1818. Friday, tees, their heirs, DOE, on the Demise of ТOмKYNS, against Devise to trus-JECTMENT for the recovery of lands and premises in the occupation of the defendant. The demise by the lessor of the plaintiff, was laid on the 14th day of December, 1816. The cause was tried at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity term, 1817, before Holroyd J., when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: executors, administrators, and assigns, in trust, to let the freehold estates for any term they thought proper, at the best improved yearly rent, to pay one-third of the rents of the freehold estates to his wife for life, and onethird of the personalty to her absolutely, Packington Tomkyns, the great uncle of the lessor of the plaintiff, being seised in fee of the premises in question, on the 3d of August, 1775, by his last will and then to lay duly attested to pass real estates, after appointing his wife Elizabeth Tomkyns, and two other persons joint executors and trustees of his will, and after bequeathing certain legacies, devised as follows: "I do hereby and the rents of give and devise unto my said trustees, their heirs, exe out the other two-thirds of the personalty in the funds; and to pay the dividends two-thirds of the freehold estates, and, after the death of the wife, the other third of cutors, administrators, and assigns, all my lands, goods, chattels, and all my estates both real and personal, subject to the payment of my debts and legacies; upon trust that they do demise or let all my freehold estates, and my house wherein I now live, for any term they parate use, and shall think proper, at the best improved yearly rent the rent of the freehold estate to his daughter for her own se after her death the freehold estates and two-thirds of the personal estate to the daughter's children, to be equally divided amongst them, and to be paid them at the respective ages of twenty-one years; and if his daughter died without leaving issue, then his freehold estates to his wife for life, and after her death to his heir at law, as if he had died intestate: Held that the trustees took an estate in fee, and that upon the death of the widow, who was the surviving trustee, the legal estate descended to the daughter, and upon her death without issue, vested in the heir at law ex parte materna. (a) This case was argued at Serjeants' Inn. that that can be got for the same, without taking any fine or income for the granting of such leases. And upon further trust, that they pay one-third part of all the rents and profits of my freehold estates and house unto my wife and her assigns for her life, and as to all the rest of my personal estate, to pay and dispose of one-third part as the same should be received to my wife for her own use, and as to the remaining two-third parts of my personal estate, to lay out the same in the public funds in their own names, and to pay the dividends, together with the rents and profits of two-thirds of the freehold estates, and also two-thirds of the rent of my house, and also the third part of the rents of my freehold estate and rent of my house after the decease of my wife, to my daughter E. Longman, and her assigns for the term of her life, for her own separate use and benefit, and not to be subject to the debts or controul of her present husband, and so that he may not have any thing to do or meddle therewith: and after the decease of my daughter, I give and devise my freehold estates, my house, and the two third parts of my personal estate to the child and children of my daughter E. Longman, to be equally divided amongst them, share and share alike, to be paid to them at their respective ages of twenty-one years, but in case my daughter shall die without issue, or all such issue shall die before they attain twenty-one years, then I give and devise all my freehold, and two-third parts of my personal estates to my wife for her life, and after her decease, I will that the same freehold and personal estate, shall descend and go to my own heir at law and next of kin, as the same would have done, had I died intestate and without issue. 1818. DOR against WILLAN. 1818. DOE against WILLAN. In March, 1778, P. Tomkyns died seised of the premises, without revoking or altering his will, leaving E. Tomkyns, his widow, and E. Longman, his only child surviving him. The widow survived her co-trustees, and died in 1796, having made a will, and thereby appointed executors, which will however was not attested so as to pass real estates. On the 12th November, 1816, E. Longman died without having had any issue. The lessor of the plaintiff was the heir at law of P. Tomkyns. On the 10th November, 1799, the executors of Elizabeth Tomkyns, executed a lease for twenty-one years to H. C. Coombe, who in 1806 assigned the same to the defendant for a valuable consideration. The question was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover; if so, the verdict was to stand; if not, a nonsuit was to be entered. Richardson for the plaintiff. The lessor of the plaintiff as the heir at law of the testator, is entitled to recover. By the will, an estate is devised to trustees; but that being a trust estate, (and there being a devise over,) only continues as long as the purposes of the trust require. At the death of E. Longman, in the events that have happened, the necessity for the trust ceased, and therefore the estate of the trustees determined upon her death. By the will, the trustees, during the lives of the widow and daughter, were to receive the rents, to apportion them, and pay the widow her third part and the daughter her share, for her sole and separate use. Upon their death, therefore, the purposes of the trust ceased. Indeed they would cease altogether upon the death of the widow, and of the husband of the daughter; for that their estate was then to to be determined, may be collected from the subse- Gaselee, contrà. The trustees took an estate in fee; that estate vested in the widow, as the surviving trustee, and descended upon her daughter, and her heir ex parte materna is therefore entitled to the property. The G 4 1818. DOE against WILLAN. 1818. Dor against WILLAN. . The term heir at law in the last clause, was not intended as a designatio personæ, for, if it were, this consequence might follow; that if E. Longman, the daughter, had children, who died before twenty-one, leaving children, the grandchildren would be passed over, and the estate would go to the collateral and not the lineal heir. That clearly was not the intention of the testator. All therefore that the testator meant by that clause was, that his estate should descend according to law. The trustees took an estate in fee; for all the purposes of the trust could not be satisfied by any less estate. If, for example, the widow had survived the daughter who died, leaving issue not twenty-one, the estate of the trustees must have continued to enable them to pay the shares to the widow and children; upon the death of the daughter, therefore, the trust estate would not necessarily be determined. It must at all events continue until her death; and she, upon the widow's death, took an estate in fee, and as trustee for herself, to prevent her husband's taking the profits. That estate, therefore, having come to her by descent from her mother, vests in the heir at law ex parte materna. BAYLEY J. This is an ejectment on the demise of John Tomkyns, who is the heir at law of Packington Tomkyns, the testator, and also the heir ex parte paternâ of Elizabeth Longman, who was the daughter of Packington Tomkyns; and the plaintiff's right to recover is resisted upon this ground, that by the will of the testator, the whole legal fee vested in the trustees, of whom Elizabeth Tomkyns was the survivor, and that |