Beckley v Newland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 691
LORD MACCLESFIELD.
Distinguished, Debenham v. Ox, 1749, 1 Ves. Sen. 277. See Wethered v. Wethered, 1828, 2 Sim. 191; Higgins v. Hill, 1887, 56 L. T. 430.
Case 47.-beckley versus newland. [1723.] [Distinguished, Debenham v. Ox, 1749, 1 Ves. Sen. 277. See Wethered v. Wethered, 1828, 2 Sim. 191; Higgins v. Hill, 1887, 56 L. T. 430.] Lord Macclesfield. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 21, pi. 19. Two article, that whatever /. S. shall by his will leave to either of them should be equally divided betwixt both; such agreement good : also if after this one of them contrives that /. S. shall leave part of his estate to a third person in trust for him ; this is within the articles. The plaintiff Simon Beckley, and Sir George Newland, married two sisters who were cousins and presumptive heirs of Mr. Turgis a very rich man ; and Beckley and Newland had been for many years partners in the business of a scrivener; and Mr. Turgis had made and revoked several wills, but at length made a will in favour of Sir George New- 692 BECKLEY V. NEWLAND 2 P. WMS. 183. land, whereby he left a great real and personal estate to Sir George, but gave only a small real estate to Mr. Beckley. Before the execution of this will, the plaintiff Beckley and Sir George Newland entered into articles, whereby they agreed, that whatsoever should be given to either of them, should be equally divided. And the words of the articles were plain as to the equal division of the personal estate of Turgis, which should be given by the will to either Beckley, or Sir George Newland; but as to the real estate, the words of the articles were doubtful, and [183] seemed rather not to extend thereto; however, the plaintiff Beckley brought a bill against the executors of Sir George Newland, for an account of the real and personal estate which came to Newland by Turgis's will. Obj. These articles are unfair, and not to be encouraged, viz. to agree to divide a man's estate, while the man is living, and to share that in which the parties at the time of making the agreement, had no manner of right, and possibly might never have ; and it is to disappoint the will of the testator, who, in all probability, would have given nothing to either of the parties to this agreement, in case he could have foreseen that his disposition should be frustrated as soon as ever he should die, nay, in his life-time was agreed to be divided. Lord Chancellor. A performance of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin
...v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 (refd) Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody [1990] 1 QB 923 (folld) Beckley v Newland (1723) 2 P Wms 182; 24 ER 691 (folld) Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 (refd) Fry v Lane (1889) 40 Ch D 312 (refd) Harvey v Mount (1845) 8 Beav 439; 50 ER 1......
-
Meek v Kettlewell
...the Court will not enforce a voluntary contract, as against the party making it, is clear: Moth v. Frame (Amb. 394); Beckley v. Newland (2 P. Wms. 182); Higden [469] v. Williamson (3 P. Wms. 132); Grey v. Kentish (1 Atk. 280); Wright v. Wright (1 Ves. 409); Carleton v. Leighton (3 Mer. 667)......
-
Carleton v Sir William Leighton
...or possibility of an heir at law in the property expected from his ancestors may be made the subject of contract. Beckley v. Newland (2 P. Wms. 182), Hobson v. Trevor.(2) It is a possibility which, if not assignable at law, is nevertheless within the statute (5 Geo. 2, c. 30, s. 1). In the ......
-
Lyde v Mynn
...is contended to be void, -on the ground of its relating to a mere expectancy ; and the cases of Beckley v. Newland and Hobson v. Trevor (2 P. Wms., 182, 191), in Lord Macclesfield's time, are said to have been shaken by later cases, and particularly by Hanvood v. Tooke. But, so far is this ......