1«49.  and  m  their  deaths  there  is  a  limitalion  to  *'ali  tnd
ereiy  their  child  and  children  "  to  be  equally  divided.
So  far  there  is  a  dear  vested  interest  Their  Bhara
were  to  be  paid  at  twenty-one,  or  marriage,  nnless  sach
times  of  payment  should  happen  in  the  lifetime  of  ihe
parents  or  of  the  smrriyor,  in  which  case  the  same  was
to  be  paid  immediately  on  the  death  of  such  survivor.
Then  there  is  a  clause  of  survivorship  in  case  any  child
died  before  he  became  *'  entitled  to  the  payment"  of  bis
share.
I  will  look  at  the  case  of  Whatford  v.  Moorey  and  if
I  find  reason  to  alter  my  opinion,  I  will  mention  it
again.  I  do  not  think  I  ought  to  be  called  on  to  decide
this  debateable  matter  on  this  form  of  proceeding,  (a)
\  should  not  have  done  so,  except  on  the  request  of  all
parties.
Dee.  82.  The  MASTER  of  the  BOLLS.
I  have  looked  at  H'hatford'  v.  Moore,  and  see  no  rea-
son to  alter  the  opinion  I  have  already  expressed.
(a)  On  petition  under  the  Trustee  Indemnity  Act,  10  &  11  '^^
c.  96.
CASES  IN  CHANCERY.
3t8


1860.
READ  V.  STRANGEWAYS.
Jan.  22.
