5

was supposed to require [such?] a [const?] in Mac Laroth v Baron. 5
Ves. 168, but [?] [?] of the [Roch?] ([?] R [P?] [A?]) {[?] not fail to} said [with?] emphasis
Say that it was an unusual [justification?] of the [?] enforced only by

the [?] of the phraseology. In [Barnes?] v [P?]. 8, 607, Sir Walgrant[?] (M.R) heated the word 'family' as clearly embracing children alone, unless otherwise determined by the context. The same great judge maker, held in Grewys v Coleman, 9 Ves, 323-4 that the word was me[?] of different [?][?], according to the context, but^seems to^ consider that if [?] not naturally comprehend a husband, as Ld Heranley had held in Mac[?] Leroth vs Baern[?] 5 Ves. 168. In Blackwell vs Bull, Keen 181, Ld Langdale (MR) regarded the term of [?] impact of lg force of the content, applied if to include a wife. To the same effect in Woods v Woods 1Mg. & Gr. 407 (Ld tottenham C). In Brandne v Brandon & Luroast [?]. 321 Sir M. Plummer (MR), regard the word as reduced to the practice al[?] meaning (standing alone) of extending the [?] days. see also ^Wright v [?] 17 Va 261; S.C. 19 Va. 300 [??]

I perceive no circumstances or enjunction tending to change the natural, or [?], general meaning of the word family? But on the contrary, it would rather seem that F did not de-sign to provide for any but his own descendants.

2. If to obtain a divorce, is it entitled to anything, or out of the trust-estate, by virtue of any [merited?] right?

I take it to be clear that he is not, if supposed to have a separate estate. Whom that hypothesis, H had no interest in the property, during the coventure[?], not even (as I think), to the extent of a support whilst the [?] with his wife. If the coventure should continue to subsist, the H, who (whom the supposition of her having a separate estate) is as I apprehend entitled in [fee?] - simple to the trust in the land, but (under your statute abolishing the Rule in Shelley's Case) only to a life estate in estate, the personal fact, fund; and (whom the supposition of her having a separate estate)...your Alabama Statute of [Devises?] is like [?], may devise the

was supposed to require [such?] a [const?] in Mac Laroth v Baron. 5
Ves. 168, but [?] [?] of the [Roch?] ([?] R [P?] [A?]) {[?] not fail to} said [with?] emphasis
Say that it was an unusual [justification?] of the [?] enforced only by

the [?] of the phraseology. In [Barnes?] v [P?]. 8, 607, Sir Walgrant[?] (M.R) heated the word 'family' as clearly embracing children alone, unless otherwise determined by the context. The same great judge maker, held in Grewys v Coleman, 9 Ves, 323-4 that the word was me[?] of different [?][?], according to the context, but^seems to^ consider that if [?] not naturally comprehend a husband, as Ld Heranley had held in Mac[?] Leroth vs Baern[?] 5 Ves. 168. In Blackwell vs Bull, Keen 181, Ld Langdale (MR) regarded the term of [?] impact of lg force of the content, applied if to include a wife. To the same effect in Woods v Woods 1Mg. & Gr. 407 (Ld tottenham C). In Brandne v Brandon & Luroast [?]. 321 Sir M. Plummer (MR)