CH . v. HAWKS. or in the erection of buildings. There is a little degree of obscurity, DOBINSON or rather I should say, a little degree of negligence, in the wording of the first section of the Act; for it is perfectly plain that, when the Legislature said that the object was to erect or purchase one or more dwelling-house or dwelling-houses, or other real or leasehold estates, they meant to erect houses or purchase estates of small value. Now then what is the case? Here is a Company, established for quite a different purpose, that, for its own purposes, wishes to borrow money; and the arrangement made by the defendants, was that the money should be advanced on the same footing as if those persons who constituted the Brewery Company, were actually members of the Building Society. I have looked over all the rules, and the conclusion which I have come to is that there is nothing whatever which countenances the supposition that persons, jointly, might be shareholders. The expression is uniformly "his or her;" and it seems to me that it is inconsistent with the object which the Legislature contemplated, (which was to assist individuals) that persons combining together and forming a joint-stock Company, should ever be capable of being members of a Benefit Building Society. Therefore, not only is there no proof that the Brewery Company were made or attempted to be made shareholders in the Building Society; but, even if there had been such proof, the thing would have been inadmissible; because, according to my understanding of the policy of the Act, no such thing could take place. The consequence is that, the case set up by the defendants having totally failed, the accounts must be taken in the usual way; and the defendants must pay the costs of the suit up to the hearing. [ *410 ] HAWKINS v. HAMERTON (1). (16 Simons, 410-422; S. C. 13 Jur. 2.) A testator bequeathed a leasehold estate to his son Charles; and directed that, if his son should die without issue, the leasehold estate should be considered as part of his residuary estate, and be divided amongst the children of his three daughters, Isabella, Matilda and Mary, as thereinafter mentioned. And he gave the residue of his estate, to trustees, in trust for his son and three daughters, or such of them as should be living at the death of his wife, equally, during their lives: and he directed that, after their deaths, the whole of the residue, should be divided amongst all the children of his (1) See In re Bowman (1889) 41 Ch. D. 525, 60 L. T. 888, where the cases upon this point are collected and reviewed by KAY, J. ; and see Harrison 1848. Nov. 21. SHADWELL V.-C. [410] said son and daughters, in equal parts, shares and proportions; and, in case any of his said son and daughters should die without leaving issue, that the share of him, her or them so dying, should be divided amongst the survivor or survivors of his said children and their issue, in the like equal parts, shares and proportions. Isabella died in the lifetime of the testator's widow, leaving children. Mary died after the widow, leaving children. Then Charles died without issue. Matilda was still living, and had children: Held that Isabella's children were entitled to one-fourth of the residue notwithstanding their mother died before the widow; that Mary's children were entitled to another fourth; and that Matilda was entitled to another fourth, for her life, with remainder to her children; and that, as Charles had died without issue, the remaining fourth was divisible into three parts, and one of those parts belonged to Isabella's children, another, to Mary's children, and the remaining part to Matilda for life, with remainder to her children. CHARLES HAMERTON, by his will dated the 30th July, 1799, devised all his real estates to trustees, and bequeathed to them all his monies in the public funds or upon Government securities, and all his East India stock, and all other his monies and stocks secured upon the credit of any public Company or corporation, *and all his monies secured by mortgage, bond, note or otherwise, upon trust to sell and dispose of, let, manage and improve his said real and personal estates to the best advantage, and so that the monies arising and produced therefrom, should be, from time to time, placed out and invested, in the names of his trustees, in the public funds or on Government securities, and, upon trust to pay, out of the rents, issues, profits, dividends, annual and other accumulations of his said real and personal estates, to his wife Ann Hamerton, an annuity of 450l.; and he gave, to his wife, all his household goods, furniture, plate, &c. and the sum of 100l., to be paid within one month after his decease, and then expressed himself as follows: "I also give and bequeath, unto my son, Charles Hamerton, all that leasehold estate which I now hold of and under the corporation of the city of London, situate and being at Whitefriars Dock, subject to the payment of the rent and performance of the covenants and agreements mentioned and contained in the lease granted to me thereof from the said corporation; but, in case my said son shall happen to die without issue, then I will and direct that the said leasehold premises at Whitefriars Dock shall revert to my said trustees or trustee for the time being, and be taken into and considered as part of my residuary estate and be divided amongst the children of my three daughters as hereinafter mentioned. "I also give and bequeath unto my three daughters, Isabella, the wife of J. S. Killick, Matilda, the wife of Samuel Hancock, t. [412] and Mary Hamerton, or to such person or persons as my said. HAWKINS daughters shall, from time to time during their natural lives, HAMERTON. appoint to receive the same, for the sole, separate, personal and peculiar use and benefit of my said daughters, an annuity or clear yearly sum of 3001. each, to be paid to them and each of them, by four equal quarterly payments, on the 24th day of June, the 29th day of September, the 25th day of December and the 25th day of March in every year, the first payment thereof to be made on such of the said days as shall next happen after my decease: And, from and after the decease of my said daughter, Isabella, I will and direct that the principal monies from which her said annuity of 3001. shall arise and accrue, shall be paid and divided amongst such children as she may have by her present husband, the said J. S. Killick only, in equal parts, shares and proportions, as they attain their respective ages of twenty-one years: And, from and after the decease of my said daughter, Matilda, I will and direct that the principal monies from which the said annuity of 300l. shall arise and accrue, shall, in like manner, be paid and divided amongst such children as she may have by her present husband, the said Samuel Hancock, only, in equal parts, shares and proportions, as they attain their respective ages of twenty-one years: And, from and after the decease of my said daughter, Mary, I will and direct that the principal monies from which the said annuity of 3001. shall accrue or arise, shall be paid and divided amongst all and every the children which she may have by any future husband or husbands, in equal parts, shares and proportions, as they shall attain their respective ages of twenty-one years: And in case she shall happen to die without issue, then such principal sum to be divided amongst the children of my said son, Charles, and daughters, Isabella and Matilda, in equal parts and shares, on their attaining their said ages of twenty-one years." The testator then gave pecuniary legacies to his servants and other persons: after which, he proceeded as follows: "And it is further my will and mind and I hereby direct that, from and after the decease of my said dear wife, Ann Hamerton, the said annuity of 450l. so given and bequeathed to her during her natural life, and also all the rest, residue and remainder of my said real and personal estates, of what nature or kind soever, not herein before disposed of, and of which my executors and trustees shall and may be possessed by virtue of the trusts in them reposed, and all accumulations thereof, shall be vested in the funds of or in [413] Great Britain, or placed out in Government securities at interest, and that the full clear dividends, interest or produce thereof, shall be paid and divided amongst all my children, the said Charles Hamerton, and my said three daughters, Isabella, Matilda and Mary, or such of them as shall be living at the time of the death of my said wife, in equal parts, shares and proportions, during their natural lives, by even quarterly payments, but the share and interest of my said daughters to be, in nowise, subject or liable to the debts, contracts or engagements of their present or any future husband: And, from and after the decease of my said son and daughters, then I will and direct that the whole of such residue and remainder of my estates, with all accumulations thereof, shall be paid and divided amongst all and every the children of my said son and daughters, in equal parts, shares and proportions: And in case any of my said son and daughters shall happen to die without leaving issue, then I will and direct that the legacy, part or share hereby given and bequeathed to him, her or them so dying without issue, shall go and be divided amongst the survivor or survivors of my said children *and their issue, in the like equal parts, shares and proportions." It appeared from the report made in pursuance of the decree, that the testator died in 1800: that his daughter, Isabella Killick, died in 1804 that his wife died in 1814: that his daughter, Mary, married W. H. Holt in 1803 and died in 1826; that his son, Charles died in 1844, and never had any issue: and that the testator's only other child, Matilda Hancock, was still living, and was one of the defendants in the cause: that Isabella Killick, had six children by her husband, J. S. Killick, and that all of them were living at the death of the testator and at the death of his widow, and at the death of their mother and that five of them were still living and were defendants in the cause: that Matilda Hancock had nine children by her husband S. Hancock, and that all of them were living at the death of the testator, and that all of them, except one, were living at the death of the testator's widow, and that four of them were still living and were the plaintiffs in the cause; that Mary Holt had nine children, all of whom were living at the decease of the testator (1), at the decease of their mother and at the decease of the testator's widow, and that seven of them were still living and were (1) This finding is inconsistent with the prior finding that the testator died in 1800, and that Mrs. Holt married in 1803. defendants in the cause. It further appeared, from the report, HAWKINS that the personal representatives of such of the deceased children HAMERTON. of Isabella Killick, Matilda Hancock, and Mary Holt as had personal representatives, were parties to the suit. The funds to which the rights of the parties were to be determined on the hearing for further directions, were 3,934l. 13s. 1d. Consols, being the testator's residuary estate, and 9971. 16s. 7d. and 2381. 18s. 1d. 31. 5s. per Cents. which had arisen from the accumulations of Mary Holt's and Charles Hamerton's shares of the residue, since their respective deaths. The cause now came on to be heard for further directions. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Haddan, for the plaintiffs, contended that, as Isabella Killick was not living at the death of the testator's widow, her children were not entitled to any share of the residue ; that the words, "survivor or survivors" were to be taken in their natural sense, and not as meaning, "other or others," and that, on the death of the testator's widow, his son and his daughters, Matilda and Mary, who were his only children then living, became entitled to the whole of the residue for their lives, with remainders to their children; and that, on the death of the son, the children of Matilda and Mary became entitled to his share of the residue, as tenants in common: Brett v. Horton (1), Arrow v. Mellish (2) Leeming v. Sherratt (3), Farrant v. Nichols (4). Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Wickens, for Matilda Hancock, the testator's only surviving daughter, said that the words: "And, from and after the decease of my said son and daughters, then I will and direct that the whole of such residue and remainder of my said estates, with *all accumulations thereof, shall be paid and divided," &c., showed that the testator intended that no division of his residue should take place until the decease of the survivor of his four children, and, therefore, Matilda Hancock was entitled, in the events that had happened, to the income of the whole of the residue for her life, and, on her death, her children and the children. of her sisters, would take the capital of the residue, per capita: Malcolm v. Martin (5), Pearce v. Edmeades (6), Ashley v. Ashley (7). [ *415 ] [ *416] |