Ren d. Hall v. Bulkeley, Doug. 292, Goodright v. Cator, Doug. 460, Tyrrell v. Marsh, 3 Bing. 31, 10 Moore, 305, and Long v. Rankin, Sugden on Powers, Appendix, No. 2), it will be found that they are all so much distinguished by their circumstances from the present, that no one of them affords an authority in point: it becomes necessary, therefore, to look at the principle upon which this case is to be decided; and upon principle we think that there has been no suspension of the leasing power given to the tenant for life so far as regards the grantee of the term under the power to demise by way of mortgage given to the executors; and upon that ground we think such grantor has the immediate reversion in him, and may sue upon the covenants in the lease. Judgment for the plaintiff. 1838. BRINGLOE v. GOODSON. DOE d. BARNES V. FRANCIS ROE and Others. THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover the possession of about twelve acres of freehold land Thursday, One C., who contracted to convey the same to one W., who transferred his interest in the contract to Medley. Medley, in 1818, by settlement made on his marriage, covenanted, that, in case C. should be enabled to convey, he would pay C. 150l, and procure the land to be conveyed to the trustees; with a proviso, that, if C. should not be enabled to convey, then no obligation or liability at law or in equity should attach on Medley to procure or to endeavour to procure a conveyance from any other person, or to pay the value of the same to the trustees by way of satisfaction for the same, nor should Medley in such case be precluded or disabled from purchasing the same for his own benefit. After the marriage had taken effect, viz. in June, 1818, Medley obtained a conveyance of the land from the trustees of H., the owner; and in February, 1819, by settlement, reciting the agreement to purchase, that C. had not been enabled to convey, that Medley had purchased of the owners, and that he was desirous to convey the land to the uses of his marriage settlement, conveyed the same to the trustees of such settlement accordingly :-Held, that, Medley being under no obligation either in law or equity to transfer the land in question, which he had, in consequence of the inability of C. to convey it, purchased of the trustees of H., without the intervention of C., such settlement, being made after marriage, was purely voluntary, and void as against a bonâ fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. On the transfer of a mortgage, with an advance of an additional sum-Held, that an ad valorem stamp applicable to the additional advance is sufficient under the 3 Geo. 4, c. 117, s. 2, without any 11. 158. transfer stamp. Sed quære. On the transfer of a mortgage for 10,000, with an additional advance of 4,000l., it was proved that the 10,000l. were paid in bank-notes by the transferree to the original mortgagee by the direction and in the presence of the mortgagor, and the 4,000l. by a cheque to the mortgagor, as to which there was no proof that it was honoured:-Held, that the payment of the 10,000l. was a sufficient consideration as against one claiming under a voluntary settlement. 1838. DOE d. BARNES บ. ROE. Indenture of situate at Durley Moor, in the parish of Iver, in the county of Bucks. The cause was tried before Bosanquet, J., at the last Assizes for Buckinghamshire. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed as mortgagee of a larger estate including the land in question. The defendants were trustees under a marriage settlement made by one William Medley. The facts were as follow: By a deed bearing date the 24th December, 1812, reciting that, in December, 1804, Robert Higginson and others, executors of Richard Higginson, put up certain hereditaments for sale by auction, part of which (including the piece of land in question) was purchased by Charles Clowes; and that disputes had arisen between the parties respecting the sale, and a suit in equity was then pending between them; and that in consequence no conveyance had been made to Clowes-Clowes, for the nants to convey considerations therein stated, covenanted with Whittingto Whittington. ton to convey the land in question to him within three months after the same should have been conveyed to him. Clowes cove Indentures of Dec. 17 and 18: 1816: Whit ley and F. Roe. By indentures of the 17th and 18th December, 1816, reciting that Medley had agreed with Whittington for the tington to Med-purchase of Mansfield farm (including the twelve acres in question), and that it was agreed that the said piece of land should be conveyed to Medley instead of to Whittington, the latter, at the request of Medley, thereby directed and appointed that the said piece of land should, when and as soon as Clowes should become enabled to convey the same, forthwith, or otherwise within three months next after Clowes should become so enabled to convey the same, be conveyed to Medley and Francis Roe in the place of Whittington. Ante nuptial settlement Feb. 26 and 27, 1818. By indentures of the 26th and 27th February, 1818 (the marriage settlement), Medley directed and appointed that the said piece of land should, in case Clowes should be come enabled to convey the same, be conveyed to the trustees upon the trusts of the settlement; and Medley thereby covenanted with the trustees that he would (in case Clowes should become enabled to convey) cause and procure the same to be conveyed to them. Then followed a proviso, that, if Clowes should not be enabled to convey, then no obligation or liability at law or in equity should attach on Medley to procure or to endeavour to procure a conveyance from any other person, or to pay the value of the same to the trustees by way of satisfaction for the same, nor should Medley in such case be precluded or disabled from purchasing the same for his own benefit; anything to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding; and a declaration that the trustees should stand possessed of the said piece of land upon trust for Medley until the marriage, thenceforth, during his life, or until he should become bankrupt, to permit him to receive the rents, and after his death or bankruptcy upon trust for the wife for her life, &c. &c. 1838. Doe d. BARNES v. ROE. Proviso. settlement Indentures of June 8 and 9, By indentures of the 18th and 19th February, 1819, Post-nuptial reciting the conditional covenant entered into by Medley, Feb. 18 and 19, as above set forth, and that Clowes had not been enabled 1819. to make a valid conveyance of the land, and therefore Medley had contracted and agreed with the owners thereof (the trustees under the will of Higginson) for the sale of the same, with other hereditaments, to him, and accordingly, by indentures of the 8th and 9th June, 1818, the 1818-consaid piece of land was, with other hereditaments, con- veyance from Higginson's veyed unto and to the use of Medley, or to such person as he should appoint, and that Medley was desirous of conveying the said piece of land to the use of the defendants, upon the trusts of the settlement-for effectuating such desire, and in consideration of the premises, and in exercise of the power &c., Medley appointed the same unto and to the use of the trustees, upon the trusts of the settlement, and thereby conveyed the same to them. trustees to Medley. 1838. DOE d. BARNES v. ROE. Indentures of 1831-con veyance to the By indentures of the 24th and 25th January, 1831, reciting the conditional covenant of Medley to convey the land in question, and that Clowes was not able to convey the same, and the same had been purchased by Medley for his own use and benefit, of Higginson, as part of an Jan. 24 and 25, estate called Gallows Hill Estate, a new trustee was appointed in lieu of one of the former trustees named in present defend the settlement of the 18th and 19th February, 1819, and the hereditaments comprised in the settlement, and all other hereditaments &c. which the trustees were seised of or entitled to at law or in equity, or were legally or equitably subject to the trusts of the settlement, were conveyed to the present defendants, upon the trusts of the settlement. ants. Clowes's title defective. Jan. 27 and 28, 1823-mort gage to D'Aranda and transfer of mortgage to Ouvry &c. The suit in equity alluded to in the deed of December 24, 1812, was on a bill filed in 1805 by the vendors against Clowes to compel a specific performance of the contract to purchase, which was dismissed by the Vice Chancellor in 1808. In 1808, Clowes filed a bill agains the vendors, to compel a specific performance of the contract, which suit was heard in 1813, and the bill dismissed. Clowes appealed against this decision, but in 1817 withdrew his petition of appeal. By indentures of the 27th and 28th January, 1823, Medley mortgaged the Gallows Hill Estate (including the twelve acres in question) to D'Aranda and Parker, for April 2 and 3 10,000l. By indentures of the 2nd and 3rd April, 1828, reciting that Medley had applied to Ouvry, Whittle, and Hitchcock, for a loan of 10,000l. to pay off the mortgage to D'Aranda and Parker, and also for a further advance of 4,000l., the premises comprised in the mortgage to D'Aranda and Parker were conveyed by D'Aranda and Parker and Medley to Ouvry, Whittle, and HitchApril 15 and 16, cock. And by indentures of the 15th and 16th April, 1830, Ouvry, Whittle, and Hitchcock, and Medley, con veyed the premises to the lessor of the plaintiff, Barnes, to secure an advance of 15,0007. 1830-transfer of mortgage to Barnes. It appeared that the mortgage from Medley to D'Aranda and Parker for 10,000l. was stamped with the proper ad valorem stamp; that the transfer to Ouvry, Whittle, and Hitchcock, was stamped with an ad valorem stamp applicable to the further advance of the 4,000l., but not with a deed stamp; and that the transfer to Barnes, the lessor of the plaintiff bore a common deed stamp only. 1838. DOE d. BARNES V. ROE. Stamps. consideration. The only proof of the payment of the 10,000l., the con- Payment of sideration for the mortgage to D'Aranda and Parker, was the statement of that fact in the deed. Upon the first transfer of the mortgage the 10,000l. were paid by Ouvry to D'Aranda and Parker, by the direction and in the presence of Medley, in bank-notes, and for the 4,000l. a cheque was given to Medley. And upon the last occasion, a cheque was given by Barnes for the whole 15,000. On the part of the lessor of the plaintiff, it was con- Objections. tended that the conveyance of the land in question to the trustees by the indentures of the 18th and 19th February, 1819, was voluntary, and consequently fraudulent and void as against a purchaser for valuable consideration. For the defendants, it was contended, that the ad valorem. stamp on the 4,000l. additional advance, upon the second mortgage, was insufficient, there should have been a deed stamp also; and that there was no sufficient proof of the payment of the 4,000l. to make the lessor of the plaintiff a purchaser for valuable consideration. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a motion. to set it aside, and enter a nonsuit if the court should be of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Biggs Andrews, in Michaelmas Term last, accordingly moved. Three questions will arise in this case-first, whether or not the settlement made by William Medley after his marriage (of the 18th and 19th February, 1819) was voluntary under the statute 27 Eliz. c. 4, and void as against a purchaser for a valuable consideration-secondly, |