WATERS VS. HOWARD. 115

sideration. The existence of this contract was denied by the
answers, which insisted, that the testator designed giving them
the use only of the property; this position being based upon
the various acts of the testator, and his declarations, oral and

written.]

THE CHANCELLOR:

This question can of course only be determined by a careful
examination of the evidence, and after having read it with much
attention, I find it, to say the least, very questionable, whether
the elder Mr. Waters did mean to pass to the complainants,
or to the surviving complainant, in any event, such a title to the
property in controversy as is sought to be enforced by this bill.

Looking to the whole evidence, written and oral, I am strong-
ly inclined to the opinion, that the ground taken by the defence
is the true one, and that the purchase of this farm, and the plac-
ing the grandson upon it, was intended for the double purpose,
of given him the means of earning a present support, and as an
experiment, by which the grandfather hoped to wean him from
his extravagant habits. Any other supposition would subject
the grandfather to the imputation of having practiced upon his
grandson and wife, the grossest imposition. If, as the complain-
ants say, they were induced to marry upon the faith of the en-
gagement of old Mr. Waters, fully disclosed, to give them the
title to this farm, and to perform the other stipulations set up
in the bill, and he, immediately after the marriage, took the title
to himself, he was guilty of a degree of cruelty and deception
towards them wholly inconsistent with that affection and regard
tor their welfare which appears upon the face of all his letters,
and by the whole evidence. The marriage took place on the
4th of February, 1846, and the deed from Moore to the elder
Mr. Waters was executed on the 17th of the same month and
year. Now, can it readily be believed, that this old gentleman
would have entrapped these young people into getting married
by an agreement to make them the owners of this property, and
then in thirteen days from that time shamefully violate his en-
gagement by taking and keeping the title in himself? Such a