Bedford v Bedford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1866 |
| Date | 24 March 1866 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 927
ROLLS COURT
[342] bedford v. bedford. March 24, 1866. A sole Plaintiff having died after decree, an order to revive against his devisee was made, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52. This was a suit for the administration of the real and personal estate of a testator. After the decree had been made the sole Plaintiff died. (1) Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602 ; G-illespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130. 928 HALE V. BUSHILL 35 BEAV. 343. Mr. C. Browne now asked for an order to revive under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52. He referred to Dendy v. Dewly (5 W. Rep. 221); Williams v. Williams (9 W. Rep. 296); Jackson v. Ward (1 Giff. 30); and Laurie v. Crush (32 Beav. 117): see also Eyre v. Brett (34 Beav. 441); and Earl Durham v. Leganl (Ibid. 442); and observed that a decree having been made, the order now asked would not, as it would before decree, be open to the objection, that it would be obtaining a supplemental decree before a decree had been made in the original cause. the master or the rolls [Lord Romilly]. I think that does make a distinction. Take the order.
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 1023
ROLLS COURT
See Allan v. Gott, 1872, L. R. 7 Ch. 446.
[584] bedford v. bedford. Feb. 21, 22, 1865. [See Allan v. Gott, 1872, L. E. 7 Ch. 446.] A testator gave his real and personal estate to trustees, upon trust, out of the rents and produce, or by a sale or other disposition thereof, to raise an annuity for his wife and certain legacies, and to invest the surplus. He directed a sale of his real estate after the death of his wife, and gave his residue to his children. Held, that the personal estate was not primarily charged with the annuity, but that the real and personal estate formed one common fund for its payment. A testator gave his real and personal estate to trustees, in trust to raise an annuity for his widow and invest the surplus ; and after her death he directed a sale of his real estate, and declared that the produce " should be deemed to be part of his personal estate and should be subject to the disposition " of his personal estate, which he gave to his children. Held, that the realty was converted into personalty only for the purposes of the will, and that the heir of the testator was entitled to so much of the real estate as had lapsed by the death of a child in the testator's lifetime. The testator, by his will dated in 1867, devised and bequeathed his...
To continue reading
Request your trial