Charles Joseph Skingley, a Lunatic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1851 |
| Date | 18 January 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 246
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 142; 15 Jur. 958. See Barnes v. Dowling, 1881, 44 L. T. 811; In re Willames, 1886, 54 L. T. 107; Batthyany v. Walford, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 630.
[221] In the Matter of charles joseph skingley, a Lunatic. Jan. 17, 18, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 142; 15 Jur. 958. See Barnes v. Bowling, 1881, 44 L. T. 811 ; In re WilUames, 1886, 54 L. T. 107 ; Batthyany v. Walfwd, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 630.] A. B., being devisee for life of premises, with a condition against committing any manner of waste and for keeping the same in good and tenantable repair, became lunatic, and the premises wore subsequently destroyed by accidental fire. A petition was then presented by the committee of the person who was also remainderman, praying a declaration that the premises ought to be rebuilt at the expense of the lunatic's estate, and a reference as to the amount of such expense, and out of what fund it ought to be defrayed. The Lord Chancellor made an order for the reference, holding that the words of the will created an obligation upon the tenant for life to rebuild the premises, and that the question of such liability was rightly brought before the Court on the petition. This was the petition of Henry Skingley and George Decks Skingley, the committees of the estate of the lunatic, and being also the remainder-men in tail under the will of Henry Skingley, the father of the lunatic; and it prayed a declaration that the mansion-house called Mount Park House, situate at Coggleshall, and which was burnt down in November 1844, ought to be rebuilt at the expense of the lunatic's estate, and a reference to inquire what would be the expense of rebuilding and reinstating the same, and out of what fund the same should be paid. The question raised on the petition was, whether, under the terms of the devise of certain messuages and premises to the lunatic, the lunatic was bound to keep them in repair, and whether the mansion-house part [222] of the premises in question, having been burnt down, and the same having been insufficiently insured, it ought not to be rebuilt, and whether the difference between the amount received for insurance and the expense of rebuilding ought not to be defrayed out of the lunatic's estate. Henry Skingley, the testator, by his will, gave and devised unto his son C. J. Skingley (the lunatic) all that messuage or mansion-house wherein he then resided, with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and also all those nine acres of land, part freehold and part copyhold, situate in Great Coggleshall, and the messuages or tenements called Mount Park House, standing in or near the same, to hold the same hereditaments respectively, with their rights, members, and appurtenances, unto his son C. J. Skingley and his assigns for and during the term of his natural life, he or they committing no manner of waste and keeping the same messuages and premises in good and tenantable repair ; and from and immediately after the determination of that estate by forfeiture or otherwise, then he gave and devised all and every the said messuages or tenements, farms, lands, tithes, hereditaments and premises, with their and every of their appurtenances, unto the Petitioner Henry Skingley and his heirs during the life of C. J. Skingley, upon trust to preserve the contingent remainders thereinafter limited from being defeated or destroyed, and for that purpose to make entries and bring actions as occasion might require, but, nevertheless, to permit and suffer C. J. Skingley and his assigns during his life to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof to and for his and their own use and benefit; and S MAfl. ft O. S3. IN RE SKINGLEY 247 immediately after the decease of his said son C. J. Skingley, the testator devised all the said estates to the first and [223] other sons of the said C. J. Skingley in tail male, with remainder to the daughters of the said C. J. Skingley as therein mentioned and their issue, and in default of such issue he gave and devised all and singular the said hereditaments unto his, the said testator's, two sons, the. Petitioners Henry Skingley and George Deeks Skingley, to be equally divided between them as tenants in common and not as joint-tenants, share and share alike, and to the several and respective heirs of their body and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powys v Blagrave
...and from the presumed intention of the testator that he meant an equal benefit to all in succession." In the case of Re Skingky (3 Mac. & G. 221) there was an express obligation imposed on the tenant for life ; in the present case there is an implied obligation to the same extent. They also......
-
Blake v Peters
...liable on precisely the same ground-that they have been increased by the unlawful act;. Kingham v. Lee (15 Sim. 396, 400); Re Skingley (3 Mac. & G. 221); Wright v. Wilkin (2 Best & Smith, 232, 259) ; Duke, of Leeds v. Lord Amherst (14 Sim. 357 ; 2 Phill. 117 ; 20 Beav. 239); Lansdmvne v. La......
-
Micklethwait v Micklethwait
...be analogous to that of a fine upon the renewal of a lease, which is payable immediately; or to be governed by the case of lie Skingley (3 Mac. & G. 221), in which the question seems to have been, whether there was a debt to be paid out of the lunatic's estate, not when the debt would becom......
-
Warren v Rudall ex parte Godfrey
...would be without remedy against him : Powys v. Blagrave (4 De G. M. & G. 448). [6] In Gregg v. Coates (23 Beav. 33) and Re Skingley (3 Mac. & G. 221) the trusts for the devisee were upon the express condition of his keeping the premises in good tenantable repair. Godfrey is therefore entitl......