack rents, in language somewhat inconsistent with the first, but &c. The testator then proceeded as follows:-" And Í he expressly declares, that that which is given as hereby give full power and authority to the said John aprovision by the settlement shall itself be given up Blagrave and John Simeon, and their heirs, to accept in case the party takes that which is given by the will. and take surrenders of all the present and future leases Well now, he has, in fact, expressly declared that it of such messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, shall be given up if that which is given in the way of as relate to my separate estates in Reading, which are the gift of the 18,000. takes effect. But then there is now or shall hereafter be let on leases for years deter this most remarkable circumstance, that the provision, minable on the decease of lives, and to grant new and as it now stands under the settlement, is a chose in fresh leases thereof for long terms, determinable on the action of the wife's in remainder, which will not take decease of three lives to be named in any such new effect in possession until the death of her mother; and lease, but not for more lives at one and the same time, it does not appear to me that there is any method now at and under the like annual reserved rent or rents, known to the law by which in presenti that reversion-heriots, fines, fees for renewal, covenants, conditions, ary interest can be absolutely given up. It cannot and agreements, as shall be contained in the several with certainty be released, it cannot be assigned, and it leases thereof at the respective times of their being surappears to me, moreover, that there is this further dif- rendered; and in case any such leasehold estates shall Realty, and that is, that, if the question is whether the fall in by the decease of all the lives by which the same election which the Court might make upon the Mas- shall be held, or by the expiration of the terms of ter's report in favour of the wife is to prevail, I do not years for which they were leased, then, either for such see very well how it can prevail against the dissent of valuable consideration in money as my trustees can the husband, and I do not very well see myself how agree for, to grant new or fresh leases of all such parts the question, whether it can be carried into effect thereof for long terms of years, determinable on the deagainst the wish of the husband can be determined, in cease of three lives to be named in every such new lease, cause constituted as it now is, with the husband but not for more lives at one and the same time, at and wife co-defendants; and therefore, if the parties under such rent or rents, and such fine or fines for relly think that during the life of the mother anything newal in future as my said trustees can agree for, to done effectually in the way of decision with be incident to and go along with the reversion and into this case of election, it appears to me that the heritance of the estates thereby to be respectively letatter must be brought before the Court in some way ten, and at and under the like covenants and agreeso that we may have the husband and wife as adverse ments as are usually contained in the leases of my claimants, in the shape that one is a plaintiff and the estates in Reading aforesaid let on lease." In a subseether a defendant, for otherwise I do not think the quent part of his will, the testator, in alluding to the Court has any jurisdiction; and it really appears, that parts of his estates let upon leases for lives, added, all that can be done at present, as the matter now "which are always to be leased in manner before distands, is merely to direct, that, if it is necessary,-for rected." The testator died shortly after the date of his ouse confusion has arisen, I admit, by investing the will. By an indenture, dated the 1st October, 1802, ment-money in land, the sum of 18,000/. should a messuage and premises, which were let upon a lease apart to abide the ultimate decision of the for lives, at the respective dates of the will and the Court whenever the thing is in such a state as that the testator's death were, in consideration of a surrender Court can really decide it; but, at present, I do not made to the trustees of a lease, dated the 25th April, think that I have any jurisdiction whatever to decide 1800, demised by them to Thomas Cowslade for ninetyon the question of election against the husband, who nine years, if three persons therein named, or either of dissents from the view which the wife takes. them, should so long live. In this indenture was also a covenant by the said Thomas Cowslade, if either of the three lives should die within the term, to pay within twelve months to the trustees, 87. as a fine for renewal, and to tender to the trustees for their execution a lease for ninety-nine years, if the two survivors and one other person, to be nominated by him, or any or either of them, should so long live, and the trustees were to execute the said lease upon the tender and payment, &c. being made to them. To this lease Henry Bellringer and Alice his wife became entitled, and, upon the death of one of the lives in 1834, they proposed the life of George Gardiner, aged seventeen, as a new life. They now instituted the suit against the trustees for compelling the execution of a new lease of the premises for the life of this person, or for ninety-nine years, determinable on his decease. The point argued was, whether the trustees had authority, under the will of the testator, to enter into the covenant contained in the deed of 1st October, 1802. Russell and Randall, for the plaintiff. Wigram, Bacon, Craig, and Berry, for the several defendants. VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE'S COURT. John Blagrave, late of Calcot, in the county of Berks, y his will, dated 5th November, 1787, gave and deVised to John Blagrave and Sir John Simeon, their The cases of Mortlock v. Buller (10 Vés. 294) and |