and acknowledge, and of, and from the same, and every part thereof doth acquit, release and discharge the said William Taylor, his heirs, appointees, executors, administrators and assigns for ever by these presents), and pursuant to, and by force and virtue, and in exercise and execution of the power or autho rity to him for this purpose, given or limited by the hereinbefore in part recited indenture of release, and the fine levied in pursuance thereof, and of every, or any other power or authority, - in any wise enabling him in this behalf; He the said John Smith doth by this present deed or writing, by him sealed and delivered, in the presence of the two credible persons, whose names are intended to be hereupon indorsed as witnesses, attesting the sealing and delivery of these presents by him the said John Smith, Direct, limit and appoint, That the messuages, lands, and other hereditaments, hereinafter particularly mentioned, and intended to be hereby granted and released with their appurtenances, Shall henceforth go, remain and be, To the uses upon and for the trusts, intents and purposes, and with under and subject to the powers, provisoes, agreements and declarations, hereinafter expressed or declared, of or concerning the same. AND THIS INDENTURE ALSO WITNESSETH that in pursuance and further performance of the said agreement, on the part of the said John Smith, and in consideration of the sum of 1000%, so paid, by the said William Taylor as hereinbefore is mentioned; and for, and in consideration of the sum of 10s. of like lawful money, to the said Thomas Brown, paid by the said William Taylor, at or immediately before the scaling and delivery of these presents, (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged); He the said Thomas Brown at the request, and by the direction of the said John Smith, (testified by his being a party to, and sealing and delivering these presents); Hath bargained sold and released, And by these presents, doth bargain, sell and release; And he, the said John Smith, Hath granted, bargained, sold, aliened, released and confirmed, And by these presents, doth grant, bargain, sell, alien, release and confirm, unto the said William Taylor (in his actual possession now being, by virtue of a bargain and sale to him thereof made by the said John Smith and Tho

mas

mas Brown, in consideration of 5s. each, by an indenture bearing date the day next before the day of the date of these presents, for the term of one whole year commencing from the day next before the day of the date of the said indenture of bargain and sale, and by force of the statute made for transferring uses to possessions), and his heirs, All, &c. [Parcels and general words.] And the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, yearly, and other rents, issues, and profits of all and singular the messuages, lands and other hereditaments herein-before granted and released, or expressed, and intended so to be. And all the estate, right, title, interest, inheritance, use, trust, possession, property, possibility, claim, and demand whatsoever, both at law and in equity of them the said John Smith and Thomas Brown, and each of them, of, in, to, from, and out of the same premises, and every part and parcel thereof: To have and to hold the said messuages, lands, hereditaments, and all and singular other the premises hereinbefore granted and released, or expressed, and intended so to be, with their appurtenances, unto the said William Taylor and his heirs, to the uses, upon and for the trusts, intents, and purposes, and with, under, and subject to the powers, provisoes, agreements, and declarations hereinafter expressed or declared, of, or concerning the same, Covenant from Thomas Brown that he has done no act to incumber]. And it is hereby agreed and declared between, and by the parties to these presents, that the direction, limitation, and appointment, grant, releases, and confirmation hereinbefore contained, and hereby respectively made as aforesaid, shall operate and enure to such uses, upon such trusts, to and for such intents and purposes, and with, under, and subject to such powers, provisoes, agreements, and declarations as the said William Taylor shall, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings, with or without power of revocation, to be by him scaled and delivered in the presence of, and to be attested by two or more credible witnesses from time to time direct, limit or appoint; and for default of, and until such direction, limitation, or appointment,and so far as every or any such direction, limitation, or appointment shall not extend; to the use of said William Taylor and his assigns during his life, without impeachment of waste; and after

the

the determination of that estate by forfeiture or otherwise in his lifetime; to the use of the said Samuel Williams and his heirs during the life of the said William Taylor, in trust for him the said William Taylor and his assigns during his life, and to the the end and intent that neither the present nor any future wife of the said William Taylor may become entitled to dower out of, or in the said premises, or any part thereof; and immediately after the determination of the estate hereinbefore limited to the said Samuel Williams and his heirs during the life of the said. William Taylor; to the use of him the said William Taylor, his heirs and assigns for ever. [Usual covenants for title]. In witness, &c.

No. III.

Hele v. Bond. (c),

14th and 16th March, 1684.-BY lease and release, and by fine, Sampson Hele made a voluntary settlement. In the release was contained the following proviso: "That if the said Sampson Hele shall at any time or times hereafter during his life beminded to alter and make void the uses limited to the sons of Sampson Hele the younger, and their issue male, and to his own issue male, and shall at any time, or from time to time during his life, by any instrument or writing by him to be sealed, and with his own hand subscribed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses, who shall write their names as witnesses thereto, signify and declare the same, and thereby, or by any other writing or writ ings to be by him sealed, and subscribed, and witnessed as aforesaid, shall limit, declare, or appoint the use of the premises to any other persons in any other manner than is before limited, and for any estate or estates in fee simple, fee tail, for life, or any number of years in possession, &c: And any such new limitation or appointment by any other writing in like manner to be sealed and subscribed and witnessed from time to time, shall and may revoke and alter, and also make any other limitation of the premises by any other writing in like manner to be sealed and subscribed to

(c) Vide supra, p, 245.

any

any other persons, or in any other manner, or for any other estates in possession, &c. and so from time to time, and so often as the said Sampson Hele, the elder, shall think fit." Then the fine should enure to the new uses.

5th Oct. 1687 -Sampson Hele, senior, by deed poll, setting forth in hæc verba, his said powers to revoke and limit new uses, and such new uses to revoke again, and limit other, and referring to such powers, did, according to the said powers, revoke the estates authorised to be revoked, and pursuant to the same powers limited new uses. There was no power of revocation in this

deed.

11th Oct. 1704.-Sampson Hele, senior, setting forth in like manner his powers in the first settlement, revoked the uses of the settlement, and also those of the deed poll, and by virtue of his power in the settlement, and of all other powers limited new uses.

3d Feb. 1712. The cause to try the validity of the last revocation came to be heard before Lord Chancellor Harcourt, when several authorities being cited, his Lordship took time to consider thercof; and a few days afterwards he declared it was a new case, and that he did not find any authority to warrant such a revocation, nor was there any instance in any of the authorities insisted on of such power of revocation, but he referred it to the Judges of B. R. for their opinion:

Whether the uses limited by the deed poll of 5th October 1687 were well revoked by the deed of 11th October 1704, by virtue of the power of revocation contained in the deed of 16th March 1684, or by the recital of that power in the deed poll of 1687?

10th July 1713.-Lord C. J. Parker, Powys and Eyre Justices, certified that they, with the late Mr. J. Powell, heard counsel upon the question, and were all four of opinion that the power of revocation and limitation of new uses in the deed of March 1684 was fully executed by the deed poll of 1687, and that the further power in the deed of March 1684 to revoke any new limitation or appointment was void in the creation as to such uses as should afterwards be newly limited, unless a power of revocation should be again expressly reserved, which they thought was

not

hot done by the recital of the powers in the deed poll of 1687, and consequently that the uses limited in the deed poll were not revoked by the deed of 1701, and that all four were ready to have given their opinion accordingly; but some of the counsel for the defendant desiring to be further heard, they three (since the death of Justice Powell) had heard counsel again, but saw no reason to alter their opinions.

18th July 1713.-Lord Harcourt concurred in the opinion of the judges, and decreed accordingly.

1717. From this decree there was an appeal. The reasons for the appellant were signed by Northey, Raymond, and Jodrell ; and they insisted, 1. That the original power reserved to revoke all new uses, was valid, for the intent of the party ought to be the guide in these cases, and this intent was as fully expressed by the proviso precedent to the uses in the deed of 1687, as it could ever be by any provisò subsequent, which had there been, it was admitted the uses created by the deed of 1701 would have been good. And 2. That the original powers were only partially executed by the decd poll of 1987, and the further po ver to revoke such new uses was still subsisting, and such an original existing power had never been determined before this to be void. On the other hand, the only legal reason insisted upon by Powys and Cowper, who signed the reasons for the respondent, was, that if such ambulatory and cudless powers of revocation (powers within powers, and without precedent in the law) were allowed, 'purchasers and marriage settlements with ease might be defeated, and titles be rendered precarious and uncertain.

This case was ably argued in the house of Lords by Sir Thomas Powys and Sir Peter King for the respondents, and by Sir Edward Northey for the appellant.

Both sides insisted upon the resolutions in Digges's case, 1 Co. 173, as authoritics in their favour.

For the respondent, it was argued, that the power could be exercised but once; and they likened powers of this nature to conditions at common law, and that at common law such a continuing condition as this could not have been created. They cnlarged upon the endless contests which a contrary doctrine would