This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1837 Excerpt:...assigns, for three lives, made his will, whereby taking notice that his nephew, the plaintiff, would be entitled to the Baronetship in case he survived his father, and the testator his uncle; the testator devised his said leasehold estates to two trustees, and their heirs, during the three lives, expressing an ardent desire that the trustees would take care, from time to time, to renew the (a) 2 Ves. & B. 386. (b) 3 P. W. 103. (I) There are cases in which a renewal of a term of years has been held not to revoke an antecedent bequest of the term, where the words of the will have been sufficient to carry the entire interest which the testator might have at his death; but these cases do not apply to estates for lives which cannot pass under a devise made before the estate was acquired by the testator. See 11 Ves. 387, 389, 390; Colegrave v. Manly, 2 ftuss. 238, S. C. 6 Madd. 72, and the cases there referred to; Carte v. Carte, 3 Atk. 174; Adean v. Templar, 3 P. W. 168; Coppin v. Fernyhough, 2 Bro. C. C. 292. lease, and use their utmost endeavours to preserve the estate to the heirs male of the family, as long as the honour of the Baronetship should continue therein. Sir Henry had no issue male, but the plaintiff was his nephew, viz. his next brother's son; and the heir at law of Sir H. was his granddaughter Jane, being the daughter of his only deceased son, and married to the defendant. After the making of the will, Sir H. M. surrendered his lease for lives, and took a new lease from the Archbishop of York, to him and his heirs for three lives, and put in his grandson, the defendant, as one of the lives. Sir H. Marwood died the 28th of October, 1725. The question was, whether Sir H. M.'s surrendering the old lease, and taking a' new one to him and his heir...