Between Marquis Cholmondeley and the Honourable Ann Seymour Damer, Plaintiffs, and Lord Clinton, Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 1036
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Wing v. Angrave, 1860, 8 H. L. C. 218.
[See Wing v. Angrave, I860, 8 H. L. C. 218.] An estate being in lease, A. enters and receives the rents during the continuance of the lease, and afterwards continues in possession, up to a period more than twenty years distant from the time of his entry. Within 20 years after the expiration of the lease, B. brings an ejectment, and files a bill for discovery ; though the ejectment might be maintained at law, a demurrer to the discovery is good. Where there has been adverse possession, not accounted for by some disability, as coverture or infancy for twenty years, a court of equity ought not to interfere. The bill in this case was filed in Trinity Term 1813, for a discovery in aid of an action of ejectment, brought upon the joint and several demises of Lord Cholmondeley and Mrs. Darner, and upon the demise of certain other persons, with respect to whom it was stated, that doubts had arisen, whether they were seized of the legal interest in the estates in question, under a codicil to the will of George Earl of Orford. The bill stated, that Roger Tuckfield being seized in fee simple of a moiety of the manor and borough of Ashburton, did by indentures of lease and release dated the 26th and 27th of April 1706, convey the same, together with other hereditaments, to the [108] use of himself for life, with remainder to the use of the heirs of his body, with remainder to the use of his sister Margaret, the wife of Samuel Rolle, for ninety-nine years if she should so long live, with remainder to the use of trustees during the life of the said Margaret Rolle, with remainder to the use of the first and other sons of the said Margaret Rolle successively in tail male, with remainder to the use of her issue female, with remainder to the use of his own right heirs for ever. That the said Roger Tuckfield died intestate and without issue leaving the said Margaret Rolle his sister and heir at law. That the said Margaret Rolle the elder had issue, a daughter, Margaret Rolle the younger, who intermarried with Robert Walpole, afterwards Earl of Orford, and by him had issue a son, George, afterwards Lord Walpole and Earl of Orford ; and that by a deed poll dated the 2d of April 1750, the said Margaret Rolle the elder, limited the remainder in fee of the said moiety of the said manor and borough of Ashburton, to the use of the said George Lord Walpole for life, with remainder to the use of trustees to preserve contingent remainders, with remainder to the use of the first and other sons and other daughters of the said George Lord Walpole successively in tail general, with remainder to the use of the said George Lord Walpole his heirs and assigns for ever. And after further stating, that the said Margaret Rolle the elder died in 1754, leaving Margaret Rolle the younger, then Countess of Orford, her only child and heir at law ; and that Margaret Countess of Orford died in 1781 ; and that upon her death, the said George then Lord Walpole became, as the plaintiffs were advised, seised of the aforesaid estate at Ashburton by purchase as tenant in fee simple in possession, subject to the contingency of his having issue, under and by virtue of the limitations contained in the said deed-poll of the 2d of April 1750 ; the bill went on to state, that the said George Lord Walpole, then Earl of Orford, did not by his will dispose of or affect the said estate at Ashburton, [109] and that by a codicil to his will, dated the 4th of December 1776, after reciting that he had by his will devised all his real estates to certain uses, but had not charged the same with the payment of his debts or legacies, he revoked his said will so far as the same was incompatible with his said codicil, and subjected all his real and personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever to the payment of all his juat debts, and the legacies thereinafter mentioned, and funeral expenses; and for effectuating the payment thereof, he gave devised and bequeathed all his said real and personal estates to be sold, and directed and empowered his trustees therein named, or the survivors or survivor of them, his heirs, TURN. &B. 110. CHOLMONDELEY (MARQUIS) V. CLINTON (LORD) 1037 executors, or administrators, as soon as conveniently might be after his death, to sell and dispose of the same for the payment of his debts, legacies, and funeral expenses ; and appointed the trustees therein named to be the executors of his will. The bill then stated, that George Earl of Orford died on the 5th of December 1791 without issue, leaving Horatio Earl of Orford his uncle and heir at law, and several of the trustees named in his will surviving ; and that upon his death, Robert George William Trefusis, afterwards Lord Clinton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chadwick v Broadwood
...and any legal remedy the Plaintiff' might have, still that he was not entitled to any assistance in equity ; Cholmimddfy v. Clinton (1 Turn. & R. 107). Secondly, that this case was brought within the third section of the Act pleaded, and that the right of the Plaintiff, and of those through......