Davenport v Coltman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1842 |
| Date | 31 January 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 203
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 114; 6 Jur. 381, 404. In Equity, 12 Sim. 588; 11 L. J. Ch. 262. Applied, Evans v. Crosbie, 1847, 15 Sim. 602. Explained, Windus v. Windus, 1856, 6 De G. M. & G. 561. Distinguished, Cooney v. Nicholls, 1881, 7 L. R. Ir. 107. Referred to, Watson v. Arudell, 1877, Ir. R. 11 Eq. 84: affirmed (nomine Singleton v. Tomlinson), 1878, 3 A. C. 404.
davenport v. coltman. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 31, 1842.-A testator, being possessed of estates in the counties of L. & H., bequeathed certain legacies and annuities to his two sons and two daughters. The will then proceeded thus : "That my wife, M. C., may be left in as comfortable a situation as possible, I 204 DAVENPORT V. COLTMAN 9 M. & W. 482. bequeath to her, for her natural life, the possession of my house in Stanley-place, Chester, together with the use of the plate, linen, &c., and all the joint property in houses in Liverpool, and likewise of interest of money as often as due, arising from the 3 and 4 per cents., and to have and to hold the same during her natural life, save and except the clauses in favour of ray daughters, as already mentioned; at her decease, it is my will and pleasure that M. N., and C. G., (his daughters), shall divide equally between them, as residuary legatees, whatever I may die possessed of, except what is already mentioned in favour of others," The will, after giving the executors the power of selling certain leasehold houses in Liverpool, concluded thus :-" But the house in Chester must not be sold as long as my wife lives :"-Held, that the residuary legatees took the estates in L. and H. for an estate in fee-simple, commencing at the death of the wife, and that they took the Stanley-place house in fee-simple in remainder, expectant on the death of the wife. Held, also, that the wife did not take any interest for life by implication, in the estates in L. and H. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 114; 6 Jur. 381, 404. In Equity, 12 Sim. 588; 11 L. J. Ch. 262. Applied, Evans v. Grosbie, 1847, 15 Sim. 602. Explained, Ifindus v. ff^iiuluK, 1850, 6 DeG-. M. & G. 561. Distinguished, Cooney v. Niekolh; J881, 7 L. li. Ir. 107. Eeferred to, Watson v. Arundell, 1877, Ir. E. 11 Eq. 84: affirmed (nomine Singleton v. Tmnlvnsm), 1878, 3 A. C. 404.] This was a case sent by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England, for the opinion of this Court. George Coltman, at the time of making his will, and at his death, was seised in fee-simple of the house in Stanley-place, Chester, in his will mentioned, and also of a certain tenement in the county of Lincoln,'jand a certain other tenement in the county of Hertford. The said George Coltman being so seised, and being also possessed of certain sums of money in the 3 per cent, and 4 per cent. Bank Annuities, and of an interest in the leasehold houses at Liverpool, in the will mentioned, and of the other personal estates therein also mentioned, made his last will and testament, dated the 26th March, 1828, and duly executed and attested so as to pass real estates, in the words following:-"To my son, Thomas Coltmau, I bequeath my gold watch, chain, and seals, my carriages, harness, and horses, and cows, market cart, and harness for the same, also whatever is considered as belonging to me at my new residence in Hagnaby Priory. To my daughter, Mary Newbold, I bequeath the sum of 250 [482] per annum, and, in case of her death, and without issue, the same sum to her husband for his natural life, and afterwards to be equally divided between iny son George Coltman and daughter Charlotte Coltman. To my daughter Charlotte Coltmau, I bequeath the sum of 250 per annum, and in case she should continue unmarried, or die without issue, the same shall be taken possession of by her brother, George Coltman, To my son, George Coltman, I bequeath the sum of 3000, which he is not to receive till after the death of his mother, and likewise, at her decease, all the plate which I may die possessed of; but, at iny decease, he is to have immediately the whole of my library at his own disposal. That my wife Mary Coltman may be left in as comfortable a situation as possible, I bequeath to her, for her natural life, the possession of my house in Stanley-place, Chester, together with the use of the plate, china, linen, and household furniture, and all the joint property in houses in Liverpool, and likewise of interest of money, as often as due, arising from the 3 and 4 per cents., and to have and to hold the same during her natural life, save and except the clauses in favour of my daughters, as already mentioned. At her decease, it is my will and pleasure, that Mary Newbold and Charlotte Coltmau shall divide equally between them, as residuary legatees, whatever I may die possessed of, except what is already mentioned in favour of others." The testator then, after giving two small legacies, appointed his wife, John Eden, Esq., and his son Thomas Coltman, his executrix and executors. " As for the houses in Liverpool, they may dispose of any one or the whole of them, whenever the same may be thought advisable for the benefit of the parties concerned; but the house in Chester must not be sold, so long as my wife lives." The houses in Liverpool were leasehold. The testator died in 1828, without haviag revoked or altered his said will, leaving his wife, the said Mary Colt-J483]-man, and also the four children named in his said 9B. ST.484. DAVENPORT V. COLTMAN 205 will, that is to say, Thomas Coltman, who was his eldest son and heir-at-law, George Coltman, Mary Newbold, and Charlotte Coltman, (who has since become the wife of John Davenport the younger), his only next of kin him surviving. The questions for the opinion of the Court were, first, what estate (if any) did Mary Coltman, the wife of the testator, take in the tenements in the counties of Lincoln and Hertford under the will? Secondly, what estate (if any) did Mary Newbold and Charlotte Davenport, the daughters of the testator, or either and which qf them, take in the said tenements in the counties of Lincoln and Hertford, under the will? And, thirdly, what estate (if any) did Mary Newbold and Charlotte Davenport, or either and which of them, take in the said house and tenement in Stanley-place, Chester, under the same will 1 The case was argued in Michaelmas Term (Nov. 15), by Erie, for the residuary legatees. The two daughters, by the residuary clause, took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v Coltman
...an estate as tenants in common in fee-simple in the Stanley Place house in remainder expectant on the life-estate of the widow. (See 9 Mees. & Wels. 481.) [592] The cause now came on to be heard on the equity reserved. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Willcock, for the Plaintiff, the testator's daughter......
-
Wildes v Davies
...S. & S. 327), Maugham v. Mason (1 V. & B. 410), Berry v. Usher (11 Ves. 87-91), Strong v. Ingram (6 Sim. 197), and Davenport v. Coltman (9 M. & W. 481). Mr. Selwyn appeared for other Defendants. Mr. Wigram, in reply, cited Sherer v. Bishop (4 Bro. C. C. 55). the vice-chancellor [Sir John St......
-
Re Arrowsmith's Trusts
...the residue, which, by the will, was not expressly disposed of during her life; Doe v. Brasier (5 B. & Aid. 64); Davenport v. Colt-man (9 M. & W. 481 ; 12 Sim. 588). The legacies in the codicil shew that it was not intended to give the wife a life interest in the whole estate. But suppose i......
-
Dickinson and Others v Stidolph
...9 Weekly Rep. 87, Noel v. Hoy, 5 Macjd. 38, Thomas v. Phelpn, 4 Russ. 348, Don d. Wall v. Langhndu, 14 East, 370, Davenport v. Coltman, 9 M. & W. 481, Putlonv. Randall, 1 Jac. & W. 189, Sawaareg v. Saumare.z, 4 Milne & Cr. 331, Me Greenwich Hospital Improvement Act, 20 Beavan, 458, Phillips......