Binfield v Lambert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1760 |
| Date | 22 May 1760 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 299
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
DICKENS, 388. BINFIELD V. LAMBERT 299 binfield v. lambert. 22 May 1760. A will executed and attested according to the statute, though two only of the witnesses could be found to be examined : the trusts were nevertheless ordered to be carried into execution. In this case, the will was executed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses, agreeably to the statute; and the bill prayed, that the will might be declared well proved, and be established, and the trusts decreed to be performed, and carried into execution, &c. Two of the witnesses were examined, who proved the due execution, and attestation of the will, but the third witness could not be found, though advertised, of which there was proof. At the hearing of the cause before Sir Thomas Clarke, M. R, a difficulty arose, what the Court could do. The plaintiff's counsel pressed his Honour to declare the will well proved. His Honour answered, that the will could not be said to be strictly proved/agreeably to the statute ; but his conscience being satisfied, as to the proof of it, he would, and he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyse v Rossborough
...a will, Seton on Decrees, p. 82, to the 31st Order of the 26th August 1841, and to French v. Baron (Dick. 138), Binfield v. Lambert (Dick. 337), Cator v. Butler (Dick. 438), Wood v. Stane (8 Price, 613), [821] Talbot v. The Earl of Radnor (3 Myl. & K. 252), Tatham v. Wright (2 Russ. & M. 1)......