sum of 12,000l. should sink into the inheritance of the lands charged therewith. The testator died in 1811, Harriot Thoroton attained the age of twenty-one in 1810, and intermarried with J. Byng Wilkinson, who was afterwards appointed Paymaster of the 10th Regiment of Hussars, on which occasion, James Wilkinson became one of his sureties, and entered into and executed a bond in the penalty of 1,000l., for the due and faithful execution of his office of Paymaster, and for making good any deficiency in his accounts as Paymaster. By an indenture dated the 2nd of August 1813, and made between John Byng Wilkinson of the one part, and T. W. Hill and James Wilkinson of the other part, reciting among other things, that John Byng Wilkinson was desirous of indemnifying James Wilkinson, in respect of the bond so entered into by him, and of providing a fund for payment of a debt of 5617. 14s., due from him to John Wilkinson, and for indemnifying John Wilkinson in respect of a bond entered into by him to Messrs. Wigney, and for securing the repayment to John Wilkinson, his executors and administrators of any monies, which he had then paid or might thereafter pay on account of such bond, and also the repayment of all such other sums, as he might thereafter lend or pay, to or on account of said J. B. Wilkinson, not exceeding 1,000l., and being also desirous of making some provision for said Harriot Wilkinson, his wife, and for Elizabeth Wilson and Francis Wilson, his natural children, he had agreed to assign the said sum of 6,000l. to Thomas William Hill and James Wilkinson, upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned,—John Byng Wilkinson, for a nominal consideration, assigned to Thomas William Hill and James Wilkinson the sum of 6,000l., to which said J. B. Wilkinson was entitled in right of the said Harriot his wife, payable after the decease of Ann Stafford, upon trust, and as an indemnity to James Wilkinson in respect of the bond for the faithful discharge of the office of Paymaster, and also as an indemnity to John Wilkinson in respect of the bond so entered into by him jointly with John Byng Wilkinson to Messrs. Wigney & Co. ; and upon further trust, to pay John Wilkinson the said sum of 5617. 14s., with interest, and also all such other sums of money as he might thereafter advance to John Byng Wilkinson, not exceeding in the whole, including the monies so due to said John Wilkinson, from, and for which he had become security for John Byng Wilkinson, the sum of 1,000l. with interest; and as to 2,000l., part of the said legacy, in trust for Harriot Wilkinson for life, for her separate use, free from anticipation, and, subject thereto, to the two natural daughters of James Wilkinson, and as to the residue in trust for J. B. Wilkinson. This deed was not registered. In 1821, James Wilkinson paid the sum of 1,000l., for the purpose of making good the deficiency in the accounts of John Byng Wilkinson, as Paymaster. A separation took place between Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson, and the latter assumed her maiden name; she afterwards, in the character of a single woman, having made a voluntary affidavit before a Master in Chancery, that she was unmarried, and that the fund was unincumbered, sold it to the Reversionary Society for the sum of 3,3501., and conveyed it to the defendants T, B, and C, who were three trustees on behalf of the company. The Society afterwards discovered the fraud practised on them, and they agreed with Mr. John Byng Wilkinson to pay him the sum of 500l., in consideration of his confirming the sale made by his wife to the Society; this arrangement was accordingly effected; the money was paid, and a confirmation executed by him in July 1826. The Society duly registered their deed, and, as they alleged, gave notice of the assignment to them, to the tenant for life, Mrs. Stafford, and her children. Mrs. Stafford, the tenant for life, died in September 1827, and this bill was filed by the plaintiff, the personal representative of James Wilkinson, to have the sum of 12,000l. raised, and when raised to have the demands of the plaintiff paid thereout. The Reversionary Society insisted that they had a priority over the plaintiffs, and they rested their claim on two grounds; first, because part of the lands being situate in Yorkshire, and the plaintiffs not having registered their security, the same was void as against the assignment to the defendants, which had been duly registered; and secondly, they relied on the notice alleged to have been given by them to Mrs. Stafford, which, they also insisted, entitled them to a priority over the plaintiff. Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Munro for the plaintiff. On the first objection. The object of the statute 8 Geo. 2. c. 6, as appears from the preamble, was to protect purchasers and mortgagees of the lands in Yorkshire. When once the deed or will creating the charge has been registered, a purchaser would see that the estate was to that extent incumbered, and the mischief, against which the statute provided, would be prevented. The property is a sum of 12,000l., and not a charge secured by a legal term; and there is no provision in the act referred to, which renders it necessary for a transferree of such a sum to register his incumbrance. The will creating it, under which both plaintiff and defendants claim, ought to be registered; but neither the terms of the act, nor any judicial decision on it, have rendered it necessary to register a transfer of such gross sums of money. If it were the case, and a will charged debts or legacies on land in a Register County, it would be necessary to register the wills, settlements, deeds, &c. of all the debtors and legatees, by which the sums charged were subsequently affected. On the second point, they said that the rule, by which a second incumbrancer obtains priority, by giving notice, applies only to cases where the legal interest is in trustees; there are none in this case, and the rule is inapplicable: besides which, it has not been proved that any notice was ever given. Mr. Beames and Mr. Garratt, contrà.The statute directs "a memorial of all deeds and conveyances, and of all wills and devises, and all judgments, &c., of or concerning or whereby any honours, manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments in the said North Riding, may be in any way affected in law or in equity, may be registered; and every such deed, &c. shall be adjudged fraudulent and void against any subsequent purchaser, mortgagee, or plaintiff, unless registered before the deed of such subsequent purchaser or mortgagee." The only question is, whether the plaintiff's deed affects the land in Yorkshire; it clearly affects the land, and is within the statute. It is of the greatest importance to a purchaser to know, not only that there is a. charge on the land, but also to whom that charge belongs. The plaintiff's deed, being registered after the defendants', is void as against the defendants. There can be no apportionment of this charge. The defendants are therefore entitled to a priority on the lands in Leicestershire. They also argued, that they were entitled to priority on account of the notice given to Mrs. Stafford-Dearle v. Hall (1), and that, as they had been prejudiced by the fraud of Mrs. Wilkinson, they were entitled to any interest she might claim in the fund by her equitable right to a settlement; to shew that a feme covert was liable for a fraud committed by her, they cited Savage v. Foster (2). They also contended, that the deed of August 1813, so far as related to Mrs. Wilkinson and the two children, was voluntary, and void as against the Reversionary Society. Mr. Kindersley, for Mrs. Wilkinson, said, that no question could now be entered into between co-defendants, which rendered it unnecessary to argue the case; but he claimed a right to have a portion of the fund settled on Mrs. Wilkinson. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS (Lord Langdale). This is a bill to have raised a charge on the estate of Edward Manners, who died in 1811. It seems he was entitled to a large estate. By his will, he subjected his estates in Leicestershire and Yorkshire to a charge of 12,000l.; he did not charge the whole of his estates, but these two estates only. One of the persons entitled was Harriet Thoroton, who, it appears, married John Byng Wilkinson. He afterwards became Paymaster of the 10th Dragoons, and was called upon to give security. James Wilkinson joined him in a bond for the discharge of his duty; and afterwards, in order to indemnify James Wilkinson and John Wilkinson from their liability, and with the intention of making some provision for Mrs. Wilkinson and his natural children, and to secure the surplus to himself, (1) 3 Russ. 1. (2) 9 Mod. 35; and see 9 Vin. 415; 13 Vin. 536; Evoy v. Nicholas, 2 Eq. Abr. 489; Becket v. Cordley, 1 Bro. C.C. 353; Harvey v. Astley, 3 Atk. 607; Sanderson v. Marr, 1 H. Black. 75. John Byng Wilkinson, on the 2nd of August 1813, executed a deed, to which he was party of the first part, and Hill and James Wilkinson of the second part; and, by this deed, he assigned the legacy of 6,000l.; he did no more than assign the legacy which was then a charge on the estate, but not payable during the life of Mrs. Stafford; the deed was nothing but an assignment of the charge, and did not in any way affect the lands-it was an assignment of the money, and the money only. In 1821, James Wilkinson was called on to pay, and did pay, 1,000l. It seems that disputes arose between Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson, and a separation took place between them; and on the 13th of August 1834, Mrs. Wilkinson, in her maiden name of Thoroton, made an affidavit before a Master, (which charge, it must be admitted, she has had no opportunity of rebutting,) in which she represented herself as a single woman entitled to this property, and that it was not incumbered, and she assigned the interest to T, B, and C, who were trustees for a society in the habit of purchasing securities of this nature. Some time after this transaction they discovered that Mrs. Wilkinson was a married woman, and that the deed, therefore, was of no validity. They in consequence applied to the husband, and obtained a confirmation by him for 500l. All this took place before the legacy was payable; it became payable on Mrs. Stafford's death on the 13th of September 1827, and shortly after, in 1828, this bill was filed. The claim of the plaintiff, who is the representative of James Wilkinson, is under an assignment of August 1813; it was resisted by T, B, and C. on two grounds; first, it is said that this assignment of the legacy was a deed affecting the lands, part of which were situate in Yorkshire, and that it ought to have been registered, and that the want of registration affects the validity of the deed, not only as to the charge of lands in Yorkshire, but also as to the lands in Leicestershire. This was contended directly in one part of the argument, and at another part it was argued that the non-registration affected the lands in Yorkshire; but that, because all which ought to have been done was not done, it also affected the lands in Leicestershire. It was also contended, that notice was given to Mrs. Stafford. I need not refer to this, because, although the point is raised in the answer, there is no evidence given of the notice; so that the question comes to a question of registry. Now, if this assignment had been a charge on land, it would be impossible to extend it beyond Yorkshire. I do not consider this deed as immediately affecting the lands, so as to require registration, because the charge on the lands was made by the will, and was to be paid to the person entitled to it; the assignment is of the money to be raised for the benefit of others, and it does not appear to me immediately to affect the lands; and I think that, in the absence of authority, I should be laying down a rule which has never been adopted. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the benefit of the charge, and there must be an account, and a decree to raise this sum of money by sale or mortgage. by sale or mortgage. A very important question arises between the co-defendants; Mrs. Wilkinson, by her counsel, claims a right of settlement; she must have it, but it does not affect the plaintiff. It is alleged, that Mrs. Wilkinson, by her own fraud, induced the defendant to take from her an assignment of the property, and that she received the purchase-money on her affidavit, which was false. Cases were cited which shew that she cannot take advantage of her fraud. I will therefore accede to any inquiry which the counsel of the company may require, as to the circumstances under which she executed the assignment to them. 66 A testatrix bequeathed to her niece all the coins in her dwelling-house, "except those of the two last and present kings," and also all the furniture and the moveable effects (many of which were enumerated) in and about her house. She bequeathed the residue of her estate, except as after otherwise disposed of," to her grand-children, and then directed that from her interment, all the property, over which she had any disposing power, in and about her dwelling-house, except what she had otherwise given, should belong to her said niece. Held, that the coins, which were excepted out of the former bequest, would, notwithstanding, pass to the niece as "property in the dwelling-house" of the testatrix; and that the niece was also entitled to Bank of England notes found in the house; but that country bank notes, promissory notes, bonds, &c. found there, did not pass to the niece. A question arose in this cause, as to what would pass under certain bequests contained in the will and codicil of Mrs. Frances Brooke, widow. The will was dated the 29th of September 1830, and the codicil the 1st of November 1831. The testatrix devised some real estates to trustees upon trust, out of the rents and profits, to pay to her niece Catherine Dorothy Jones, 2001. a year, whilst she was under the age of twenty-seven years and not a housekeeper, and 300l. if she became a housekeeper, with further provision for her after she attained twenty-seven. Legacies were also bequeathed to the testatrix's grand-children. She afterwards bequeathed as follows:-"I give and bequeath all other my pictures, and also all my paintings in and about my dwelling-house at Chipping Sudbury, and at Horton, and also all my collection of foreign and other coins of gold, silver, and copper, except those of the two last and present kings, unto my said niece Catherine Dorothy Jones, together with all my marble figures; also my telescope, with the brass stand; my china jars and ornaments; my two parrots, my books, furniture, and plate, china, linen, clothes, pearls, trinkets, carriage and horses, and all other similar moveable articles and things in and about my dwelling-house at Chipping Sudbury, and at Horton, (except my minerals and fossils). I also give and bequeath unto my said niece Catherine Dorothy Jones, for her use and benefit, the sum of 500l. of the rents and arrears of rent of all or any of my farms, lands, hereditaments, and premises, that may be due and owing to me at the time of my decease." The bequest of the residue of her estate was in the following words :-" All the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate and effects, both real and personal, (except as after otherwise disposed of,) I give, devise, and bequeath unto all my said grand-children, equally between them as tenants in common. And I do direct that from and after the day of my interment, all the property of every sort and kind, over which I have any disposing power, in and about my said dwelling-house, (except what I have otherwise given,) shall exclusively belong to my said niece Catherine Dorothy Jones, and not to be subject to diminution, except by her own personal act and authority." After the death of the testatrix, property amounting to nearly 10,000l. was found in different parts of her house, where it had been secreted by her; 3,830l. in Bank of England notes were found in the top of an old stocking, and 5457. in country bank notes in a small bag in a drawer of a secretary in her breakfast-room; 30l. in Bank of England notes were found between the leaves of a book; 7771. in sovereigns in two small bags behind some plate, and covered over with some old napkins or cloths and pieces of paper, in a cupboard in the inside of the wall of the stairs leading to the testatrix's bed-room; and 4007. in sovereigns in two tin canisters under one of the steps of the stairs, the front of the step being made with hinges to open like a door, and having a lock to it. Some mortgages also and promissory notes, a country banker's deposit note for 795l., and an accountable receipt, a bond, some guineas, 7s. pieces, and silver coins, formed part of the property which had been hidden. The question before the Court was, whether this property passed to the niece under the bequest of all the testatrix's property over which she had any disposing power in and about her dwellinghouse." 66 Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Pigott for the plaintiffs in the suit; and Mr. Barber and Mr. Dixon, The Solicitor General and Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Swanston and Mr. Winterbottom, for different defendants in the same interest as the plaintiffs.—Where you find in a will a pecuniary legacy, and also general words of bequest to the same legatee, with a locality, money found in that locality will not pass to the legatee— Sanders v. Earle, 2 Chanc. Rep. 190. Fleming v. Brook, 1 Sch. & Lef. 318 (1). Sutton v. Sharpe, 1 Russ. 146. [The VICE CHANCELLOR.-In this case, the exception of the coins shews that the testatrix kept alive in her recollection the existence of such property in the house.] Under the bequest of property in the house, those things which are only evidence of property will not pass. This has been repeatedly decided in the case of bonds. The promissory notes, therefore, will not pass, being merely evidence of property which was not in the house. The same rule applies to the accountable receipt and the banker's deposit note, which are merely evidence of debts. The next class of property is the country bank notes. These are not distinguishable from promissory notes either at law or in principle: they are, in fact, promissory notes payable to the bearer; they are payable on demand, as the greater part of promissory notes are; and till demand, they do not carry interest. With regard to the Bank of England notes, there are some cases where they have been held to pass under general words, as "things, goods," &c., where there was no locality; but not where there was a locality. They are only promissory notes of the Bank of England, and, till the recent statute (2), they could not be tendered in payment of a debt. In Lady Aylesbury's case (3), Bank of England notes were certainly held to pass as cash in a house; but in Stuart v. the Marquis of Bute (4), Lord Eldon repudiates that doctrine, and says, "I do not know why Lord Hardwicke considered bank notes as cash." When an order of council was made in 1797, to suspend cash payments, several Bank of (1) The Vice Chancellor expressed disapprobation of the law as laid down in this case, and stated that he should not have come to the same decision: see also 1 Roper on Legacies, 231. (2) 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 98. (3) Popham v Lady Aylesbury, Amb. 68. (4) 11 Ves. 662, NEW SERIES, V.-CHANC. England notes were noted. The mortgages cannot be held to pass consistently with Fleming v. Brook. The last question is with regard to the sovereigns, guineas, &c. The testatrix expressly excepts from the bequest to the niece, all her coins of the two last and present kings. It is not probable, that after limiting the income of the niece to 2001. a year till twenty-seven or marriage, she should intend to give her immediate possession of nearly 10,000l. ; nor is it likely that, after excepting certain articles in an enumeration of things, she should intend to give, by general words a few lines afterwards, those very articles which she had before excepted. Why should she have given the niece an express legacy of 500l., if this large sum of ready money was to go to her? The use of the word "interment," shews the meaning of the testatrix. She expected the family would reside in the house a short time after her death, and then she gives to the niece all the consumable articles, wine, &c., which would be left after her interment, The VICE CHANCELLOR.-As to those things, there was an intestacy between the day of her death and her interment, and consequently the next-of-kin would be entitled. With regard to the coins, I think they stand in quite a different position from all the other articles, and that the niece is, at all events, entitled to them. There are several cases which decide that where there is a bequest in money and then a gift by general words, the Court may put this interpretation on the whole instrumentnamely, that the testator has himself shewn the exact amount of money which the legatee shall take. But none of the cases which have been cited, bear any resemblance to the present case in this point; in the clause containing a general bequest of residue, the testatrix made an exception, "except as after otherwise disposed of;" she must, therefore, have intended to comprehend something in that exception, which she would afterwards bequeath; and then you do actually find her disposing of all the property in or about her dwellinghouse, except what she had otherwise given. Now, in the former part of the will, she bequeathed to her niece her 2 A |