Aspinall v Petvin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1824 |
| Date | 28 January 1824 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 215
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 2 L. S. Ch. (O. S.) 121. See Humphreys v. Humphreys, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 479; Holland v. Wood, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 96; Ralph v. Carrick, 1877-79, 5 Ch. D. 995; 1 Ch. D. 877. Cf. In re Springfield [1894], 3 Ch. 603.
Devise. Implication.
[544] aspinall v. petvin. Jan. 28, 1824. [S. C. 2 L. S. Ch. (0. S.) 121. See Humphreys v. Humphreys, 1867, L. E. 4 Eq. 479; Holland v. Wood, 1870, L. E. 11 Eq. 96; Ealph v. Carrick, 1877-79, 5 Ch. D. 995; 11 Ch. D. 877. Cf. In re Springfield [1894], 3 Ch. 603]. Devise. Implication. Devise of lands to trustees, upon trust to pay one moiety of the rents to devisor's wife for her life, and the other to his only son ; and after the wife's death to convey to the son in fee; but if the son died, without issue in the wife's life, to convey to devisor's nephew in fee. The son died without issue in the wife's life. She is not entitled for lifej by implication, to the moiety devised to the son. The bill prayed that it might be declared that, according to the true construction of Humphrey Aspinall's will, the Plaintiff John Aspinall became entitled, on the death of William Heron Aspinall, to one moiety of the rents of the hereditaments devised by the testator, during the life of the testator's widow. The widow put in a general demurrer for want of equity to part of this bill. On the argument of the demurrer, the questions were whether, on W. H. Aspinall's death, the widow became entitled to an estate for life, by implication, in the moiety of the testator's real estates, which was not expressly devised to her, or whether, on that event, the Plaintiff became entitled to it. The will was as follows :- " I give and devise to my good friends Thomas Skinner and Richard Knight all and every my freehold and copyhold messuages, lands, tenements, and here-[545]- (1) In the course of the argument in this case the propriety of a Defendant availing himself of the Statute of Frauds by way of demurrer was discussed, and the cases of Wkitchurth v. Bevis, 2 Bro. C. C. 559, and Redding v. IFilkes, 3 Bro. C. C. 400, were referred to. 216 ASPINALL V. PETVIN 1 SIM. & ST. B. ditamenta whatsoever, to hold to them the said Thomas Skinner and Richard Knight and their heirs, upon trust to receive and take the rents, issues and profits thereof, and to pay and apply one moiety or half part thereof to my dear wife Elizabeth Aspinall during her natural life for her own use, and to pay and apply the other moiety or half part thereof for the use and benefit of my son William Heron Aspinall, during his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v Shannon
...Brown v. De Laet 4 Br. C. C. 534. Doe v. Summerset 5 Bur. 2608; 2 W. Bl. 692. King v. Ringstead 9 B. & Cr. 218. Aspinal v. PetvinENR 1 Sim. & St. 544. Stevens v. HaleENR 2 Dr. & Sm. 22. Crawley v. DixonENR 23 Beav. 112. Doe v. Summerset 5 Bur. 2608; 2 W. Bl. 692. Bird v. Hunsdon 2 Swan. 342......
-
Cranley v Dixon
...the death of the last annuitant. That is the construction which, in my opinion, the will properly bears. note.-See Aspinall v. Petvin, 1 Sim. & S. 544; Henderson v. Constable, 5 Beav, 297 ; Hudleston v. Gouldsbury, 10 Beav. 547 ; Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav. 330; Swan v. Holmes, 19 Beav. ......
-
Doe, Dem. Ann Cape, Grace Cape, and Judith Cape, v Thomas Walker
...the implication must be so strong as clearly to satisfy the court that such was the intention of the testator. In Aspinal v. Petvin (1 Sim, & Stu. 544), Leach V. C. said, " It has been argued, that it is now to be considered as the rule of construction, that if an estate be given, not to th......
-
SARAH CAMPBELL, Widow; and of ANNE CAMPBELL, WILLIAM CAMPBELL and MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Infants, by the said SARAH CAMPBELL their next friend, … Petitioners MARY ANNE CAMPBELL, … Respondent
...B. & C. 228; S. C. 4 M. & Ry. 67). The King v. The Inhabitants of RingsteadENR 9 B. & C. 219, 233. ENR 6 Dow. 22. Aspinall v. PetvinENR 1 S. & S. 544. Davenport v. ColtmanENRENR 9 M. & W. 481; S. C. 12 Sim. 588. Hall v. Hill 1 Dr. & War. 94. The King v. The Inhabitants of Ringstead Ubi sup.......