liament, or Conditions in Law (m) which do not admit of compensation, or forfeitures which may be considered as limitations of the Estate, and which determine it when they happen, cannot be relieved against. If, therefore, a Tenant for Life makes a greater Estate than his own; or if a Tenant by Copy affects to convey a greater Estate than by Law he may, they forfeit their Estate, nor will Equity relieve (n).

Relief is sometimes given in cases of forfeiture of Copyholds; but where a Copyholder has long refused to do suit, or service, or to repair (c); and where he has granted Leases without licence, relief has been refused (p).

It is to be observed, that in all those cases where Penalties are inserted in a case of nonperformance, this does not release the Parties from their Agreement, but they must perform it notwithstanding, and have not an option to pay the Penalty and be released from the performance of the Agreement (q).

The interposition of Courts of Equity against Marriage conditions, in cases of Legacies, may perhaps be considered as arising out of its power to relieve against Penalties and Forfeitures; but however this may be, the doctrine on this subject will be more con

(m) Keating v. Sparrow, 1 Ball and Beatty, 373. or Nesbit v. Tredennick, Ib. 478.; and see Peachy v. Duke of Somerset, 1

Str. 447:

(n) Sir H. Peachy v. Duke of Somerset, 1 Str. 452. S. C. Pre. Ch. 574

(0) Cox v. Hig ford, 2 Vern. 664.

(p) Sir H. Peachy v. Duke

of Somerset, Pre. Ch. 568.

(q) Christ's Hospital v. Pugh, Dom. Proc. 20 March 1727Howard v. Hopkins, 2 Atk. 371. Chilliner v. Chilliner, 2 Ves. 528. and see Hobson v. Trevor, 2 P. Wms. 191. sed vid. Woodward v. Eyles, 2 Vern. 119. a case of liquidated damages; as to which see 1 Swanst. 318 n. (a).

veniently considered when we come to treat of Legacies.

Relief has been refused against a Forfeiture, under a Bye Law of an incorporated Company for Waterworks, whereby it was provided, that the Members shall receive notice of the Default in paying a call, and incur a forfeiture by nonpayment ten days after the notice sent; though it appeared that the lapse arose from an accidental ignorance of the call (r).

So, it seems, as to Contractors for Government Loans, if a Party fails to make a Deposit, he cannot be relieved in Equity (s); and relief in such case has been refused on an application to Parliament (t).

If a Bill has been filed waving a Forfeiture, and, on that ground, seeking relief in a Court of Equity, though the Plaintiff fail in obtaining that Relief, he will be restrained from insisting on the Forfeiture at Law (u).

It is in general true, that it is not in the power of the Court to relieve against Accidents which prevent voluntary dispositions of Estates (a); but in a great case, it was resolved that, if a Man make a Conveyance with a power of Revocation in the presence of four Privy Counsellors, and he is sent by the King to Jamaica, where that circumstance becomes impossible, Equity will allow him to revoke it, without such presence (y).

Where a Man has an election, within a limited

(r) Sparks v. The Company and Proprietors of the Liverpool Waterworks, 13 Ves. 428.

(s) Ib. 434.

(u) Bond v. Hopkins, 1 Sch. & Lefr. 441.

(x) Whitton v. Russel, 1 Atk.

448.

(y) Bath and Montague, 3

period, to settle Lands or pay Money, and the Party dies, and the Testator's affairs are for some time in confusion, nothing, it is said, is more usual, than for the Court to enlarge the time, or relieve against any lapse of it (2).

If the Master of an Apprentice becomes a Bankrupt (a), or dies (b), these, it has been holden, are Accidents, in respect of which the Court has Jurisdiction, to order a return of part of the Apprentice Fee ; but if the Master and Apprentice agree that the Apprentice shall be discharged from his Apprenticeship, there is no Jurisdiction, on the ground of Accident, to order a return of part of the Apprentice Fee (c).

The mere circumstance of a death is not that species of Accident against which the Court relieves, (unless in the cases just adverted to ;) but where the Plaintiff was prevented from recovering in Ejectment by a Rule of a Court of Law, and by an Injunction at the instance of the Occupier, who ultimately failed both in Law and in Equity, an Account of Mesne Profits was decreed against the Executors of the Tenant (d).

A Bill will not lie to be relieved against the Condition of a Bottomry Bond, the same not having been performed in some small circumstances (e).

An Administrator being in possession of several houses, and much more than sufficient to pay debts

(z) Eastwood v. Vinke, 2 P. Wms. 617.

(a) See Hale against Webb, 2 Bro. C. C. 80.

(b) See Newton v. Rowse, 1 Vern. 460; but see what is said Fonbl. Treat. Eq. 1 vol. 372,

in note.

(c) Hale and Webb, 2 Bro. C. C. 78.

(d) Pulteney v. Warren, 6 Ves. 73.

(e) Anon. V. Abr. tit. " Condition."

and legacies, paid them as they were demanded, and afterwards, by the Fire of London, several of the Houses were destroyed, which constituted the greatest part of the Assets, and then, a Debt on a Bond being claimed, the Administrator was in Equity relieved (f).

There were twenty years arrear of a Rent-charge, and Cattle came by escape out of the next ground, and were distrained, &c. ; but Lord Nottingham relieved the Parties, in respect of this Accident (g).

If, after a Lease made to A., the Lessee assigns to B. and B. assigns to C.; if any Rent was due from B. previous to his assignment to C., as A. could not recover it at Law from B., for want of privity of Estate, A. may file his Bill in Equity, for the Money due from B (h).

Having noticed the leading principles of the decisions in respect to Accident, we now proceed to consider the doctrines of Courts of Equity in respect of,

Mistake.

It has been an uniform Rule in Equity before, as well as after the Statute, 43 Elizabeth, c. 4. that where Uses are Charitable, and the Person has in himself full power to convey, the Court will aid a defective conveyance to such Uses. Though, therefore, Devises to Corporations were void under the Stat. Hen. VIII. yet they were always considered as good in Equity, if made to Charitable Uses (i).

(f) Croft v. Lindsey and Colvil, 2 Freem. 1.

(g) Brodon v. Pierce, cited Prec. Ch. 8. and in 2 Vern.

(h) Philpot v. Hoare, 2 Atk. 219. S. C. Ambl. 219. Treach v. Coke, 1 Vern. 185.

(i) Attorney General v. Tan

A Conveyance was defective, the use being limited to certain Officers of a Corporation, and not to the Corporate Body, and therefore there was a want of Persons to take in perpetual succession; but the Court under the Stat. of Elizabeth relieved against the mistake (k).

The Statute of Charitable Uses supplies all defects of an Assurance which the Donor was capable of making (1). Even a Devise by a Lunatic to Charitable Uses has been considered as good, under the Statute of Charitable Uses (m)!

If a Tenant in Tail devises Lands for the maintenance of a Schoolmaster and other Charitable purposes, it is a good appointment within the Statute of Charitable Uses, though no Fine was levied, or Recovery suffered. The intent of the Act, says the Lord Keeper Wright, was to make the disposition of the Party as free and easy as his mind, and not to oblige him to the observance of any form or ceremony, either of Lease or Release, common Recovery or Fine (n).

A Court of Equity will not supply a Mistake in a Fine after the death of the Conuzor (o), nor rectify a mistake of Names in a Recovery, especially after a length of time and against a Purchaser (p). Nor will it relieve against an erroneous Recovery, in the Lords' Court (q).

(k) Attorney General v. Tancred, 1 Eden, 10, et seq..

(1) Attorney General v. Burdett, 2 Vern. 755. Tay v. Slaughter, Prec. Ch. 16. Attorney General v. Rye, 2 Vern. 453.

(m) Collison's case, Hob.136. (n) Attorney General v. Rye,

2 Vern. 454.

(0) Wharton v. Wharton, 2 Vern. 3. Whenever Vernon is quoted, it is from the last edition of that work, by Mr. Raithby, which is rendered so very valuable by his great research and accuracy.

(p) Bell against Cundall, Amb. 102.

(q) Ash v. Rogle, 1 Vern. 367.