fore the Attorney General, on behalf of her Majesty, says that the defendant is liable to pay duty at the rate of 107. per centum upon the value of his aforesaid succession; but the defendant says that he is only liable to pay duty at some less rate, and he claims, in computing the assessable value of his succession, to have an allowance made to him in respect of his annuity of 12007. (to which he became entitled in consequence of his marriage), which he says he has relinquished or been deprived of within the meaning of the 38th section of the Succession Duty Act, 1853."

The information prayed (inter alia) that it might be declared that the defendant was chargeable with duty at the rate of 107. per cent. in respect of his succession to the Audley End mansion and estates.

The answer of the defendant was as follows:

:

"I admit that the statements contained in the first six paragraphs of the said information are correct, and I admit that, at the date of the indenture next hereinafter mentioned, the estates in the said information described as the Audley End mansion estates, and in respect to which succession duty is claimed by the said information, stood settled to such uses as my father the third Lord Braybrooke and myself should by any deed or instrument to be executed, as in the said information mentioned, appoint; and in default of such appointment, to such uses as I this defendant, in case I should survive my said father, should by deed or will appoint; and in default of such appointment, to the use of me this defendant for life, with remainder to the use of my first and other sons in tail male.

"In the interval between the execution of the deed by which I and my father created the said powers of appointment and the execution of the deed of the 1st of January, 1850, in the information mentioned, we under our joint power sold and disposed of parts of the estates subject to the power.

"I say that the said Audley End mansion and estates are situate in the several counties of Essex, Cambridge and Suffolk, and include the presentation to the Mastership of Magdalen College, Cambridge.

"At the date of the indenture next hereinafter mentioned my father, the said third Lord Braybrooke, was seised in fee simple, 1stly, of divers real estates situate near the said Audley End mansion and

1860.

ATTORNEY
GENERAL

v.

LORD BRAY BROOKE.

1860.

ATTORNEY
GENERAL

1.

LORD

BRAY BROOKE.

estates, and which he had himself purchased, and which are herein-
after referred to as the Audley End purchased Estates;' 2ndly, of
divers real estates situate in the counties of Berks and Wilts, and
forming the ancient estates of the Neville family, which were inherited
by him, and which are hereinafter referred to as the 'Billingbear Old
Estates,' subject to certain charges thereon; 3rdly, of divers real
estates situate near the said Billingbear Old Estates purchased by my
said father, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Billingbear purchased
Estates,' and was also possessed absolutely of the sum of 10,1347.5s. 8d.,
charged by way of mortgage on the said Audley End mansion and
estates; also of several sums of 50007., 5000l. and 60007., charged on
the Billingbear Old Estates; and I say that the value of the several
classes of estates above mentioned, estimated in round numbers, is as
follows, that is to say, the value of the said Audley End mansion and
estates is about 180,000l., the value of the Billingbear Old Estates is
about 300,000l., and the value of the Audley End purchased Estates
and the Billingbear purchased Estates together amount to between
90,000l. and 100,000l., and that immediately before the deed of the
1st day of January, 1850, in the information mentioned, was executed,
I and my father had at our disposal a sum of 74007. of the capital
stock of the London and North Western Railway Company, and
135 Extension Shares of the York and North Midland Railway Com-
pany, and that in the year 1850 my father the said third Lord Bray-
brooke, with the view of inducing me to concur with him in exerci-
sing the joint power of appointment created by us over the Audley
End mansion and estates, proposed to me that if I would give up the
absolute power of disposition reserved to me by the indenture of the
21st of July, 1841, in the said information mentioned, and in favour
of his younger sons the two next presentations to Magdalen College,
and would join with him in a settlement of the estates over which we
had the joint power, he would in such settlement settle the said
Audley End purchased Estates, Billingbear Old Estates and Billing-
bear purchased Estates, and would make an immediate provision for me
during his lifetime. I entertained and ultimately acceded to the pro-
posal, and it was agreed that my father should have the two next pre-
sentations to Magdalen College in favour of his younger sons, and that a
settlement should be made of all the estates, and that the said sums of
stock in the said railway Company should be included in the settle-
ment, and that the estates upon which my father had incumbrances as
before stated should be settled free from such charges, my father
giving up such charges, and that the settlement should contain the
powers and provisions afterwards mentioned.

"In pursuance of such arrangement, on the 1st of January, 1850,

EASTER TERM, 23 VICT.

my father, the said third Baron Braybrooke, and I this defendant together made and duly sealed and delivered in presence of two credible witnesses, who duly attested the same, the indenture or deed of appointment of that date in the said information in that behalf mentioned, which was to the effect in the said information in that behalf stated, so far as the same is therein set forth, but I say that the effect of that indenture is imperfectly stated in the said information, for I say that thereby the said Audley End mansion estates were discharged from the said sum of 10,1347. 5s. 8d. so charged thereon by way of mortgage as aforesaid, the said Billingbear Old Estates were discharged from the said sums of 5000l., 5000l. and 6000l. respectively charged thereon by way of mortgage as aforesaid, and the said Audley End purchased Estates, Billingbear Old Estates and Billingbear purchased Estates were, together with the Audley End mansion and estates settled to the uses and upon the trusts to and upon which the said Audley End mansion and estates are by the said information stated to have been settled, and the said sums of stock in railway Companies were also settled so as to be laid out in land and go along with the settled estates. There was in the same indenture contained a power for me, when in possession of the said estates, to raise 10,000l. for my own use, and a further sum of 10,000l. for my own use if I should have no children who should succeed to the said estates, and there was also contained in the said indenture powers for me to jointure any wife I might marry and to raise portions for my younger children (both of which last mentioned powers I exercised on my subsequent marriage), and there was also in pursuance of the agreement in the said indenture contained a power for my said father the said third Lord Braybrooke by deed or will to give to any of his younger sons the two next presentations to Magdalen College and to the rectories of Heydon and Widdington, and to grant Heydon House and twenty acres of land to his son the Honorable Charles Cornwallis Neville for life. For further certainty as to the terms and effect of the said indenture or deed of appointment I desire to refer to the instrument itself, which I am ready to produce, or to a copy thereof.

"Since the date of the indenture of the 1st of January, 1850, my father and myself sold portions of the estates therein comprised in exercise of the joint power of appointment therein contained.

"My father, the said third Lord Braybrooke, also exercised the power thereby given him, and presented his son the Honorable and Reverend Latimer Neville to the Mastership of Magdalen College, and his said son Latimer Neville to the rectory of Heydon, and granted Heydon House aforesaid and the said twenty acres of land to his said son the Honorable Charles Cornwallis Neville.

1860.

ATTORNEY
GENERAL

v.

LORD BRAYBROOKE.

1860.

ATTORNEY
GENERAL

v.

LORD

BRAYBROOKE.

"I admit that I refused to pay succession duty at the rate demanded on behalf of the Crown, on the ground that under the circumstances herein stated I do not think that the Crown is entitled to demand the same; and I admit that I claim an allowance in respect of my said annuity of 1200/. in the said information mentioned, on the ground that I relinquished or was deprived of the same on the death of my said father the third Baron Lord Braybrooke, and, therefore, am entitled to such allowance in pursuance of the Succession Duty Act, 1853."

The Attorney General (The Solicitor General and Hanson with him) argued for the Crown (a) (May 5).—The decision in The Attorney General v. Sibthorp (b) governs this case. The limitations are substantially the same in both cases (c).

(a) Before Pollock, C. B., Martin, B., and Bramwell, B.
(b) 3 H. & N. 424.

(c) In Sibthorp's case the dis-
entailing deed was as follows:-

:

1. To the uses of the joint
appointment of the father
and son; and in default,
2. To the uses of the original
settlement.

The uses limited by the deed executing the power, subject to a rent-charge for the son, were1. To the father for life, remainder

2. To the son for life, remain-
ders over.

In the present case the limitations of the disentailing deed

are:

1. Preserving the life estate of the father:

2. To the uses of the joint ap-
pointment; and in default,
3. To the uses of the son's ap-
pointment, if he survived
his father; in default,
4. To the son for life; re-
mainder,

5. To his first and other sons
in tail, &c.

The uses limited by the deed executing the joint power are—

1. To the uses of the joint appointment; and in default (subject to a rent-charge for the son),

2. To the father for life; remainder,

3. To the son for life, remainders over.

In the former it was held that the use taken by the son
under the resettlement was the old use which belonged to
him as tenant in tail in remainder, and that the father took
back his life estate. Here the defendant took either his
former estate or a modification of it. A succession is the
beneficial interest in property which one person takes on
the death of another, and the duty is regulated by the
relation between the predecessor and successor. Therefore
it must first be ascertained whether there is a succession,
and next from whom that succession is derived. The
question then is, from whom is the estate taken by the
defendant under the resettlement derived? It being the
same estate which he previously had, or a modification of
it, it is derived from the same author as the old entail, who
is the "predecessor." A disposition of that estate was made
by the defendant. The 12th section of the Succession
Duty Act (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51) lays down a rule as to a
succession taken by any person under a disposition made
by himself. Then, is this particular modified estate, pos-
sessed by the same tenant under a disposition made by
himself, part of the original estate tail and to be governed
by the same rule? The Attorney General v. Sibthorp is an
authority that it is. If the defendant had taken the estate
tail he would have taken it by virtue of the will of Lord
Howard de Walden, who would have been the predecessor;
and the fact that the defendant takes the life estate as a
purchaser under a disposition made by himself does not
alter the relation in which he stood to the testator.
doubt, collateral arrangements as to other property formed
part of the general arrangement to resettle the estate; but
that was so in The Attorney General v. Sibthorp. The
Court cannot weigh the consideration, but only inquire
into the history of the estate. It is true that if a man buys
an estate of another, and directs it to be conveyed to a

No

1860.

ATTORNEY
GENERAL

V.

LORD BRAY BROOKE.