REPORTS OF CASES HEARD IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR, And decided during the Session 1821, 1st & 2d GEO. IV. ENGLAND. (COURT OF CHANCERY.) GEORGE JAMES Marquis of CHOL-] MONDELEY, and The Honorable Appellants; ROBERT COTTON ST. JOHN Lord CLINTON, and Others, Lord Respondents. S. R. devised lands, &c. (subject to a term of 200 years, for raising a portion) to the use of his daughter M. for life, remainder to the use of her first and other sons in tail male, remainder to his cousin J. R. in tail, &c.; and died, leaving his daughter M. his heir at law, who married and had one son G. Earl of O., who upon the death of his mother entered as tenant in tail under the will of his grandfather, and suffered a recovery to the use of himself in fee, and by deed in 1781, reciting "that he was willing and desirous that the said. "estates should remain in the family and blood of S. R.," in consideration of "the natural love and affection which he "bore to his relations, the heirs of S. R.; and to the intent "that the estates might continue in the family and blood of "his late mother, on the side of her father," limited the lands, VOL. IV. B 1821. CHOLMONDELEY บ. CLINTON. &c. to the use of himself for life, remainder to the heirs of his body, and for default of such issue, to such persons as he should appoint; and for default of appointment, "to the use "of the right heirs of S. R.," with a general power of revocation and new appointment. In 1724 the term was assigned upon mortgage to raise the By deed in 1785 G. executed to E. H. a mortgage in fee. Shortly after the death of G. opinions of counsel were taken by H. as to the effect of the deed of 1785 upon the deed of 1781, and he was advised that it operated only as a revocation pro tanto. In 1792, C. proposing to raise money by further mortgage, and also to make family settlements, conveyed the lands, &c. to trustees for those purposes, and the lands, &c. were by a subsequent deed appointed and limited accordingly. But the proposed mortgagees not being satisfied with the title of C. under the limitation in the deed of 1781, H. Earl of O. was applied to by C. on account of the doubts which had arisen with regard to the effect of the deed of 1785, as a revocation of the settlement of 1781, and thereupon H. executed a deed in 1794 by whch reciting the several deeds of 1781, 1785, and 1792, and the doubts which had arisen, and that H. being well satisfied that Earl G. did not intend to alter the uses of that settlement, he had agreed to confirm the same; it was witnessed, that he Earl H. " did grant, bargain, sell, release, and confirm" to the trustees of C.'s settlement of 1792, upon the trusts of that settlement "in "the same manner as if the deed of 1785 had not been made, "and to and for no other use, intent, or purpose whatever." Earl H. died in 1796, leaving A. his heir at law, and also heir at law of Earl G., and having devised his real estates to B. C. died in 1798, and upon his death his eldest son entered under the settlement of 1792. 66 In June, 1812, a bill was filed in Chancery by A. and B. jointly as heir at law and devisee of Earl H., stating an agreement between them to share the lands, &c. equally, and praying a |