Bennet v Vade and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1742 |
| Date | 28 June 1742 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 597
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Allen v. M'Pherson, 1847, 1 H. L. C. 210.
Case 226.-richards versus baker and Others,. June 26, 1742. (Reg. Lib. B. 1741, fol. 340.) The question was, Whether the words in a will, so long as my wife continues a widow, and no longer, are to be confined to the testator's house at Edmonton, or to be extended to the whole that was devised to her : Lord Hardwicke held, that the houshold goods, furniture, plate, linen, and china, were put under the same restriction as the house itself ; but that the jewels, coach, chariot, and coach-horses, were the wife's absolute property. The question in this cause arose upon the words of Mr. John Richards's will, dated August 10,-1736, and came on upon an appeal from the Bolls. The testator gave two thousand pounds to his wife Dorothy Richards, to be paid in six months after his decease ; and then says, I do also give and bequeath unto my dear and loving wife, all my houshold goods, furniture, plate, linen and china, in my house at Edmonton, wherein I now dwell, or to the said house belonging ; and also the said house, gardens, field and land thereto belonging, so long as she continues my widow, and no longer : And I likewise give her my jewels, coach, chariot, and coach-horses ; and the testator gave the residue of his personal estate to the child his wife was then enseint with, if a son, and appointed him executor of his will. This cause was heard before the Master of the Rolls, on the 23d of December 1737, who decreed, that the defendant Dorothy Richards should leave with the Master, a schedule of the several things specifically bequeathed to her during her widowhood. (Vide Bill v. Kinaston, ante, 82.) [322] It was insisted by the counsel for the testator's widow, that the condition of her marrying again, is to be confined to the first part of the legacy, which ends with the words his house at Edmonton ; and that the words and also the said house, gardens, &c., together with my jewels, &c., is an absolute devise to the widow, and that she has the whole property in them, and not subject to the condition; and as the words, so long as she continues a widow, are interlined between the first clause, they shall be confined to that only, and the others are absolute legacies. The counsel for the defendant insisted it is one intire clause, and must be taken together, and then the condition extends to the whole; and relied upon Boll's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v McPherson and Others
...(2 Vern. 8), Plume v. Beale (1 P. Wms. 388), Steventon v. Gardiner (2 P. Wms. 286), Kerrich v. Bransby (7 Bro. P.C. 437), Bennett v. Vade (2 Atk. 324), Gingell v. Home (9 Sim. 539), Barnesly v. Powel (1 Ves., sen. 284), Podmore v. Gunning (7 Sim. 644). There is no case among those cited fro......
-
Hindson v Weatherill
...gift of the £1000 can be impeached. On this point they cited Archer v. Mosse (2 Vern. 8), Plume v. Beale (1 P. Wms. 388), Bennett v. Fade (2 Atk. 324), Well v. Claverden (2 Atk. 424), Kerriek v. 'Bransby (7 Bro. P. C. 437), Jones v. Jones (3 Mer. 161), Podmore v. Gunning (7 Sim. 644), Allen......
-
William Henry Blachford, and Margaret Susan his Wife (Heiress-at law of Thomas Henry Skinner, deceased), - Appellants; Catherine Christian, - Respondent
...Knight (K.C.) and Campbell, for the Respondent. The principal cases referred to in the course of the argument were Bennett v. Vale, 2 Atk. 324; Evans v. Blood, 3 Brown Parl. Gas. 632; Filmer v. Gott, 4 Brown Parl. Gas. 230; Watt v. Grove, 2 Scho. and Lef. 491; James v. Greaves, '2 P. Wms. 2......
-
Jones v Gregory
...of late years been exercised, but it exists; Andrews v. Powys (2 Bro. P. C. 504), Kerrich v. Bransby (7 Bro. P. C. 437), Bennet v. Fade (2 Atk. 324), which are commented on in Middleton v. Sherbwne (4 Y. & C. 358); Webb v. Claverden (2 Atk. 424); Bamesley v. Powell (1 Ves. 119); Pembertmv. ......