1805. versus VAUGHAN, whatever other name it should be called, would not help LE MESURIER the defendant, and there being in fact no such ship lost, and no goods of the plaintiffs being put on board any such ship, the plaintiffs could not recover. That though it was stated to be the intention of the assured to load the goods on board the ship President; yet as that did not appear to have been communicated to the underwriters, they could not be affected by it. If it had been communicated, it might even have had the operation of a fraud upon them; for there would have resulted from it a promise to insert in the policy a warranty that the goods should be shipped on board an American, whereas this was styled only a designation of the country of the ship, and did not amount to a warranty. That if it were allowed, it would convert every insurance into a general insurance upon any ship and ships; for the party might insert an imaginary or false name of a ship, instead of paying the higher premium upon an insurance on ship and ships, and yet be permitted to recover. That it was clear that if the insurance was made upon another ship than the goods were intended to be sent by, the policy would be void; and so it should be, if the name were wholly fictitious, since the same frauds might be committed in each case. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C, J. "If there was any deceit, then there is no question but the policy could not stand. Certainly the description of the thing and ship insured should be observed to the extent, now ordinarily required, as it is necessary to be specified in the terms of the policy; but the parties contemplating at the time that they might have made a mistake, add these words, by whatever name or names the ship is or shall be called.' It is said, indeed, that if we do not hold the parties to a precise nomination of the ship, there might be some fraud committed on the underwriters. Whenever such a case occurs, we shall look with very sharp eyes to vacate the policy. Here, how ever, it is evidently a mistake, as appears from the 1805. description in the invoice. How is the insurer preju- La MasuRszn diced? It is said he would have been entitled to a war- versus VAUGHAN ranty. If so he should have had it expressed on the policy. But if there is no warranty, then he has made no exception of the risk, and we cannot omit to give effect to these words." LAWRENCE, J. "Had this case stood wholly without an authority, I should have been of the same opinion; for I do not see how the underwriter could have been prejudiced, if there is no ship of the name of the ship mentioned in the policy; and if there was to have been a warranty, I do not see why the underwriters should not be more upon their guard to have their engagements properly expressed. In a case which occured in 1744, Hall v. Moneyless, which was an insurance upon the ship called the Leopard, by mistake called the Lenard, and where there were the usual supplementary words as here, it was insisted by the defendant's counsel that they should apply only to a vessel called by some other name as well; but, notwithstanding, the plaintiff had judgment. I am glad, therefore, that even upon so plain a subject, our opinion is supported by authority."* POSTEA to the PLAINTIFF. Doe on the dem. of TOONE and another against Co- A devises land to trustees to raise money by sale or otherwise, and to pay certain legacies; and wills the overplus or reversion thereof to be applied by them and the officiating ministers of the congregation or assembly of people called methodists, that do and shall actually assemble at L. shall from time to time think fit, to apply the same; His lordship cited this, I believe, from a MS. note. The present case was on before, when it was held that the words do not amount to a warranty. 1805. Dog dem. TOONE vorsils COPESTAKE. and directs that when two or more trustees die, the survivors shall nominate others: Held, the legal estate is in the trustees, and a court of law will not inquire into the trust, which may be to chari, table uses or otherwise, and is not void at law within the stat. 9 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 1. THIS was an action of ejectment to recover certain premises within the parish of Foleshill, within the county of the city of Coventry, and tried at the last summer assizes for Coventry; when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case. Thomas Faulkner, of Foleshill, in the county of the city of Coventry, being seised in fee of the premises contained in the declaration, by his last will, bearing date the 8th of July, 1765, (inter alia) gave and devised as follows. "I give and devise to Hannah, my loving wife, for and during the term of her natural life, all and singular that iny messuage or tenement with the appurtenances, situate, standing, and being at Alderman's Green, in Foleshill, aforesaid, with all that my close of meadow or pasture land thereunto adjoining, with the rights, members, and appurtenances to the same messuage and close belonging, or in any wise appertaining. Item, from and immediately after my said wife's decease, I will and devise all and singular the said messuage or tenements, close and premises, with the appurtenances, to George Toone, Francis West, Richard Jackson, and William Newton, the survivors or survivor of them and their respective heirs or successors; in trust, that they the said trustees, the survivors or survivor of them, their respective heirs or successors, shall justly pay or cause to be paid out of the said real estates the several legacies hereinafter mentioned, at the times and in manner hereinafter appointed, for payment thereof, (that is to say) the sum of 501. of lawful money of Great Britain, within the 12 calendar months next after the decease of Hanmah, my said wife, to such person or persons as she, by her last will and testament, or any other writing or deed, duly executed in the presence of two credible witnesses, shall dispose of the same. Item, also to William Smith, late of Exhall, but now of Foleshill, aforesaid, ribband weaver, the sun of 101. of like lawful money. Item, to George Hicklin, of Foleshill, aforesaid, shoemaker, the sum of 51. of like lawful money. Item, to William Cantril, of Foleshill aforesaid, ribband weaver, the like sun of 51. of like lawful money, to be paid them respectively within 12 months next after the decease of my said wife. And to enable the said trustees, the survivors or survivor of them, their respective heirs or successors, to discharge and pay the several and respective legacies or sums of money herein before mentioned; I do hereby will and order that they shall or may sell and dispose of the same messuage or tenement, close and premises, or otherwise charge or mortgage the same, and the overplus or reversion of the said messuage or tenement, close and premises, or real estate, after my said debts and legacies are so discharged as aforesaid, to be applied by them my said trustees, and the officiating ministers of the congregation or assembly of people called methodists, that now usually or that shall for the time being assemble at Longford, in Foleshill aforesaid, shall from time to time think fit to apply the same. To which end and purpose, I will and devise that when any two or more of my said trustees shall depart this life, the survivors or survivor, shall from time to time nominate or appoint others to fill up the number of the said trustees, as herein nominated. Item, I give all and singular my personal estate of what nature or kind soever, subject to my just debts and legacies as aforesaid, unto Hannah my said wife, whom of this my said last will and testament, I nominate, make, and ordain full and sole executrix. The said Thomas Faulkner died without altering or revoking his said will, whichNO. 31. 3 R 1805. Dor dem. versus COPESTAKE. 1805. Doɛ dem. TOONE versus COPESTAKE was proved regularly in the Register-court of the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in April, 1768. The said Hannah Faulkner died in or about the year 1791, and George Toone and Francis West, the lessors of the plaintiff, are the devisees named in the said will; Richard Jackson and William Newton, the other devisees, died before the action was commenced. The debts due from the said testator, and the legacies given under his said will, were satisfied before this action was brought. The question for the opinion of the court is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover: if the court shall be of that opinion, the verdict to stand; if not, the ver dict to be entered for the defendant. BEST, G. N. was to have argued for the plaintiff, but was stopped by Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. All you are bound to contend is, that the legal estate is in the trustees until it be divested by a court of equity. We will hear the other side." VAUGHAN, Serjeant, for the defendant.“ I admit that the only question is, whether this be a conveyance to charitable uses; for if it be so, it is within the statute 3 Geo. II. c. 36, s. 1, and is void. If this conveyance could stand, it will operate as a virtual repeal of the statute. That act of parliament, as a remedial law, must be construed liberally; and it is most important, in the consideration of this question, to consider the preamble of the act, which states the object of that statute to be to prevent all dispositions whereby property may become unalienable; and if this disposition can stand, it will create a succession of trustees, which will render the property unalienable; for by the will, the surviving trustees, as soon as two die, are to elect others to succeed them, and those, together with the minister at Longfield, are to apply the issues in their dis |