Jersey," and Washington.18 Statements of it are also to be found in the earlier decisions of other states 51, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 641, in which it is said that words of recommendation and other words precatory in their nature imply a discretion as contradistinguished from peremptory orders, and therefore ought to be so construed unless a different sense is irresistibly forced upon them by the context. 17 In Eddy v. Hartshorne (1881) 34 N. J. Eq. 419, it is said that when by will the property is given absolutely to a person, and the same person is by the giver "recommended," "entreated," "requested," or "wished" to dispose of that property in favor of another, the recommendation, request, or wish is held to be imperative, and to create a trust if the subject and objects are certain. The adherence of the New Jersey courts to the early English rule is again declared in Deacon v. Cobson (1914) 83 N. J. Eq. 122, 82 Atl. 1029, in which it is said that, with this rule of construction uniformly recognized by the New Jersey courts for so long a period of time, testators and scriveners may be said to have been privileged to rely upon its existence and future recognition. 18 In Hunt v. Hunt (1897) 18 Wash. 14, 50 Pac. 578, it was said that a trust may be created by precatory words if they be not so modified by the context as to amount to no more than mere suggestion, to be acted upon or not according to the caprice of the interested devisee, or negatived by other expressions indicating a contrary intention, and the subject and object be sufficiently certain. The earlier rule appears, also to be adhered to in RE HOCHBRUNN (reported herewith) ante, 7, in which it is said that where a person makes a special request of another who is independent of him it may be altogether ignored; but in making a request to him capable of being fulfilled, if, in the same instance, he specially requests that a portion of it be paid to another at a time sufficiently definite, the courteous language used makes it no less imperative than if he had commanded or ordered it to be paid. 19 In Hunter v. Stembridge (1852) 12 Ga. 192, it is said that, when the which have since adopted the later rule.19 The reluctance of the courts to give words of the will are those of recommendation, or precatory, or expressing hope, or that the testator has no doubt, etc., if the objects in regard to whom such terms are used are certain and the subjects of property to be given are also certain, the words are considered imperative and create a trust. The modern rule, which requires the words used to be sufficiently imperative to show that it is not left to the discretion of the legatee whether to act or not, is, however, embodied in the Georgia Civil Code. See Wood v. Owen (1910) 133 Ga. 751, 66 S. E. 951. In Bohon v. Barrett (1881) 79 Ky. 378, it is said that a trust will be created by precatory words if they be not so modified by the context as to amount to no more than mere suggestion to be acted on or not, according to the caprice of the immediate devisee, or negatived by other expressions indicating a contrary intention, and the subject and object be sufficiently certain. Later Kentucky cases, however, adopt the rule that the words of the testator must be construed as mandatory. See Webster v. Wathen (1895) 97 Ky. 318, 30 S. W. 663; Wood v. Wood (1907) 127 Ky. 514, 106 S. W. 226. In Schmucker v. Reel (1876) 61 Mo. 592, it was said that no particular form of expression is requisite in order to create a binding and valid trust, and words of recommendation, request, entreaty, wish, or expectation, will impose a binding duty upon the devisee by way of trust, provided the testator has pointed out with sufficient clearness and certainty both the subject-matter and the object of the trust. And in Noe v. Kern (1887) 93 Mo. 367, 3 Am. St. Rep. 544, 6 S. W. 239, it was said that words of recommendation, request, entreaty, wish, or expectation, addressed to a legatee or devisee, will make him a trustee for the person or persons in whose favor such expressions are used, provided the testator has pointed out with sufficient clearness and certainty both the subjectmatter and the objects of the intended trust. The later Missouri cases, however, require the precatory words to have been used in an imperative sense. See Hayes v. Hayes (1912) 242 Mo. 155, 145 S. W. 1155. Maine. Hall v. Otis (1880) 71 Me. 326; Clifford v. Stewart (1901) 95 Me. 38, 49 Atl. 52. Maryland.-Tolson v. Tolson (1838) 10 Gill & J. 159; Handley v. Wrightson (1883) 60 Md. 198; Maught v. Getzendanner (1886) 65 Md. 527, 57 Am. Rep. 352, 5 Atl. 471; McClernan v. McClernan (1890) 73 Md. 283, 20 Atl. 908; Grieves v. Grieves (1918) 132 Md. 300, 103 Atl. 572. Massachusetts. Warner v. Bates (1867) 98 Mass. 274; McCurdy v. McCallum (1904) 186 Mass. 464, 72 N. E. 75; TEMPLE v. RUSSELL (reported herewith) ante, 1. Michigan. Gilchrist v. Corliss (1908) 155 Mich. 126, 130 Am. St. Rep. 568, 118 N. W. 938. Mississippi. Lucas v. Lockhart (1848) 10 Smedes & M. 466, 48 Am. Dec. 766; Red v. Powers (1891) 69 Miss. 242, 13 So. 586; Patterson v. Humphries (1911) 101 Miss. 831, 58 So. 772. Missouri. Schmucker v. Reel (1876) 61 Mo. 592; Noe v. Kern (1887) 93 Mo. 367, 3 Am. St. Rep. 544, 6 S. W. that the instances in which a trust has been held to exist 20 are decidedly 239; Murphy v. Carlin (1892) 113 Mo. 112, 35 Am. St. Rep. 699, 20 S. W. 786. New Hampshire. Erickson v. Willard (1818) 1 N. H. 217; Portsmouth v. Shackford (1866) 46 N. H. 423; Foster v. Willson (1894) 68 N. H. 241, 73 Am. St. Rep. 581, 38 Atl. 1003; Pembroke Academy v. Epsom School Dist. (1910) 75 N. H. 408, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 646, 75 Atl. 100. New Jersey. Ward v. Peloubet (1855) 10 N. J. Eq. 304; Eddy v. Hartshorne (1881) 34 N. J. Eq. 419; Cox v. Wills (1891) 49 N. J. Eq. 130, 22 Atl. 794, (1892) 49 N. J. Eq. 573, 25 Atl. 938; Deacon v. Cobson (1914) 83 N. J. Eq. 122, 89 Atl. 1029. New York. Phillips v. Phillips. (1889) 112 N. Y. 197, 8 Am. St. Rep. 737, 19 N. E. 411; Collister v. Fassitt (1900) 163 N. Y. 281, 79 Am. St. Rep. 586, 57 N. E. 490, affirming (1897) 23 App. Div. 466, 48 N. Y. Supp. 792 (motion for rehearing denied in (1900) 163 N. Y. 281, 57 N. E. 490); Rothschild v. Schiff (1907) 188 N. Y. 327, 80 N. E. 1030, modifying (1905) 103 App. Div. 235, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1076; Willets v. Willets (1886) 20 Abb. N. C. 471; Re Copeland (1902) 38 Misc. 402, 77 N. Y. Supp. 931; Carroll v. Adams (1907) 105 N. Y. Supp. 967; Re Daintrey (1925) 125 Misc. 369, 211 N. Y. Supp. 529. North Carolina.-Cook v. Ellington (1863) 59 N. C. (6 Jones, Eq.) 371; Laws v. Christmas (1919) 178 N. C. 359, 100 S. E. 587; Waldroop v. Waldroop (1920) 179 N. C. 674, 103 S. E. 381. Ohio. Ide v. Clark (1891) 5 Ohio C. C. 239, 3 Ohio C. D. 120. Oregon.-Beakey v. Knutson (1918) 90 Or. 574, 174 Pac. 1149, rehearing denied in (1919) 90 Or. 583, 177 Pac. 955; Wemme v. First Church of Christ (1924) 110 Qr. 179, 219 Pac. 618, mandate denied in (1924) 110 Or. 214, 223 Pac. 250. Pennsylvania.-Fox's Appeal (1882) 99 Pa. 382; Oyster v. Knull (1890) 137 Pa. 448, 21 Am. St. Rep. 890, 20 Atl. 624; Fickes's Estate (1915) 59 Pa. Super. Ct. 535. would be a reasonable exercise of the discretion of such person, leaving it, Re Havens (1888) 6 Dem. 456, 2 N. Y. Supp. 639; Wyman v. Woodbury (1895) 86 Hun, 277, 33 N. Y. Supp. 217 (affirmed on other grounds in (1897) 153 N. Y. 243, 47 N. E. 283); Edson v. Bartow (1895) 15 Misc. 179, 37 N. Y. Supp. 99; Re Crane (1896) 12 App. Div. 271, 42 N. Y. Supp. 904, affirmed without opinion in (1899) 159 N. Y. 557, 54 N. E. 1089; First Presby. Church v. McKallor (1898) 35 App. Div. 98, 54 N. Y. Supp. 740; Street v. Gordon (1899) 41 App. Div. 439, 58 N. Y. Supp. 860; Bennett v. McLaughlin (1908) 57 Misc. 507, 103 N. Y. Supp. 256, affirmed in (1908) 125 App. Div. 172, 109 N. Y. Supp. 63; Re O'Regan (1909) 62 Misc. 592, 117 N. Y. Supp. 96; Re Steiner (1909) 134 App. Div. 162, 118 N. Y. Supp. 833; Re Crawford (1917) 99 Misc. 416, 163 N. Y. Supp. 1107; Sands v. Waldo (1917) 100 Misc. 288, 165 N. Y. Supp. 654; Tillman v. Ogren (1917) 99 Misc. 539, 166 N. Y. Supp. 39, judgment modified in (1918) 182 App. Div. 672, 169 N. Y. Supp. 949, (1920) 227 N. Y. 495, 125 N. E. 821, which has reargument denied in (1920) 228 N. Y. 559, 127 N. E. 922; Re Lynch (1918) 102 Misc. 650, 169 N. Y. Supp. 321; Re Jones (1921) 199 App. Div. 426, 192 N. Y. Supp. 163; Re Kollstede (1923) 120 Misc. 533, 199 N. Y. Supp. 901; Re Sweeney (1923) 120 Misc. 668, 200 N. Y. Supp. 332; Re Russ (1923) 121 Misc. 498, 201 N. Y. Supp. 542; Re Barney (1923) 207 App. Div. 25, 201 N. Y. Supp. 647, affirmed on opinion. below in (1924) 239 N. Y. 584, 147 N. E. 205; Blanch's Will (1926) 126 Misc. 421, 214 N. Y. Supp. 565. North Carolina.-Batchelor v. Macon (1873) 69 N. C. 545; Fellowes v. Durfey (1913) 163 N. C. 305, 79 S. E. 621; Carter v. Strickland (1914) 165 N. C. 69, 80 S. E. 961; Ann. Cas. 1915D, 416; Hardy v. Hardy (1917) 174 N. C. 505, 93 S. E. 976; Brooks v. Griffin (1919) 177 N. C. 7, 97 S. E. 730; Springs v. Springs (1921) 182 N. C. 484, 109 S. E. 839; Weaver v. Kirby (1923) 186 N. C. 387, 119 S. E. 564. Pennsylvania.-Re Pennock (1853) 20 Pa. 268, 59 Am. Dec. 718; Second Reformed Presby. Church v. Disbrow (1866) 52 Pa. 219; Bowlby v. Thunder (1884) 105 Pa. 178; Hopkins v. Glunt (1886) 111 Pa. 287, 2 Atl. 183; McIntyre v. McIntyre (1889) 123 Pa. 329, 10 Am. St. Rep. 529, 16 Atl. 783; Good v. Fichthorn (1891) 144 Pa. 287, 27 Am. St. Rep. 630, 22 Atl. 1032; Heck's Estate (1895) 170 Pa. 232, 32 Atl. 413; Ahl v. Bosler (1896) 175 Pa. 526, 34 Atl. 805; Bellas's Estate (1896) 176 Pa. 122, 34 Atl. 1003; Miller v. Stubbs (1914) 244 Pa. 482, 90 Atl. 1132; McBride v. Mangan (1915) 249 Pa. 515, 95 Atl. 79; Chew v. Chew (1920) 266 Pa. 526, 109 Atl. 799; Re Fisher (1920) 268 Pa. 405, 112 Atl. 17; Smith v. Bloomington Coal Co. (1925) 282 Pa. 248, 127 Atl. 627; Donaldson's Estate (1892) 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 311; Forscht's Estate (1892) 2 Pa. Dist. R. 294; Taylor's Estate (1919) 28 Pa. Dist. R. 778; Herskovitz's Estate (1923) 81 Pa. Super. Ct. 379; Billington v. Canerin (1901) 32 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 172. Rhode Island. Cahill v. Tanner (1921) 43 R. I. 403, 113 Atl. 289. South Carolina.-Taylor v. McRa (1850) 24 S. C. Eq. (3 Rich.) 96; Lesesne v. Witte (1874) 5 S. C. 450; McCreary v. Burns (1881) 17 S. C. 45; Rowland v. Rowland (1888) 29 S. C. 54, 6 S. E. 902; Arnold v. Arnold (1893) 41 S. C. 291, 19 S. E. 670. Tennessee. Frierson v. General Assembly (1872) 7 Heisk. 683; Hill v. Page (1895) Tenn., 36 S. W. 735; Clark v. Hill (1897) 98 Tenn. 300, 39 S. W. 339. Texas. Speairs v. Ligon (1883) 59 Tex. 233. Vermont. Van Amee v. Jackson (1862) 35 Vt. 173. Washington.-Hunt v. Hunt (1897) 18 Wash. 14, 50 Pac. 578; Lanigan v. Miles (1918) 102 Wash. 82, 172 Pac. 894. Wisconsin.-Tabor v. Tabor (1893) 85 Wis. 313, 55 N. W. 702; Conlin v. Sowards (1906) 129 Wis. 320, 109 N. W. 91; JANSEN'S WILL (reported herewith) ante, 5. England.-Le Maitre v. Bannister (1770) Prec. in Ch. 200, note, 24 Eng. Reprint, 97, note; Civil v. Rich (1679) 1 Ch. Cas. 309, 22 Eng. Reprint, 815; Bland v. Bland (1745) 2 Cox, Ch. Cas. 349, 30 Eng. Reprint, 161; Cunliffe v. Cunliffe (1770) 2 Ambl, 686, 27 Eng. Reprint, 446; Harland v. Trigg (1782) 1 Bro. Ch. 142, 28 Eng. Reprint, 1041; Randal v. Hearle (1793) 1 Anstr. 124, 145 Eng. Reprint, 820; Meggison v. Moore (1795) 2 Ves. Jr. 632, 30 Eng. Reprint, 813; Pushman V. Filliter (1795) 3 Ves. Jr. 7, 30 Eng. Reprint, expressed by the testator, is meant to govern the conduct of the one to whom (1895) 145 Ind. 184, 32 L.R.A. 298, 57 Am. St. Rep. 185, 42 N. E. 277, 44 N. E. 17; Lumpkin v. Rodgers (1900) 155 Ind. 285, 58 N. E. 72; Snodgrass v. Brandenburg (1905) 164 Ind. 59, 71 N. E. 137, 72 N. E. 1030; Nichols v. Alexander (1926) Ind. App. 152 N. E. 863. Iowa.-Rona v. Meier (1878) 47 Iowa, 607, 29 Am. Rep. 493; Bills v. Bills (1890) 80 Iowa, 269, 8 L.R.A. 696, 20 Am. St. Rep. 418, 45 N. W. 748. Kentucky. - Major v. Herndon (1879) 78 Ky. 123; Sale v. Thornberry (1887) 86 Ky. 266, 5 S. W. 468; Enders v. Tasco (1889) 89 Ky. 17, 11 S. W. 818; Webster v. Wathen (1895) 97 Ky. 318, 30 S. W. 663; Wood v. Wood (1907) 127 Ky. 514, 106 S. W. 226; Igo v. Irvine (1909) 139 Ky. 634, 70 S. W. 836; Gross v. Smart (1920) 189 Ky. 338, 224 S. W. 871; Hazelwood v. Webster (1885) 7 Ky. L. Rep. 164; White v. Irvine (1903) 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2458, 74 S. W. 247; Thruston v. Prather (1903) 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1137, 77 S. W. 354; Goslee v. Goslee (1906) 29 Ky. L. Rep. 654, 94 S. W. 638. V. Deresheid Louisiana.-Dufour (1903) 110 La. 344, 34 So. 469; Hutchinson's Succession (1904) 112 La. 656, 36 So. 639; Young v. Egan (1855) 10 La. Ann. 415; Hudson's Succession (1867) 19 La. Ann. 79; Jacob v. Macon (1868) 20 La. Ann. 162. Maine. Taylor v. Brown (1895) 88 Me. 56, 33 Atl. 664; Pierce v. Pierce (1915) 114 Me. 311, 96 Atl. 143. Maryland. Chase v. Plummer (1861) 17 Md. 165; Williams v. Worthington (1878) 49 Md. 572, 33 Am. Rep. 286; Nunn v. O'Brien (1896) 83 Md. 198, 34 Atl. 244; Pratt v. Sheppard & E. P. Hospital (1898) 88 Md. 610, 42 Atl. 51, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 641; Cheston v. Cheston (1899) 89 Md. 465, 43 Atl. 768; Williams v. Baptist Church Committee (1901) 92 Md. 497, 54 L.R.A. 427, 48 Atl. 930; Clark v. Clark (1904) 99 Md. 356, 58 Atl. 24. Massachusetts. Wells v. Doane (1855) 3 Gray, 201; Hess v. Singler (1873) 114 Mass. 56; Sears v. Cunningham (1877) 122 Mass. 538; Dickson v. United States (1878) 125 Mass. 311, 28 Am. Rep. 230; Gibbins v. Shepard (1878) 125 Mass. 541; Barrett Marsh (1879) 126 Mass. 213; Davis v. Mailey (1883) 134 Mass. 588; Bacon v. Ransom (1885) 139 Mass. 117, 29 V. it is addressed, or whether it is merely an indication of that which he thinks N. E. 473; Rose v. Porter (1886) 141 Mass. 309, 5 N. E. 641; Durant v. Smith (1893) 159 Mass. 229, 34 N. E. 190; Aldrich v. Aldrich (1898) 172 Mass. 101, 51 N. E. 449; Lloyd v. Lloyd (1899) 173 Mass. 97, 53 N. E. 148; George v. George (1904) 186 Mass. 75, 71 N. E. 85; Holmes v. Dalley (1906) 192 Mass. 451, 78 N. E. 513; Poor v. Bradbury (1907) 196 Mass. 207, 81 N. E. 882; Dexter v. Young (1920) 234 Mass. 588, 125 N. E. 862. Michigan. Hillsdale College v. Wood (1906) 145 Mich. 257, 108 N. W. 675; Crisp v. Anderson (1918) 204 Mich, 35, 169 N. W. 855; Hollway v. Atherton (1919) 205 Mich. 129, 171 N. W. 413. Minnesota.-Long v. Willsey (1916) 132 Minn. 316, 156 N. W. 349. Mississippi. — Rector v. Alcorn (1906) 88 Miss. 788, 41 So. 370; Courtenay v. Courtenay (1907) 90 Miss. 181, 43 So. 68. Missouri.-Corby v. Corby (1884) 85 Mo. 371; Balliett v. Veal (1897) 140 Mo. 187, 41 S. W. 736; Lemp v. Lemp (1915) 264 Mo. 533, 175 S. W. 618; Snyder v. Toler (1914) 179 Mo. App. 376, 166 S. W. 1059; Re McVeigh (1914) 181 Mo. App. 566, 164 S. W. 673. Nevada.-Hunt v. Hunt (1876) 11 Nev. 442. New Jersey.-Van Duyne v. Van Duyne (1862) 14 N. J. Eq. 397; Hoxsey v. Hoxsey (1883) 37 N. J. Eq. 21; Eberhardt v. Perolin (1892) 49 N. J. Eq. 570, 25 Atl. 510, reversing (1891) 48 N. J. Eq. 592, 23 Atl. 501; Stewart v. Stewart (1900) 61 N. J. Eq. 25, 47 Atl. 633. New York. Foose v. Whitmore (1880) 82 N. Y. 405, 37 Am. Rep. 572; Lawrence v. Cooke (1887) 104 N. Y. 632, 11 N. E. 144, reversing (1884) 32 Hun, 126; Re Keleman (1891) 126 N. Y. 73, 26 N. E. 968; Re Gardner (1893) 140 N. Y. 122, 35 N. E. 439; Clay v. Wood (1897) 153 N. Y. 134, 47 N. E. 274, affirming (1895) 91 Hun. 407, 36 N. Y. Supp. 317; Post v. Moore (1905) 181 N. Y. 15, 106 Am. St. Rep. 495, 73 N. E. 482, 2 Ann. Cas. 591; Parsons v. Best (1873) 1 Thomp. & C. 211; Wood v. Seward (1880) 4 Redf. 271; Wilde v. Smith (1883) 2 Dem. 93; Bowker v. Wells (1885) 2 How. Pr. N. S. 150; Field v. New York (1886) 38 Hun, 590, affirmed in (1887) 105 N. Y. 623; די 1 24 AMERICAN LAW REPORTS, ANNOTATED. [49 A.L.R. would be a reasonable exercise of the discretion of such person, leaving it, Re Havens (1888) 6 Dem. 456, 2 N. Y. North Carolina.-Batchelor v. Ma- Pennsylvania.-Re Pennock (1853) 20 Pa. 268, 59 Am. Dec. 718; Second Reformed Presby. Church v. Disbrow (1866) 52 Pa. 219; Bowlby v. Thunder (1884) 105 Pa. 178; Hopkins v. Glunt (1886) 111 Pa. 287, 2 Atl. 183; McIntyre v. McIntyre (1889) 123 Pa. 329, 10 Am. St. Rep. 529, 16 Atl. 783; Good v. Fichthorn (1891) 144 Pa. 287, 27 Am. St. Rep. 630, 22 Atl. 1032; Heck's Estate (1895) 170 Pa. 232, 32 Atl. 413; Ahl v. Bosler (1896) 175 Pa. 526, 34 Atl. 805; Bellas's Estate (1896) 176 Pa. 122, 34 Atl. 1003; Miller v. Stubbs (1914) 244 Pa. 482, 90 Atl. 1132; McBride v. Mangan (1915) 249 Pa. 515, 95 Atl. 79; Chew v. Chew (1920) 266 Pa. 526, 109 Atl. 799; Re Fisher (1920) 268 Pa. 405, 112 Atl. 17; Smith v. Bloomington Coal Co. (1925) 282 Pa. 248, 127 Atl. 627; Donaldson's Estate (1892) 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 311; Forscht's Estate (1892) 2 Pa. Dist. R. 294; Taylor's Estate (1919) 28 Pa. Dist. R. 778; Herskovitz's Estate (1923) 81 Pa. Super. Ct. 379; Billington v. Canerin (1901) 32 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 172. Rhode Island. Cahill v. Tanner (1921) 43 R. I. 403, 113 Atl. 289. South Carolina.-Taylor v. McRa (1850) 24 S. C. Eq. (3 Rich.) 96; Lesesne v. Witte (1874) 5 S. C. 450; McCreary v. Burns (1881) 17 S. C. 45; Rowland v. Rowland (1888) 29 S. C. 54, 6 S. E. 902; Arnold v. Arnold (1893) 41 S. C. 291, 19 S. E. 670. Tennessee. Frierson v. General Assembly (1872) 7 Heisk. 683; Hill v. Page (1895) — Tenn. —, 36 S. W. 735; Clark v. Hill (1897) 98 Tenn. 300, 39 S. W. 339. Texas.-Speairs v. Ligon (1883) 59 Tex. 233. Vermont. - Van Amee v. Jackson (1862) 35 Vt. 173. Washington.-Hunt v. Hunt (1897) 18 Wash. 14, 50 Pac. 578; Lanigan v. Miles (1918) 102 Wash. 82, 172 Pac. 894. Wisconsin.-Tabor v. Tabor (1893) 85 Wis. 313, 55 N. W. 702; Conlin v. Sowards (1906) 129 Wis. 320, 109 N. with) ante, 5. W. 91; JANSEN'S WILL (reported here England. Le Maitre v. Bannister (1770) Prec. in Ch. 200, note, 24 Eng. Reprint, 97, note; Civil v. Rich (1679) 1 Ch. Cas. 309, 22 Eng. Reprint, 815; Bland v. Bland (1745) 2 Cox, Ch. Cas. 349, 30 Eng. Reprint, 161; Cunliffe v. Cunliffe (1770) 2 Ambl, 686, 27 Eng. Reprint, 446; Harland v. Trigg (1782) 1 Bro. Ch. 142, 28 Eng. Reprint, 1041; Randal v. Hearle (1793) 1 Anstr. 124, 145 Eng. Reprint, 820; Meggison v. Moore (1795) 2 Ves. Jr. 632, 30 Eng. Reprint, 813; Pushman v. Filliter (1795) 3 Ves, Jr. 7, 30 Eng. Reprint, |