Beaumont v The Marquis of Salisbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1854 |
| Date | 22 November 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 325
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 3 Eq. 369; 24 L. J. Ch. 94; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 458.
[198] beaumont v. the marquis of salisbury. Nov. 22, 1854. M3- Kjz.^ [S. C. 3 Eq. R. 369 24 L. J. Ch. 94; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 458.] Estate, limited by deed, to trustees and their heirs, to preserve, &c., construed an estate pur autre vie, to effect the general intention of the deed. An estate was limited to trustees " and their lieirx," to preserve contingent remainders, and it was subsequently, and after another life-estate, limited to the same trustees for 500 years to raise portions. It was held, having regard to the clear intention, that the estate to the trustees "and their heirs" must be controlled, and that they took an estate pur autre vie, so as to give effect to the term of 500 years. A trustee had vested in him a term of 500 years, without impeachment of waste. For the purpose of his trust he sold and conveyed it by grant and demise, omitting the words "without impeachment of waste." Held, nevertheless, that the estate of the purchaser was unimpeachable of waste. By certain conveyances, dated in 1790, some hereditaments were limited to the use of William Brewer for and during the term of his natural life, and from and after the determination of that estate to the use of James Newell and William Best, and their heirs, in trust to support contingent remainders, but nevertheless to permit the said William Brewer and his assignees to receive and take the rents and profits during his life; and from and after the decease of the said William Brewer, to the use of Rachel Brewer, for and during the term of her natural life; and from and after the several deceases of the said William Brewer, and Rachel his wife, to the use of the said James Newell and William Best, their executors, administrators and assigns, for the term of 500 years then next ensuing, iinthout impeachment of waste, upon the trusts therein declared concerning the same, with remainder to the use of John Brewer for life, with remainder to the use of the said James Newell and William Best, and their [199] heirs, during the life of, and in trust for the said John Brewer, with divers remainders over. The trusts of the term of 500 years were, after the several deceases of William Brewer and Rachel his wife, either by sale, assignment, demise or mortgage of all or any part of the said term, to raise the sum of 2200 as portions for younger children. Rachel Brewer died in 1793, William Brewer died in 1801, and William Best died before 1803, leaving Newell, his co-trustee, surviving. By an indenture bearing date the 14th of January 1803, and made between Newell, of the first part, the parties beneficially entitled to the sum of 2200, of the second part, and Reade, of the third part, after reciting the said indenture of 1790, and that Newell, as surviving trustee, had thought proper, in order to raise the said sum of 2200 and interest thereon, to sell and dispose of the hereditaments thereinafter mentioned, and that Reade had contracted with Newell for the purchase of the said hereditaments for the said term of 500 years for 2300, it was witnessed that in consideration of the sum of 2300 Newell did, by virtue of the powers, &c., grant, bargain, sell and dernis?., unto Reade, certain parts of the property, with their rights, members and appurtenances, to hold the same to the said George Reade, his executors, &c., for the term of 500 years from the day of the date of the death of the said 326 BEAUMONT V. THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY 19BEAV.200. William Brewer, at the yearly rent of a peppercorn. The words " without impeachment of waste " were not used in this deed. The Plaintiffs having, by assignment, become possessed of the term, lately contracted with the Defendant for the sale to him of part of the leasehold pre-[200]-mises comprised in the last-mentioned indenture, with the right, during the said term, to cut and sell the timber growing thereon for 1400 for the land, and 318, Os, 9d. for the timber. The Defendant objected to the title, on the ground that the Plaintiffs could not confer the right to cut and sell the timber on the property. A special case was therefore framed to determine the question. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Shapter, for the vendors. The title to the timber is free from objection. The general rule is so to construe instruments as to make them effectuate the intention apparent on the face of them. Thus, though generally the conveyance of a manor carries an advowson appeudant to it, yet such will not be the effect if a contrary intention is apparent on the deed itself; MoseUy v. Motteux (10 Mee. & Wels. 533). Another rule is to restrict the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hoo Lee Development Sdn Bhd v Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd
-
Haddelsey v Adams
...accomplish the purposes for which it is interposed, and will be construed an estate pur autre vie only; Beaumont v. Marquis of Salisbury (19 Beav. 198; and see Poad v. Watson (Exch. Ch. June 2, 1856)); Colmore v. Tyndall (2 Y. & Jer. 622); Fenables v. Morris (1 T. R. 342, 438); and the esta......
-
Fenwick v Potts
...and took it without notice of the Plaintiffs' claims. They referred to Curtis v. Price (12 Ves. 101); Beaumont v. Marquis of Salisbury (19 Beav. 198; see also Lewis v. Rees, 3 K. & J. 132); Doe v. Nicholls (1 Barn. & Cr. 342); Penny v. Watts (1 Mac. & Gor. 150); Barnhart v. Grte.nsliields (......
-
Rooke v Lord Kensington
...a right to have the Kensington estates sold. They cited Nisbet v. Smith (2 Bro. C. C. 582); Beaumont v. The Marqui* of Salisbury (19 Beav. 198); Salmoay v. Strawbridge (1 Kay & J. 371); Dodson v. Powell (18 L. J. (N. S.), Ch. 237); Lord Kenningkm v. Bm.we.rie (16 Beav. 194, and 19 Beav. 39)......