Between the Right Honourable Mary Eleanor Bowes (commonly called countess of Strathmore), by W. Lyon, Esq. her next friend plaintiff; and Andrew Robinson Bowes, Esq. and Wm. Birch, Henry Bourn, and George Stephens, defendants and between Andrew Robinson Bowes, Esq plaintiff; and The Right Hounourable Mary Eleanor Bowes (com-monly called Countess of Strathnmore), Wm. Lyon, chs. Shuter, Richard Harborne, James Seton, Mary Morgan, and Frances Bennet, Defen-dants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1801 |
| Date | 29 June 1801 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 1406
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C. 7 T. R. 482. Discussed, Humle v. Heygate, 1816, 1 Mer. 294. Referred to, Duffield, 1829, 3 Bligh. N. S. 346. Followed, Moneypenny v. Bristow, 1832, 2 Russ. & M. 127; Hughes v. Turner, 1835, 3 Myl. & K. 694. Explained, Yarnold v. Wallis, 180, 4 Y. & C. 165. Distinguished, Doe v. Walker, 1844, 12 Mee. & W. 60. Considered, Hughes v. Hosking, 11 Moo. P. C. 14.
[600] (!n the house of lords.) between the eight honourable mary eleanor bowes (commonly called Couutes of Strathmore), by W. lyon, esq. her next friend, Plaintiff; and andrew robinson bowes, esq. and wm. birch, henby bourn, and geobge stephens, Defendants. And between andrew robinson bowes, esq. Plaintiff; and the right honourable mary eleanor bowes (commonly called Countess of Sbrathmore), wm. lyon, chs. shuter, richard habbobne, james seton, mary morgan, and frances bennbt, Defendants. June 29th, 1801. On the appeal of the Right Honourable John Bowes Earl of Strathmore, sou and heir of the Bight Honourable Mary Eleanor Bowes (commonly called Countess of Sbrathmore), deceased. [S. C. 7 T. E. 482. Discussed, Hulme v. Heygate, 1816, 1 Mer. 294. Referred to, Duffield v. Duffield, 1829, 3 Bligh. N. S. 346. Followed, Moneypenny v, Brisimo, 1832, 2 Rus. & M. 127; Hughes v. Turner, 1835, 3 Myl. & K. 694. Explained, Yarnold v. Wallis, 1840, 4 Y. & C. 165. Distinguished, Doe v. Walker, 1844, 12 Mee. & W. 601. Considered, Hughes v. Hosldng, 1856, 11 Moo. P. C. 14.] A. by will devised "all his freehold and copyhold lands, tenements, and hereditaments," in trust for certain purposes, and afterwards purchased new landa; he then made a codicil, whereby after reciting that he had devised " all his freehold and copyhold lands, tenements, and hereditaments " to the trustees named in the will, he revoked the devise so far as it related to two of the trustees, and devised his "said lands, tenements, and hereditaments" to the other trustees upon the same truit; and concluded with declaring the codicil to be part of his will. Held that the after-purchased lands did not pass (a). George Bowe, late of Streatlam Castle, in the county of Durham, Esq. deceased, by his last will in writing, bearing date the 7th of February 1749, executed and attested as by law is required for devising real estates, did (among other things) give and devise all bis freehold and copyhold manors, messuages, lauds, tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever, not held in mortgage or in trust for any other person, nor held by any leaae or leases for lives, to his wife Mary Bowes, Edward Gilbert, Esq. the father af his wife, his (the testator's) sister Elizabeth Bowes, his sister Jane Bowes, and his friends the honourable Sir Hugh Smithson of Stanwick, in the county of York, Baronet, and Thomas Rudd, of the city of Durham, Esq. (whose trusteeship he afterwards revoked), their heirs and assigns, to the use of them, their heirs and assigns, upon such trusts and to and for such intents and purposes as thereinafter mentioned (that is to say), in case he should leave any son or sons born in his [501] lifetime, or after his death, that the same should be in trust for his first and other sons successively (a) Vide Goodtitle v. Meredith, 2 M. & S. 5. Parker v. Biscoe, 8 Taunt. 699, 709. DuffiM v. Elms, 3 B. & C. 705, 724. Matthews v. Fenables, 2 Biag. 136, 143. Guest v. Willa&ty, 2 Bing. 429. 1 E03. & P0L. B02. BOWES V. BOWES 1407 in tail male; and for default of such issue then in trust for his daughter Mary Eleanor Bowes, afterwards the Countess of Strathmore, for her life, without impeachment of waste, except wilful waste in houses; and after the determination of that estate in trust during her life to support the contingent remainders ; and after her death, then in trust for her first and other sons successively in tail male : and for default of such itsue, then in trust for all and every her daughters, as tenants in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grealey v Sampson
...[1895] 1 I. R. 346. (2) 11 C. B. N. S. 341. (3) [1907] 1 I. R. 315. (1) [1895] 1 I. R. 346. (2) [1904] 1 Ch. 726. (3) 2 M. & S. 5. (4) 2 Bos. & Pul. 500. (5) [1907] 1 I. R. (1) [1895] 1 I. R. 346. (2) 1 P. Wms. 274. (1) 15 Q. B. 848. (2) [1893] 1 Ch. 101. (3) [1895] 1 I. R. 346. (4) [1904] ......
-
Doe D. York v Walker and Another
...anil concluded with declaring the codicil to be part of his will. It was held, that (a) 1 T. R. 482 ; S. C. in error, Howe* v. Vowes, 2 Bos. & P. 500. 1038 DOE 1). WALKER 12 M. &W. 698. such ;i republication of the will did not operate to pass the after-purchased lauds. [Lord Ahinger, C. B.......
-
Monypenny v Bristow
...estates exclusively, which [127] the will had devised to his three brothers upon trust. The case of Bowes v. Howes (7 T. R,, 482; S. C. 2 Bos. & P., 500, in the House of Lords on appeal), on which the Plaintiff will rely, turned upon the use of the word " said," which was held to confine th......
-
Yarnold v Wallis
...the codicil will not be considered as including the after-purchased lands, if it merely refer to the original lands. Bowes v. Bowes (2 Bos. & P. 500), which decides that point, is very similar to the present case. Here the testator gives power to his son to charge the same- lands with an an......