9. Settlement of 10,000l., the intereft to be paid to husband and wife for their lives, the principal subject to the appointment of the husband, and then of the wife to any of the children; and in default of appointment, to all their children equally at 21, or marriage; there were two children, one died in the lifetime of the father; there was no appointment; the father died: held to be a contingent vested intereft in the children, and the furvivor was Ambl. 354. entitled to the whole after the death of the mother. 1758. Gordon v. Levi. 10. Settlement of money on husband and wife, &c. and if the husband die, and the wife furvive, he leaving no iffue of her body, or fuch iffue die in the lifetime of the wife, then the money to go to the wife; there was issue a daughter, who attained 21, and died in the lifetime of her mother: held the daughter took a vested interest. Ambl. 621. 1764. Heurtley v. Mafon. 11. Truft under marriage fettlement for the next of kin of the wife, fubject to her appointment by will with two witneffes: áppointment in favour of the hufband by an unattefted will being void, the children are entitled, not the husband, who is not of kin to his wife, and whofe claim to her perfonal property is not in that character under the ftatute, but jure mariti; and in this cafe according to the plan of the fettlement, he was not intended. 3 Vef. jun. 244. 1796. Watt v. Watt. (B. a) Lien. Where the Covenant is a Lien on the Vin. 288. Land. I. A. Covenants on his marriage to lay out 3000l. in the purchase of land, and to fettle it on A. in tail, remainder to B. A. purchases the manor of D. with this 3000l. and never settles it, but fuffers a recovery thereof; as the covenant was a lien on the land; fo the recovery fuffered of it difcharges the lien, and bars B. of the benefit of the covenant, and of the remainder. 3 P. Wms. 171. 1732. Marwood v. Turner, 2. N., the mother of A. S., was feifed in tail ex provifione viri of the estate in question, reverfion in fee to her husband; A. S. and W S. her husband created a mortgage term of 1000 years on his estate, and joined in levying a fine to the mortgagee, remainder. to fuch uses as W. S. fhould appoint. W. S. before the levying the fine, on fale of an eftate belonging to him, covenants with J. S. the purchafer for quiet enjoyment, and afterwards makes an appointment to trustees for particular purpofes of the wife's eftate; J. S. being evicted of the lands he purchafed, brings his bill against A. S. and her four children, to fubject her estate to the plaintiff's demand under the covenant of W. S. It being a doubtful cafe whether the plaintiff's debt accrued by breach of covenant till after the appointment of W. S. in execution of the power, bill was difmiffed. 3 Atk. 419. 1746. White v. Sanfom. the 3. A co 11Vin 290. . 3. A covenant to appropriate one-third of the produce of a real eftate to raise a sum of money, is not a mere personal covenant fuable at law, but creates a lien upon the land, and the covenan ters are entitled to have it fpecifically performed. Legard v. Hodges, Eaft. 1792. 3 Bro. Ch. Ca. 531. 1 Ves. jun. 477. S. C. August 1793. 4 Bro. Ch. Ca. 421. S. C. 4. A covenant to fettle or convey particular lands will not at law create a lien upon the lands; but in equity fuch a covenant, if for a valuable confideration, will be deemed a specific lien on the lands, and decreed again.ft all perfons claiming under the covenantor, except purchasers for valuable confideration, and without notice of fuch covenant. Finch v. Earl of Winchelfea, 1 P. Wms. 282. Freemantle v. Dedire, 1 P. Wms. 429. Jackson v. Jackson, 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 462. Coventry v. Coventry, best reported at the end of Francis's Maxims; for equity confiders that as done, which being diftinctly agreed to be done, ought to have been done. Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Eq. page 76, and Fonbl. Treat. Eq. 367. I. (C. a) Covenants Lien on the personal Estate. A. Covenants for himself and his heirs, that he will purchase lands and fettle them on himself for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to his first, &c. fon, remainder to himself in fee; equity will compel the executor to lay out the money, though the heir is both debtor and creditor. 3 P. Wms. 224. 1733 Lechmere v. Earl of Carlife. 2. Bond by an infant for a juft debt: his mother and infant fifter being entitled, on the death of A. without iffue, to 4000l. ftock for the mother for life after to her children according to appointment, if no children to the mother, after the death of the fon covenant to pay that debt, when either should become entitled to that stock. On the marriage of the daughter, the mother made an appointment of the ftock in her favour; but the next day the hufband having notice of, and approving the covenants to pay the fon's debt, and reeiting his, and his wife's intention to fecure it "as after mentioned," released all their right to that stock to the mother, and covenanted that when the wife fhould be 21 all their interest should be vefted in her; and a truft was declared, that if the obligee fhould have a right to recover that debt, it fhould be paid out of that stock. Afterwards a bill being filed to fet afide the fettlement, as an appointment by the mother for her own benefit without confideration, the parties were by agreement mutually released from the covenants in it, and the husband covenanted that if the obligee fhould have a right in the life of the mother to recover the debt, it should be paid out of that stock. The mother died inteftate before A. It was held that a fair affignee of the debt had no specific lien on the fund, which could be be liable only by being brought back into the mother's affets as taken out in fraud of her creditors; for which it must be said either that there was no pretence for the compromife, or no pretence for its providing for the debt only if fuable in the mother's life; but the marriage brocage in the fettlement was fufficient ground for the compromife, and the bill did not go on the other ground, therefore the common decree for an account of affets, debis, and funeral expences, without reference to that fund, was made against the hufband and wife as administrators. The debt of the fon was a fufficient confideration for the covenants; and if the mother had furvived A. there would have been a specifick lien. 1 Vef. jun. 314. 1791. Johnson v. Boyfield. (D. a) Portions to be paid, or Settlements to be made 15 Vin. 291. on Condition precedent. SETTLEMENT on two daughters; provifo, if either marry without the confent of their mother, it fhould be to their feparate ufe, &c.; the mother propofed, and encouraged the marriage of one of her daughters with Lord Strange, and afterwards refufed her confent out of pique and refentment; the marriage was had without her confent, and held no forfeiture. Ambl. 263. 1755. Lord Strange v. Smith. (E. a) Settlement. Variance between Agreements, 15Vin. 293. Articles, and Settlements. 1. WHERE by articles an eftate is limited to 4. for life, to 1 Atk. 17. his wife for life, remainder to the heirs of the body of 2 Atk. 85. A. this is confidered here as an eftate for life only in the father, and the settlement after fhall be rectified by the articles before marriage; but though this has been done between parties to the articles and fettlement and their reprefentatives, and mere volunteers, yet not against a purchafer. 3 Atk. 291. 1745. War. wick v. Warwick. 2. Articles and fettlement in pursuance, and in the very words thereof, both before marriage, under which the husband would be tenant in tail, will be rectified in this court for the fon. 238. 1749. Roberts v. King by. 3. The court refufed to rectify a fettlement which varied the intereft of an adult from what it appeared to be under the articles. Ambl. 315. 1756. Partyn v. Roberts. 4. Articles before marriage to fettle were fo expreffed, that the husband would have had an estate tail; a fettlement copying the very words of the articles was reformed. 5 Ves jun. 262. 1800. Mandall v. Willis. 5. Set 15 Vin. 349. 5. Settlement reformed in favour of the younger children, against the heir of the mother, claiming the reverfion, by a letter from her on the marriage of her daughter, ftating the intention. 5 Vef. jun. 593. Aug. 1800. Barflow v. Kelvington. 1 Matter of the Rolls. (A) His Power, &c. HIS Honor directed a cafe to the Court of King's Bench, faying he thought he had authority when fitting for the Chancellor, which was the cafe then, though not when fitting at the Rolls. 2 Bro. 88. 1786. Horton v. Whitaker. 15Vin. 344. Master of a Ship. (B) Chargeable. In what Cafes. WHERE feveral bills of lading, of different imports, have been figned, no reference is to be had to the time when they were figned by the captain; but the perfon, who first gets one of them by a legal title from the owner or fhipper, has a right to the confignment. And where fuch bills of lading, though different upon the face of them, are conftructively the fame, and the captain has acted bonâ fide, a delivery according to fuch legal title will discharge him from them all. Caldwell et al. v. Ball, 1 Term Rep. 205. 2. Where goods are ordered for a fhip by the owners, before the appointment of the captain, though fome are not delivered till afterwards, yet as no perfonal credit is given to the captain, he is not answerable for any of them. Farmer v. Davies, 1 Term Rep. 108. Vide alfo Hefkins v. Slayton, Caf. Temp. Hard. 376. 3. The perfon who repairs a fhip has his election in a court of common law, either to fue the mafter who employs him, or the owners, but if he undertakes it on a fpecial promise from either, the other is discharged. Garnham v. Bennett, 2 Str. 816. 4. The demand in Chancery was for work done in repairing a fhip. The defendants were part owners, or their representatives, who received the benefit thereof. Per Lord Hurdwicke, C. The questions 9 1 queftions are two; first, whether the part owners, by the employment of the plaintiff either by the mafter or the husband, are become perfonally liable for the debt created and contracted for the repairs? 2d, whether, fuppofing they are not, the fhip itfelf has contracted a lien by the admiralty law allowed here; and then, whether the money arifing by the fale is anfwerable to the plaintiff? Upon the laft queftion, his lordship faid, certainly, by the maritime law the mafter has power to hypothecate both fhip and cargo for repairs, &c. during the voyage, whi h arifes from his authority as mafter, and the neceffity thereof during the voyage; without which both fhip and cargo would perish: therefore both that and the law of this country admit fuch a power. But it is different when the fhip is in port infra corpus comitatus, and the contra for repairs, &c. made in England, then the rule of that law must prevail. I know of no cafe where the repairs, &c. whether it was by part owners or fole owners, master or hufband, have been held a charge or lien on the body of the fhip, Watkinson v. Barnard, 2 P. Wms. 367. being a direct authority to the contrary; and if the fhip in the river infra corpus comitatus fhould be proceeded against for fuch debts, the courts of law would iffue a prohibition, the contract being at land, and not arifing from neceflity. If, therefore, the body of the ship is not liable or hypothecated, how can the money arifing by fale be affected or followed, the one being confequential of the other? He difmiffed the bill therefore fo far as it fought relief against the body of the ship, or the money arifing by the fale thereof; but feeling doubts on the other point, he directed that the plaintiff be at liberty to bring an action against the furvivors, and reftrained the defendants from pleading the ftatute of limitations, or from infifting upon any discharge under a commiffion of bankruptcy against one of them. Buxton v. Snee, I Vef. 154. 5. But a mafter having pledged a fhip for the expences, &c. laid out upon her abroad, the queftion was, whether the part owners were liable? and Thomas v. Terry, Eq. Ab. 139., Speering v. Degrave, 2 Vern. 643. were cited. Sir John Strange, Master of the Rolls, obferved that the cafe in Vern. feemed to be a tranfaction at home, and it was common that if materials were furnished by tradefmen, they might bring an action against either *. Honor, after taking time to confider, determined that was well hypothecated, and that part owners were liable. v. Bragington, 1 Vef. 443. But his * Quere. Whether the fhip the thip or captain is meant hereby as liable, as the owner, &c. is in the other. See the distinction taken in the following cafe. (B. 2) Owners. How far bound by his Contract or 15 Vin.348. Default. 1. WHOEVER fupplies a fhip with neceffaries has a treble fecurity. 1. The perfon of the mafter, as making the contract. 2. The fpecific fhip. 3. The perfonal fecurity of the owners, Note, Put in Wefterdale v. Dale, 7Term Rep. |