the refidue of his real estate to his brother William Pate, his heirs and affigns for ever. Sir Robert Ladbroke died in the lifetime of William Davy the teftator. William Davy junior entered upon the estates, and died without issue, having devised his eftates to John Minuyer, Robert Pate, and Thomas, Butler, to fell. William Pate, the refiduary devifee in the will of William Davy the father, devised his reverfion, expectant on the death of William Davy junior, to Robert Pate in fee. Barwell Browne, the heir of Lyde Browne, and Robert Pate, (who conceived himself, as residuary legatee in the will of William Davy the father, to be entitled to the moiety devised to Sir Robert Ladbroke, and which became lapfed by his death in the lifetime of the teftator), fold the eftate for a valuable confideration to Urmfton the plaintiff. The conveyance to Urmfton recited the will of William Davy the father, the death of Sir Robert Ladbroke in the lifetime of the teftator, the death of William Davy the fon without iffue, and that William Pate, the residuary devifee in the will of William Davy the father, had made his will, reciting that, in cafe of the death of William Davy the fon without iffue, he would become entitled to the moiety of the estate devised to Sir Robert Ladbroke, and had, by his faid will, given the reverfion of his faid moiety to his fon (the defendant) in fee: and there was inferted in it a covenant, that, notwithstanding any act done by the defendant Who are bound to enter into these Covenants. or his ancestors, or any perfon claiming under him or them, he was feifed in fee of the premises. The purchafer, finding Robert Pate had no title to the moiety conveyed to him, (it having defcended to William Davy the fon as heir to his father, and belonging now to his devifees,) filed a bill in chancery, praying that his purchase-money might be restored to him. The defendant, Robert Pate, demurred to the bill for want of equity, and the demurrer was allowed. § 65. All perfons, who convey lands whereof they are seised to their own use, are bound to enter into the ufual covenants for the title of the lands conveyed. But perfons, who convey as trustees or under powers, as they are not beneficially interested in the fale, are not obliged to enter into any covenants, except that they have done no act to incumber the estate; or to destroy the power under which they convey. § 66. When the practice of conveying or devifing lands to trustees, in truft to fell, became frequent; it was laid down as a rule among the conveyancers, that the perfons entitled to the money, arising from the fale of the lands, were bound to enter into the usual covenants, for the title; because, as fuch perfons had the beneficial interest in the land, they ought to be confidered in equity as the owners thereof. This doctrine was confirmed in the following cafe, § 67. Mr. § 67. Mr. Thomas Lloyd devifed certain eftates in the isle of Anglefea, and county of Carnarvon, to trustees; upon truft, out of the rents thereof or by felling or mortgaging the fame, to raise fuch fums as should be fufficient to discharge a mortgage, affecting an estate, which the teftator had fettled by deed on Mrs. Hefter Webb, as well as all his just debts. Upon a bill for carrying the trufts of this will into execution, the estates in Anglesea and Carnarvon were fold for 27,000/.; and a draft of the conveyance was prepared by Mr. Booth, the purchaser's counsel; to which Mrs. Webb was a party, and made to enter into the ufual covenants for the title. The counsel for the grantors, Mr. Weldon, together with two other conveyancers, Mr. Lane and Mr. Fazakerly, objected to the draft; and gave their opinion, that Mrs. Webb was not bound to enter into covenants for the title. The draft was again referred to Mr. Booth, who fupported his former opinion; and contended that, where a man devised an estate to trustees, upon truft to fell and pay over the money to 7. S. and the trustees contracted with a purchaser for the fale of the eftate; there, J. S. the devifee of the money, who had the real beneficial interest in the estate, must covenant for the title; and that this was every day's practice. The Mafter, to whom the draft of the conveyance was referred, reported, that Mrs. Webb was not bound to enter into covenants for the title. Upon exceptions being taken to this report, Lord Hardwicke made the following order : Lloyd v. ss Let Dutchess of Rutland v. Wakeman, Dom. Proc. 1798. 8 Bro. Parl. Ca. 145. 3 Vef. Jun. 233.504. "Let the exception be allowed; and let the Mafter "alter the draft of the conveyance prepared and "certified by him, by inferting therein proper covea "nants from Mrs. Hefter Webb against her own acts, "and the acts of Mr. Thomas Lloyd her devifor, as "to fo much as fhe will be benefited by the eftate." § 68. The rule, established in the above cafe, has been in fome degree weakened by the following modern determination. § 69. Thomas Eyre devised the manor of Eastwell to William Wakeman and Vincent Eyre, their heirs and affigns; upon trust to fell the fame, and to apply the money in payment of his debts and legacies, and to place out the refidue on public or private fecurities. The interest (after fatisfying two small annuities) to his wife lady Mary Eyre for life, and, after her death, two fifths to James Eyre for life, two other fifths to Charles Eyre for life, and the remaining fifth to Mary Eyre for life, the principal to go to the children of the faid James, Charles, and Mary Eyre. The appellant, as guardian of the Duke of Rutland her fon, contracted for the purchase of this eftate, with the devifees and truftces of Thomas Eyre; and infifted that lady Mary Eyre, James and Charles Eyre, and Mary Eyre, fhould covenant for the title, as far as they were benefited by the fale. This was refused by the refpondents; and it was decreed by the Court of Chancery, that the appel lants lants fhould atcept a conveyance without thofe cove nants. Upon an appeal from this decree, it was contended on behalf of the appellants, that lady Mary Eyre, James Eyre, Charles Eyre, and Mary Eyre, were neceffary parties to the bill; because the appellants were intitled to have covenants for the title from them to the extent of the benefit, which they derived from the fale. That, from the words and purport of the contract, they were entitled to fuch covenants; and they were advised, that a proper conveyance could not be made without them. The agreement was, not to purchase the vendor's title, but a good title to the estate: and, as the conveyance by leafe and releafe paffes only what the vendors can legally convey, and contains no warranty; the purchaser cannot be affured of a good title, nor guarded against latent incumbrances, without fuch covenants. If the devife had been to the refpondents themselves, for their own use and benefit, fubject to the payment of debts and legacies, and they had contracted to fell, they must have covenanted with the purchaser for the title; as it would, in that cafe, have been their estate. Upon the fame principles the devifees of the purchafe money, after payment of debts, were compellable to enter into fimilar covenants, to the extent of their respective interests: for it was in fubftance their cftate, and they might pay off the incumbrance, and prevent the |