the description of the bequest; and that wherever the words are general, property of this nature though subsequently acquired is comprehended within the scope of them; thus if a testator gives all his personal estate whatsoever, and afterwards surrenders a subsisting lease and takes a new one, or makes an entire new purchase of a leasehold estate, both these pass. descriptions of property will In a very particular case which has been lately determined in the Court of Chancery', another proposition of considerable breadth and certainty on this subject is furnished, viz. that whether the disposing words are to be confined to the specific interest, or are to be interpreted as descriptively embracing after acquired property, will depend not only on the import of the particular words, but upon the general context of the will. In James v. Dean, which is the case alluded to, the Chancellor took it to be established in Hone v. Medcraft, and Copin v. Fernyhough, that where there is a general bequest in the terms of " all my leasehold estates," and the testator afterwards surrenders and takes a new lease, the bequest is revoked. With the highest respect for this truly great authority, I cannot forbear observing that in the cases said to have established this proposition, the devise is not in a • See the case of Stirling v. Lydiard, 3 Atk. 199. general form, but seems to be a disposition of a leasehold estate particularly described and enumerated among other distinct parts of the testator's property. And, indeed, before the general words, "all my leasehold estates," can be held to be a specific disposition of subsisting interests, the opinion and decree of Lord Hardwicke, in Stirling v. Lydiard, above cited, seems necessary to be explained out of the way. But the great point of James v. Dean rests the question whether the subsisting interest only or future interests in chattels pass by the will, upon the indications of the testator's intention, and decides that the intention in this respect is to be collected from the whole context, and a comparison of all the parts of the will. The case was shortly as follows:Thomas James, by his will, dated the 25th of April, 1788, gave and bequeathed to his wife, Judith James, a messuage and some land, at Standgate, held by him under a lease from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and after her decease he gave the same to Sarah James, Jane James, and Elizabeth James, his brother's daughters, their executors, administrators, and assigns," for all such term, estate, or interest, as shall be then to come therein, as tenants in common." The testator then directed that the rent, fine, and fees, for the renewal of the lease of the said premises, at Standgate, should be paid by his wife, during her life, and by his brother's three daughters afterwards, as such rents, fines, and fees became payable; then after giving some other parts of his property he made the following disposition: "I also give and bequeath to my wife, Judith James, during her life all my messuages, lands, and tenements, in Vine street, in the parish of Lambeth, which I hold by lease, under Sir William East, (being the premises in question) for all the residue of my term and interest therein, and after her decease I give and bequeath the same to my godson, Thomas James, his executors, and administrators, for all the residue of the term and interest I shall have to come therein at my decease." And then the testator gave to his said wife all his leasehold estate at Floatmead, and all other the estate which he purchased of Anthony Keck, Esq. and which he then held by lease from Sir William East, she paying for renewing the said lease at the usual times, during her life, and keeping the said premises in good repair, and after her decease he gave the same among the said three daughters of his brother James, as tenants in common. He then made his wife his residuary legatee, and appointed her one of his executors. The testator was, at the date of his will, in possession, under a lease granted by Sir William East, of the premises, in Vine-street, Lambeth, dated the 12th of August, 1769, to hold for 21 years from the Lady-day preceding, if the lessor and two other persons should so long live, with a covenant by the lessee, that in case of the death of any of the said lives, (being the lives upon which the lessor held those premises, with others from the Archbishop of Canterbury,) before the expiration of the term, and the lessor should renew from the Archbishop, he, the lessee, his executors, &c. would pay a proportionate share with the other tenants of the fines to the Archbishop upon every such renewal; and Sir William East covenanted, upon such renewal of the original lease by the Archbishop, to grant a new lease of the premises thereby demised for the remainder of the term of 21 years, which should be then to come and unexpired. But the lease contained no direct covenant for farther renewal. The testator died in December, 1790, the lease, which expired on the 25th of March preceding, not having been renewed by him. But he had remained in the occupation of the premises until his death, and half a year's rent under this occupation had been paid by him after the expiration of the lease, during his life. Sometime after the testator's death; viz. on the 29th of March, 1791, Sir William East granted to Judith James a new lease of the premises in question, to hold from the 25th of March, for 42 years, if three persons named, or any any of them should so long live. The bill was filed by Thomas James, named in the will, against the executors of Judith James, the testator's widow, praying that the renewal of the said lease by Judith James may be declared to be upon the trusts of the will. The answer insisted that she took the new lease for her own benefit, and this was the question. The Master of the Rolls dismissed the bill, upon the ground that though a testator might so express his intention as to pass any interest existing at his death, yet in this case his intention seemed merely to give the residue of the term he then had from Sir William East, and that nothing more was in his contemplation. Upon the appeal from this decision the Lord Chancellor considered that the equitable question before his Lordship must depend upon the legal question, whether if the lease had been renewed to the testator it would have passed. It is evident that if the new lease had been made to the testator himself in his life-time, this would have been a case for a trial at law, as being a mere legal question, depending upon the import of the words of the will, in respect to such after acquired proIt is a rule that perty. And it seems to be a rule of equity, to be collected from the case we are now considering, that where the disposing words are such that a court of law would have held the subsequent acquisition by his death by his renewal in the testator's life-time to have passed by representatives, them, any renewals after the death of the testator, where the dis posing words would have pass ed the leases if renewed in testator's life, any renewals after words. A tenancy from year to year devisable and transmissible. by his representatives, shall be for the benefit of the persons to whom the beneficial interest in the subsisting lease was devised. Now, in this case, though the testator lived out the lease which he had given by his will to his wife for her life, and at his decease to Thomas James, yet as he continued to occupy till his death, and paid rent, he became a tenant from year to year, which was an |