Ashley v Pocock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1744 |
| Date | 19 December 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 921
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 66.-basset versus basset, December 17, 1744. 8 Vin. Ab. 87, pi. 12, ;S.'C.-A posthumous child born after the next rent-day had incurred after the death of his father, is under the 10 & 11 W. 3, intitled to the intermediate profits of the lands settled as well as the lands themselves. Lord Chancellor. The bill was brought by a posthumous child to have an account taken of the clear rents of the father's estate John Pendarvis Basset. The disputes are both in regard to the real and personal estate; I will take them in their order. First, As to the real estate. The question relating to the estate of John Pendarvis Basset is this ; the plaintiff, now an infant, is a posthumous son and heir, for the father died, and left his wife ensient of him : the real estate consists of different parts, and under different interests ; of some small parts the father was seised in fee; the greatest part is included under a settlement, which was to the father for life, then to secure a rent-charge of 800 a year to his wife for a jointure, remainder to trustees during the life of the father to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the first and every other son of John Pendarvis Basset, remainder to the defendant the brother of John Pendarvis Basset. SATE. 204. BASSET V. BASSET 919 The plaintiff was born after the next rent-day had incurred after the death of his father. It has been insisted by his counsel he had a right to enter, and was intitled to the rents in the intermediate time. The determination of this point will depend on 10 & 11 W. 3, c. 16, which is to enable posthumous children to take estates as if born in their father's life-time. The mischief intended to be remedied by the act, " Whereas it often happens that, " by marriage, and other settlements, estates are limited in remainder to the use of " the sons and daughters, the issue of such marriage, with remainders over, without " limiting an estate to trustees to preserve the contingent remainders limited to such " sons and daughters, by which means such sons and daughters, if they happen to be " born after the decease of their father, are in danger to be defeated of their remainder " by the [204] next in remainder after them, and left unprovided for by such settle-" ments, contrary to the intent of the parties that made those settlements. " The provision, be it enacted, that where any estate already is or shall hereafter " by any marriage or other settlement be limited in remainder to, or to the use of the " first or other son or sons of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaunt and Others v Taylor and Others
...That a judgment against an executor stands on the same footing as one recovered against his testator, appears from Ashley v. Pocock (3 Atkyns, 208); Went-worth's Office of Executors, 145; and Hancock v. Prowd (1 Wins. Saund. 331), where the form of pleading a judgment against an executor is......
-
Creed v Creed
...CREED and CREED. Ashley v. PocockENR 3 Atk. 208. Sibley v. Perry 7 Ves. 534. Rogers v. MillicentENR 2 Dick. 570. Hume v. EdwardsENR 3 Atk. 693. Vintner v. Pix 1 Ch. Rep. 133. Brown v. Allen 1 Ver. 31. Beeston v. BoothUNK 4 Mad. 161. Grove v. BansonENR 1 Ch. Cas. 148. Gibbons v. HillENR 1 Di......
-
Burke v Killikelly
...Hall v. Tapper 3 B. & Adol. 655. Smith v. O'Reilly 1 Cr. & Dix, 161. Jeffreson v. MortonENR 2 Wms. Saund. 9, c note. Ashley v. PocockENR 3 Atk. 208. Morrice v. Bank of EnglandENR Cas. temp. Talbot, 217; S. C. 3 Swanst. 573; 2 Bro. P. C. 465, Toml. ed. Simpson v. TaylorUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 182......