Beaumont v Fell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 673
AT THE ROLLS.
See Goodinge v. Goodinge, 1749, 1 Ves. Sen. 231; Beachcroft v. Beachcroft, 1816, 1 Madd. 438; Grant v. Grant. 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 389. Distinguished, Ackworth v. Benton, 1870, 22 L. T. 776.
[141] Case 30.-beaumont versus fell. [1723.] [See Goodinge v. Goodinge, 1749, 1 Ves. Sen. 231 ; Beachcroft v. Beachcroft, 1816, 1 Madd. 438 ; Grant v. Grant. 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 389. Distinguished, Ackworth v. Benton, 1870, 22 L. T. 776.] At the Rolls. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 366, pi. 8. Legatee's both Christian and surnames mistaken, yet the legacy is good. One by will devised a legacy of 500 to Catharine Earnley; the person's name who claimed this legacy was Gertrude Yardley , and it was insisted by her, amd admitted that no person named Catharine Earnley claimed this legacy; but by the proof it appeared, that the testator's voice, when he made his will, was very low and hardly intelligible ; that the testator usually called the legatee of this 500 Gatty, which the scrivener, who took instructions for drawing the will, might easily mistake for Katy, and that the said scrivener not well understanding who this legatee of the 500 was, or what was her name, the testator directed him to /. S. and his wife to inform him further, who afterwards declared that Gertrude Yardley was the person intended. It was moreover proved, that the testator in his life-time had declared, that he would do well for her by his will. Obj. The statute of frauds requires, that a will of a personal estate above such a value should be in writing; and a will in writing giving a legacy to Catharine Earnley, cannot be a writing to entitle' Gertrude Yardley to this legacy, for that both the Christian and surname are entirely different; and by the same reason it may be maintained, that a legacy given to A. B. is a good legacy to C. D. Upon this case the Master of the Eolls took time to consider and give his resolution, at the first hearing inclining that the legacy was void. [142] But afterwards, at another day, his Honour gave his opinion, that the legacy was a good legacy to Gertrude Yard.ley, though the same was given by the will to Catharine Earnley. It is true, if this had been a grant, nay, had it been a devise of land, it had been void, by reason of the mistake both of the Christian and surname. (But see Hampshire v. Peirce, 2 Vez. 216, and in Thomas v. Thomas, 6 T. E. 671, evidence was received to shew that both names of the devisee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniell v Daniell
...Ves. sen. 216), Miller v. Trailers (8 Bing. 247), The Lord Gheyney's case (5 Co. 68 a.), Counden v. Glerke (Hob. 32), Beaumont v. .Fell (2 P. Wms. 141), Price v. Page (3 Ves. 306), Selwood v. Mildmay (4 Ves. 680), Jones v. Newman (1 W. Bl. 60), Still v. Hoste ò (6 Madd. 192), Doe d. Le Chev......
-
Mostyn (Thomas) v Mostyn (Robert John)
...of fact for the jury, on evidence admitted for that purpose, whether a mistake was in a [159] name or a description. In Beaumont v. Fell (2 P. Wms. 141; overruled in Miller v. Travers, 8 Bing. 244; 1 Moore and Sc. 342), though both the legatees' Christian and surnames were mistaken, the leg......
-
Thomas, Lord Camoys, and Elizabeth Tempest, Widow, - Appellants; Thomas Weld Blundell and Others, - Respondents
...be struck out of the will, and the name of Joseph inserted, and that upon parol evidence. There is no case, not even Beaumont v. Fell (2 P. Wms. 141)-which related to personal property-going to that extent, but the result of the cases of ambiguity of that sort is to declare the will void fo......
-
Ryall v Hannam
...of John Abbott, cited Blundell v. Gladstone (11 Sim. 467, and 1 Phil. 297, and since affirmed by the House of Lords), Beaumont v. Fell (2 P. Wms. 141), Masters v. Masters (1 P. Wins. 421). 10BBAV.B38. RYALL V. H ANN AM 689 Mr. Eoupell and Mr. James Campbell, for Margaret Austin, cited Stock......