sideration which it would otherwise have done, if the determination upon that point had not been superseded by the determination upon the other.

Upon the direct authority, therefore, of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, in Beard v. Westcott, and the dicta by Willes C. J., Lord Mansfield, and Lord Kenyon, and the rules laid down in Blackstone and Fearne, we consider ourselves warranted in saying, that the time limited is a life or lives in being, and twenty-one years afterwards, without reference to the infancy of any person whatever. This will certainly render the estate inalienable for twenty-one years after lives in being, but it will preserve in safety any limitation which may have been made upon the authority of the dicta or text writers I have named, and it will not tie up the alienation an unreasonable length of time.

Upon the second and third questions proposed by your Lordships, whether a limitation by way of executory devise is void, as too remote or otherwise, if it is not to take effect until after the determination of a life or lives in being, and upon the expiration of a term of twenty-one years afterwards, together with a number of months equal to the ordinary (or longest) period of gestation; but the whole of such years and months to be taken as a term in gross, and without reference to the infancy of any person whatever, born, or in ventre sa mère, the unanimous opinion of the Judges is, that such a limitation would be void, as too remote. They consider twenty-one years as the limitation, and the period of gestation to be allowed in these cases only in which the gestation exists.

1833.

CADELL

V.

PALMER.

1833.

CADELL

บ.

PALMER.

The Lord Chancellor.-I propose to move the House to concur in giving judgment according to the unanimous opinion of the Judges now delivered. The two last questions were put with a view to the arguments at the bar, and the origin of the rule against perpetuity, as applicable to executory devises. The rule originally introduced was limited to a life, then to lives in being, and afterwards was extended, for convenience, to the end of the infancy of the children of the person to whom the life estates were limited. The rule might have been considered as established by decision of this House, in the case of Lloyd v. Carew.* As to the doubt which has been expressed, whether the rule has been adopted in the practice or opinion of conveyancers, the passages cited from Fearne on Executory Devises, in the opinion just delivered, shew that it was the settled opinion of that great conveyancer and lawyer, that the term of twentyone years after lives in being, might be added as a term in gross. Mr. Butler, the able editor of Mr. Fearne's book, in his commentary upon this question, confirms the opinion of his author. The opinion of Lord Mansfield was the same; nor is the doctrine impeached by the dicta of Lord Kenyon in Long v. Blackall. The doctrine may now be considered as finally settled, and the judgment, in accordance with the opinion delivered, ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

* 1 Show. P. C. 137.

† 7 T. R. 100.

1833.

ENGLAND.

(EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.)

THOMAS HENRY MIRE

HOUSE, Clerk, and WIL

LIAM SQUIRE MIRE

HOUSE, Clerk, who have Plaintiffs in Error;

survived GEORGE, Bi

shop of LINCOLN,

An advowson belonging to a prebendary, in right of his prebend, became vacant, and the prebendary died without having presented: Held, that the right of presentation belonged to the personal representatives of the prebendary.

THIS writ of error was brought by the Defendants below, upon a judgment of the Court of King's Bench, reserving a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on a writ of quare impedit, in a cause wherein the Defendant in error was Plaintiff, and the Plaintiffs in error were Defendants.

The Court of Common Pleas gave judgment in Michaelmas term 1825, for the Plaintiffs in error, whereupon a writ of error into the King's Bench was brought by the Defendant in error.

The Court of King's Bench, in Trinity term

MIREHOUSE บ. RENNELL.

1833.

MIREHOUSE

RENNELL.

1827, reversed the judgment given in the Court of Common Bench, whereupon the writ of error was brought.

The declaration in the Court of Common Bench, was as follows

Lincolnshire, to wit. George, Bishop of Lincoln, Thomas Henry Mirehouse, clerk, and William Squire Mirehouse, clerk, were summoned to answer Frances Henrietta Rennell, widow, relict and administratrix of all and singular the goods, chattels, and credits, which were of Thomas Rennell, clerk, bachelor in divinity, deceased at the time of his death, who died intestate of a plea, that they permit the said Frances Henrietta, to present a fit person to the rectory of the parish church of Welby, in the county of Lincoln, which is vacant, and in her gift as administratrix as aforesaid; and whereupon the said Frances Henrietta, by Gregory James Best, her attorney, complains, for that whereas one William Dodwell, clerk, doctor in divinity, late prebendary of the prebend or canonry of South Grantham, founded in the cathedral church of Salisbury, heretofore, to wit, on the 27th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1775; to wit at Boston, in the county of Lincoln, was seised of and in the said prebend or canonry with its appurtenances, to which said prebend or canonry the advowson of the said rectory of the said parish church of Welby, with its appurtenances, then belonged and still belongs in his demesne as of fee in right of the said prebend or canonry, and the said William Dodwell, doctor in divinity so being such prebendary as aforesaid, and so being seised of and in the said prebend or canonry with its appurtenances to which, &c., afterwards, to wit, on the

same day and year aforesaid, at Boston aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, presented to the said church of Welby being then vacant, one William Dodwell, master of arts, his clerk, who on the said presentation of the said William Dodwell, doctor in divinity was admitted, instituted, and inducted into the same, in the time of peace in the time of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, late King of Great Britain; and the said Frances Henrietta, further says that, the said William Dodwell, doctor in divinity, being so seised of the said prebend or canonry with its appurtenances to which, &c. in his demesne as of fee in right of the said prebend or canonry, he the said William Dodwell, doctor in divinity, afterwards, to wit, on the 1st day of October, in the year of our Lord 1785; to wit, at Boston aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, died, so seised after whose death to wit on the 29th day of October, in the year last aforesaid to wit at Boston aforesaid in the county aforesaid, one Robert Price, clerk, was lawfully admitted, instituted, and inducted prebendary of the said prebend or canonry with its appurtenances to which, &c. whereby the said Robert Price, then and there became and was seised of and in the said prebend or canonry with its appurtenances to which, &c. in his demesne as of fee in right of the said prebend or canonry ; and the said Frances Henrietta further says, that the said Robert Price, being so seised of and in the said prebend or canonry, with its appurténances to which, &c. in his demesne as of fee in right of the said prebend or canonry, he the said Robert Price, afterwards to wit on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord 1823, at Boston aforesaid in the county aforesaid, died, so seised

1833.

MIREHOUSE

v.

BENNELL