was added a proviso, that if it should be in arrear for a certain time, or any of the covenants should not be performed, the lease should be void. That was followed by this proviso, "Provided also, that if the said Joseph W. his executors, administrators or assigns, shall become bankrupt or bankrupts, insolvent or insolvents, or suffer any judgment or judgments to be entered against him or any of them the said Joseph W. his executors, administrators or assigns, by confession or otherwise, or suffer any extent, process or proceedings to be had or taken against him, whereby any reasonable probability may arise of the said herein and hereby demised estate, or any part thereof, being extended or taken in execution, that then and in any or either of the said cases in this proviso mentioned happening, this present indenture of lease, and the estate and interest herein before and hereby granted, and every grant, clause and thing herein contained on the part and behalf of the said lessor or his assigns, and the person and persons for the time being entitled to the perception of the rents and profits of the said hereinbefore and hereby demised estate, shall cease, determine and be utterly null and void to all intents and purposes, as if the present indenture had never been made; and that then and in any other or either of such cases or forfeiture happening, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said lessor or his assigns, or the person or persons for the time being entitled as aforesaid, into and upon the said demised estates, lands and premises, or on any part or parcel thereof, in the name of the whole, to re-enter (a), and the same and every part and parcel thereof to have again, repossess, and reenjoy, as in his and their former estate, and the said (a) As to this covenant see Roe v. Galliers, 2 T. R. 133. Church v. Browne, 15 Ves. jun. 268. Also 8 East, 185; 1 Atk. 168; 2 Taunt. 176. Joseph W. his executors, administrators, and assigns, thereout to expel, remove, and put out, this indenture or any thing therein contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. Joseph Waters entered on the premises thus demised and died in 1823. By will he bequeathed, amongst other things, the premises held under such demise, to his brothers Robert and John Waters, their executors, administrators and assigns, on trust to raise an annuity for his widow, and subject to such annuity in trust for the benefit of his son. He also appointed Robert and John Waters his executors. Robert died in 1827. In 1832 John became bankrupt. A fiat having issued against him, this action was brought, and the lease was contended to be void by the proviso lastly set forth. The plaintiff had a verdict, subject to leave to the defendants to move to set it aside and enter a nonsuit. E. V. Williams moved accordingly. If the bankruptcy of the executor of the original lessee would operate as a forfeiture of the term, under the words of this proviso strictly construed, still as a forfeiture is sought to be worked by them, the court will not give to the letter of them a larger effect than is required by their spirit and meaning. The real object of the lessor in framing that proviso, was to keep the demised premises in the hands of the original lessee and his representatives, and to prevent any alienation voluntary or involuntary by them, except with his own consent in writing. Having guarded against the voluntary assignment by the tenant, he sought to hinder the effect of an alienation from him in invitum, e. g. by act of law, as by extents &c. "whereby any reasonable probability may arise of the estate or any part thereof being extended or taken in execution." The bankruptcy of the surviving executor John Waters 1834. DOE υ. DAVID and Others. 1834. DOE V. DAVID and Others. does not affect the lease; for if he is an assign within the proviso, still being only possessed in auter droit, viz. as a mere trustee, the term in the demised premises would not pass to his assignees, and the object of the testator to preserve it in the hands of the original lessee or his representative, was not defeated by that event. Due operation will be given to the word " executors," for it may have been inserted to provide against the bankruptcy of the executor in his representative capacity, in which case the property would pass to the assignees. An executor may become bankrupt as such, where by the testator's directions he carries on his business, and in the course of that trading commits an act of bankruptcy (a). Here, the lessee by his will "authorizes, empowers and directs" the "executors to carry on such of his different concerns as they may deem prudent or advisable." If the strict construction of the proviso prevails, the interest of the cestui que trust will be sacrificed by the act of a person with whom she has nothing to do. [Lord Lyndhurst C. B. The lessor could have no knowledge of any disposition which his lessee might make by will, and only contemplated his executors.] Lord LYNDHURST C. B.-There is no ground for granting the rule prayed. The terms of the proviso are general as respects bankruptcy, being, that if the said Joseph Waters, his executors, administrators and assigns, shall become bankrupt or bankrupts, the lease shall become void. The lessee's executors having the benefit of the covenants by the lessor, would also be subject to the forfeiture. It has been contended, that the word "executor" is here (a) Ex parte Garland, 10 Ves. 117; Thompson v. Andrews, 1 Mylne & K. 116. used in a limited sense, but there seems no ground for that assumption. The word "executors" could not have been intended to be used in a restricted sense in the first proviso; nor does any thing in it show that it was not meant to have the same sense in the proviso now before us, which immediately follows the former. That affords a sufficient reason for construing the words in their usual sense. The lessor wished to guard against having an irresponsible tenant. As the lessee's obligation to perform the covenants would devolve on his executor, the lessor did not choose that if that executor became his tenant, he should, either as a bankrupt or an insolvent, be a person unfit or unable to fulfil the covenants, so as to deprive the lessor of a substantial remedy. The words used being clear and definite, a strong case was requisite to show that they bore any but the ordinary meaning: here, however, so far from a sufficient reason being given for assigning them a limited construction only, there is clear ground for upholding them in their ordinary sense, ALDERSON B.-I am of the same opinion. The safe and proper rule is, that words shall be taken in their natural and usual sense, unless some strong reason be assigned for giving them another. Here, the executor has become bankrupt, and the condition of the proviso has been unperformed. Then why should not the consequence of avoiding the lease follow? It is not likely that either lessor or lessee should ever have contemplated the executor's becoming bankrupt in his representative character. PARKE B.-I remain of the same opinion which I expressed at the trial. The lessor clearly intended to provide against having an insolvent tenant. Nothing VOL. V. K 1834. DOE บ. DAVID and Others, 1834. DOE 0. DAVID and Others. has been urged which would permit us to put a construction on these words different from that which they usually bear. GURNEY B. Concurred. Rule refused. capias delivered to a de J. HOOPER against WALKER. The copy of a JERVIS moved for a rule to show cause why the bail-bond should not be delivered up to be cancelled, on entering a common appearance for the defendant. After the defendant had been arrested, a fendant after his arrest under 2 W. 4. c. 39. s. 4. was thus in 75l. 10s. for debt, 4/. 4s. if the amount thereof be paid to the copy of the capias was delivered to him in pursuance dorsed: "The of 2 Will. 4. c. 39. s. 4. with the following indorseplaintiff claims ment: "The plaintiff claims 757. 10s. for debt and 41. 4s. for costs, and if the amount thereof be paid to for costs, and the plaintiff or his attorney within four days from the arrest hereon, proceedings will be stayed." He conplaintiff or his tended that the indorsement was irregular in form, attorney with varying from that prescribed by Reg. Gen. H. 1832, No. II. [Ante, Vol. II. p. 351.] made applicable to all writs issued under the uniformity of process act, 2 Will. 4. c. 39., by Reg. Gen. M. 1832, [ante, Vol. III. 2.] by using the words " arrest hereon," instead in four days from the arrest hereon, proceedings will be stayed." Held, that the copy was irregular of "service hereof." from that provided by Reg. Gen. Hil. 2 W. 4. by substituting "arrest here ALDERSON B.-The court will consult the other judges, in order that the practice may be uniform. The next day on" for "service hereof"; but the court permitted the plaintiff to amend the indorsement on terms, |