inheritance in the name of another, and the term of years was assigned to her. The question was, whether this term belonged to the heir, or the personal representative. A difference was taken at the bar, namely, that if she had first purchased the fee, and afterwards the lease, it should wait on the inheritance; but here the lease was first in her. Lord K. North said, there was no difference in reason; and decreed that the heir should have the lease, to attend the inheritance. 19. A citizen and freeman of London, possessed of a lease of lands, bought the reversion and inheritance, and died. The question was, whether, as there was no declaration that this lease should attend the inheritance, it was part of the personal estate of the purchaser. Decreed that it was attendant upon the inheritance; and, upon a re-hearing, the decree was affirmed by Lord K. North. 20. It may be collected from the preceding cases, that whenever a term would merge in the inheritance, if both were in the same person, it shall be considered as attendant on the inheritance. And in the following modern case it was resolved, that where a person having a term for years, contracted for the purchase of the inheritance, and died without having a conveyance of it, the term was attendant. 21. A bill was filed by residuary devisees and lega. tees, praying that the will might be established, &c.; that the plaintiffs might be declared entitled to the benefit of a contract by the testator, to purchase an estate, and the contract completed. The testator had entered into the contract, after the execution of his will, for the purchase of the inheritance of the When a Term is in estate, being at that time lessee of the premises for a term of years; and died before any conveyance was made. The plaintiffs therefore, if the Court should be of opinion that they were not entitled to the benefit of the contract, claimed the residue of the term, as residuary legatees. The defendant, the heir at law, claimed the inheritance of the estate contracted for, praying that the purchase might be completed out of the personal estate; insisting that the testator became seised of the inheritance from the date of the contract, and that the term was attendant upon the inheritance. Sir W. Grant, M. R." I take the case to be this: the testator had a lease in his own name; had contracted for the purchase of the inheritance, and died before the conveyance to him was completed. Having contracted for the purchase of the inheritance, he became complete owner of the whole estate. For it is clear in this Court, a party, who has contracted for the purchase of an estate, is equitable owner; the vendor is a trustee for him. If he had, by his will, afterwards disposed of all his lands, this estate would have passed by that will. I thought it had been long established, that where the same person has the inheritance and the term in himself, though he has in one the equitable interest, and the legal estate in the other, the inheritance draws to itself the term, and makes it attendant. That appears from Whitchurch v. Whitchurch, Goodright and Shales, and other many cases. Declare the heir at law entitled to the premises described in the term." 22. The trust of a term for years may however be. long to the person seised of, or entitled to, the inheritance, and yet the term may not be attendant. For where a person indicates in any manner an intention of separating a term from the inheritance, it will be considered as a term in gross. Wms. 362. 23. A. being seised in fee, demised his estate to a Hayter v. trustee for 99 years, in trust for himself and his wife Rodd, 1 P. for their lives, and the life of the survivor, and afterwards in trust for the heirs of their bodies; in default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the husband, remainder to the heirs of the survivor. They had issue a son; the husband died; after which the son died in the lifetime of his mother, who took out administration to her husband and son, and assigned the term. After the death of the wife, it was contended by the heir of A, that all the trusts of this term either became void by accident, or were so in their creation; so that the term had no subsistence for the benefit of the personal representatives of any of the parties; but should be considered as attendant on the inheritance. It was, however, decreed by Sir J. Jekyll, that this term should not be attendant on the inheritance; for that the party who raised it, and had power to sever it from the inheritance, showed his intention to do so, by limiting the trust to the survivor of him and his wife, and the heirs of the survivor; which, though it was a void limitation, yet sufficed to show his intent to sever such term from the reversion. 24. Where there is an intervening legal estate, and beneficial interest, between the term and the inheritance; the term will be considered as a term in gross; because in that case it would not merge in the inheritance. 25. Sir A. Chadwick purchased an estate in fee simple from Mrs. Rudger. There being an outstanding term in a trustee, a derivative lease of it was Scott v. 1 Bro. R. 69, Law of Vend. Collect. Jur. granted to a trustee for Sir A. C., with a nominal reversion of eleven days to the trustee of Mrs. R. The question was, whether this term was in gross, or attendant. Lord Thurlow said, every term standing out was, at law, a term in gross. If it was different in equity, it must be by affecting the person holding the term, with a trust, to attend the inheritance. This might be by two ways; by express declaration; and then, whether the term would, or would not merge, and whether the reversion were real, or only nominal, it must be attendant on the inheritance. Here it was not upon express declaration; then it must arise from implication of law, founded on the statute of frauds, which forbids any trust, except by writing or impli cation of law. It was said to be extremely plain that Sir A. C. meant to consolidate the interests: this was begging the question. It was true, he meant to take the largest interest he could; but it was by no means apparent that he meant to consolidate the interests. He laid no stress on the days of reversion, for it was meant only as a nominal reversion: during that time the rent would be to the original lessor; but they did not mean to reserve a substantial interest. It would be necessary there should be an express trust to make this attendant on the inheritance. The transaction did not supply a necessary construction of law. It was a very nice and new point, whether the intent to purchase the whole interest was suffi cient to make the term attendant upon the inheritance. The impossibility he was under of purchasing the whole, rendered an express declaration necessary to make it attend the inheritance. 26. Mr. Sugden has observed on this case, that it seemed impossible to reconcile those parts of the judgement which are printed in Italics. But that it appeared from an opinion of Mr. Fearne's, in consequence of which the cause was reheard, that rents were reserved upon the leases granted by the trustees to Sir A. C., and the usual covenants were entered into by him; the trustees being restrained to that mode of making a title by their trust, which required a reservation of rent, and the usual covenants: this fact at once reconciled every part of the judgement. Lord Thurlow was of opinion, that the reversion itself was immaterial; but that the rents reserved by the leases rendered an express declaration necessary, to make the terms attend the inheritance. Mr. Fearne was also of opinion, that the terms would not be attendant, if there was any intervening estate, and beneficial interest, in any third person; to divide the ownership of the term from the inheritance. But as he was told that the rents reserved to the trustees upon the terms, were afterwards purchased by Sir A. C., he thought the terms did attend the inheritance, although there was not an express declaration for that purpose; and he expressly delivered his opinion, subject to this fact, which he had learned from verbal information only. By Lord Thurlow's decree on the rehearing, it appears clearly that the rents were not purchased; and consequently that Mr. Fearne was misinformed. Gross. 27. In the case of Willoughby v. Willoughby, Lord A Term Attendant may Hardwicke says-" A term attendant on the inhe- become a ritance may be disannexed, and turned into a term Term in in gross, by the absolute owner of the inheritance; and so it is admitted by Serjeant Maynard in the Duke of Norfolk's case: or it may be made to be- 3 Cha. Ca. 46. come a term in gross, upon a contingency; accord- Tit. 38. c. 19. ing to the resolution in that case." 28. So it is said by Lord Com' Raymond, that where 9 Mod. 127. a man has a term for years, which, by intendment of |