Camfield against Gilbert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1803 |
| Date | 10 May 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 694
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Discussed, Doe d. Hick v. Dring, 1814, 2 M. & S. 453; Haw v. Earles, 1846, 15 M. & W. 456. Held obsolete, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 643. Distinguished, Hall v. Hall [1892], 1 Ch. 365.
camfield against gilbert. Tuesday, May 10th, 1803. Where one seised in fee of real estate by her will first made a disposition of her real estate to two persons for life, reserving a rent-charge out of the same, payable first to her uncle for life, and then to her heir at law for life,; which, "together with the repairs during the term, should be considered as his rent for the said farm;" and afterwards she proceeds to make a disposition of her personal property, and then bequeaths and devises "all the rest, residue, and remainder of her effects wheresoever and whatsoever, and of what nature, kind, or quality soever (except her wearing apparel and plate) to certain nephews and nieces, to be equally divided between them by her executors:" Held that the reversion in fee in the real estate did not pass by the residuary clause, but descended to the heir at law, although he had a rent-charge devised to him for his life out of the same estate in the hands of the tenants for life. [Discussed, Doe d. Hick v. Dring, 1814, 2 M. & S. 453; Haw v. Earles, 1846, 15 M. ò & W. 456. Held obsolete, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 8 Gh. D. 643. Distinguished, Hallv. Hall [1892], 1 Ch. 365.] This was an action for money had and received, which came on to be tried on the general issue before Lord Ellenborough at the sittings after Michaelmas term last, when a verdict was found for plaintiff for 501., subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case. Elizabeth Arnold of Speldhurst in Kent, being seised in fee of the tenements after 3 EAST, 517. CAMFIELD V. GILBERT 695 mentioned to be devised, by her will, dated 20th of August 1794, and duly executed and attested, gave a$ follows: " I give and bequeath all that freehold messuage, tenement, and farm of mine J now hold in my possession, together with the field I bought, to my cousins John and Sarah Luck during the-term of their natural lives, subject to a rent-charge of 101. per ann., first to my uncle John Vallance for the term of his natural life, and from and after his decease to my brother John Gilbert for the term of bis-natural life, which sum of 101. per annum, together with the repairs during the term aforesaid, shall be considered as his rent for the said farm. I give to the said John Luck my two best beds with all the furniture, the eight-[517]-day clock, and the easy chair. I also give to Elizabeth Boorman of, &c. the sum of 101. I also give to my nephew John Gilbert 51. I will that all my just debts and funeral expences be paid by my executors hereinafter named. I also will, bequeath, and devise all the rest, residue, and remainder of my effects, wheresoever and whatsoever, and of what nature, kind, or quality soever, (save and except my wearing apparel and plate, which I will to my nieces Sarah, Anne, and Mary Gilbert,) to my three nephews John, William, and Isaac Gilbert, and their three sisters Sarah, Anne, and Mary, to be equally divided amongst them by my executors." The testatrix afterwards died without altering or revoking her will, leaving John Gilbert her only brother and heir at law her surviving; which will was duly proved by her executors therein named. The said Sarah Luck and John Vallance are both since deceased. I'he said John Gilbert, as heir at law, claims the reversion in fee, expectant on the decease of said John Luck, in the freehold estate of the said testatrix, as also of the said annuity of 101. per ann. during the life of the said John Luck; and which reversion and rent-charge he on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowyer v Blair
...10 East, 438. Wilson v. Major 11 Ves. 205. Briden v. Hewlett 2 Myl. & K. 90. Timewell v. PerkinsENR 2 Atk. 102. Comfield v. GilbertENR 3 East. 516. Berry v. Usher 11 Ves. 87. Helling v. Yeud 2 New R. 214. Johnson v. TelfordENR 1 Russ. & M. 244. Doe d. Bunny v. RoutENR 7 Taunt. 79. Doe d. Hu......
-
Doe, on the Demise of Eliz. Hick, against Dring
...(6)1 Hwxtep v. Brooman, 1 Br. Ch. E. 437. (c)1 Cowp. 304. (a)1 14 East, 370. (J)2 1 East, 33. (c)2 15 East, 394. (d) 11 East, 290. () 3 East, 516. (of 6 T. R. 610. (b)s 3 East, 553. K. B. xxxrv.-15 450 DOE V. DKISG 2M. &S.455. the Court is called upon to give it a sense unaided by context. ......
-
Doe on the demise of the Rev. Thomas Morgan, Clerk, against John Morgan
...a disposition of the real estate for life, under the words, "the residue of my effects wheresoever and whatsoever," Camfield v. Gilbert (3 East, 516) ; nor, after a bequest of personal legacies, under the words, " all the remainder of my property, whatsoever and wheresoever," Eoe d. Helling......
-
Keeffe v Kirby and Wife
...Doe d. Carter v. Bernard 13 Q. B. 945. Dixon v. GayfereENR 17 Beav. 421. Doe d. Hull v. WoodENR 14 M. & W. 682. Camfield v. GilbertENR 3 East, 516. Doe d. Chillcott v. WhiteENR 1 East, 33. Kendrick v. Lord BeauclerkUNK 3 B. & P. 175. Doe d. Jones v. Harrison 13 Law Jour., N. S., Q. B. 97. D......