Barton v Barton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1857 |
| Date | 27 July 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 1212
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.) 808. See Simons v. Bagnell, 1870, 19 W. R. 217.
Will. Construction. Absolute Devise and Bequest. Gift over in event of Intestacy. Repugnancy. Pleading. Misjoinder. Practice. Further Consideration Dismissing Bill.
[512] barton v. barton. July 27, 1857. [S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.) 808. See Simons v. Bagnell, 1870, 19 W. K. 217.] Will. Construction. Absolute Devise and Bequest. Gift over in event of Intestacy. Eepugnancy. Pleading. Misjoinder. Practice. Further Consideration. Dismissing Bill. Where there is an absolute devise or bequest of real or personal property, followed by a gift over in the event of the donee dying intestate, the gift over is repugnant and void. Bill dismissed for misjoinder, and because though one Plaintiff had an interest to maintain the suit the other had not, and the interest of the former was not that claimed by the bill. After a decree merely directing accounts and inquiries a bill may be dismissed on further consideration. Barton, the testator, by his will in 1849, gave and bequeathed to his sons Joseph and Thomas, and his daughter Mary, all his freehold estate, leasehold and all other-property of whatsoever nature, share and share alike. And he declared his will to be that, as to the one-third share left to his daughter, she should receive the interest only during her natural life, and that after her death her share should be divided amongst her children when they attained the age of twenty-one years; but in case she should have no child or children, or they should die under twenty-one years of age, then his will was that the said third share should be divided between his two sons, Joseph and Thomas; but, in case his sons should either or both die intestate, that his or their share or shares should be divided between their children respectively, share and share alike j and the testator appointed his said sons and one Gibson executors of his will. The testator died in 1849. His daughter Mary died in 1851, leaving an only child, who died an infant. His son Thomas died in 1852, intestate. The bill was filed on behalf of the infant children of Thomas, a son and daughter, against his widow, who was also his personal representative, and against Gibson and Joseph Barton. It averred that the Plaintiffs, as the only children of Thomas, became entitled upon his decease intestate to his share of the real and personal estates of the testator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Estate of James Boak, Deceased. Boak v Moore
...404. Whitaker v. WrightENR 2 Hare, 310. Field v. TitmussENR 1 Sim. (N. S.) 218. Brown v. RutherfordELR 14 Ch. D. 687. Barton v. BartonENR 3 K. & J. 512. Practice —— G. O. XVIII., R. 10 — G. O. XXVIII., R. 10 — Default of Pleading — Judgment for administration — Proof of debt — Claim against......
-
Re O'Hare. Madden v M'Givern (No 1)
...8 D. M. & G. 152. (1) 7 Ch. D. 669. (1) 8 D. M. & G. 167n. (2) 8 D. M. & G. 152. (1) 10 Co. 38. (2) 6 Co. 41a. (3) 8 D. M. & G. 152. (4) 3 K. & J. 512. (1) 31 Ch. Div. (2) 1 Rep. 93a. (1) 38 I. L. T. R. 113. (2) 7 Ch. D. 669. (1) 38 Ch. D. 176. ...
-
Scott v Josselyn
...the prior gift, and therefore void. They cited Hughes v. Ellis (20 Bcav. 193); Holmes v. Godson (2 Jur. (N. S.) 383); Bartm v. Barton (3 Kay & J. 512). the master of the rollh [Sir John Romilly]. It is obvious that this is a power in the proper sense of the term. There is a gift of the resi......