Doe d. Sophia Lewis, Administratrix of W. J. Lewis v William Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1842 |
| Date | 18 April 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 280
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 305; 6 Jur. 375. Distinguished, Wall v. Byrne, 1845, 2 Jo. & Lat. 118; 7 Ir. Eq. R. 578. Referred to, Earl of Mountcashell v. More-Smyth, [1896] A. C. 162. Followed, In re Inman, [1903] 1 Ch. 241.
doe D. sophia lewis, Administratrix of W. J. Lewis v. welleam leweh. Exch. :of Pleas. April 18, 1842.-Where a lessee of lands demised to him, his heirs and assigns, for lives, devised the premises for the residue of the term to W. J. L, and his assigns, who died intestate :-Held, that the premises did not go to the heir of W. J. L., but to his personal representative, under the stat. of Frauds, 29 Gar. 2, g. 3, a. 12. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 305; 6 Jur. 375. Distinguished, Wall v. Byrne, 1845, 2 Jo. & Lat. 118; 7 Ir. Eq. R. 578. Referred to, Earl of Mountcashell v. More-Smyth, [1896] A. C. 162. Followed, In re Inman, [1903] 1 Ch. 241.] Ejectment. The cause was tried before Maule, J., at the last Assizes at Carmarthen, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent, with liberty to the defendant to move to enter a verdict or a nonsuit, according to the opinion of the Court upon the facts of the case, which were as follows :-William Lewis, the grandfather of the defendant, being possessed of a lease granted to him by one Nathaniel Morgan, to hold to him the said William Lewis, his heirs and assigns, for the lives of three persons named in the lease, one of whom was still living, by his will, dated the 25th of March, 1817, devised the premises in question to his son W. J. Lewis, and bis assigns, during the residue of the lease, subject to the payment of the rent and the performance of the covenants. VV. J. Lewis, the son, having died intestate in possession of the premises, the defendant took possession of them as his nephew and heir-at-law. This ejectment was brought by the admini-[663]-stratrix of W. J. Lewis, and the question was whether the leasehold premises belonged to the personal representative or to the heir. John Wilson now moved accordingly. This case raises a question about which much doubt exists in the profession. The original lease to Wm. Lewis, the grandfather, having created a real estate purautre vie in him and his heirs, the right of the heirs to take as special occupants could not be taken away without the use of technical language in the will sufficient for that purpose ; but this will, so far...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horan v Horan
...& La T. 118; 7 Ir. Eq. R. 578. (4) 1 H. & Br. 222n. (5) 1 H. & Br. 227n. (6) 1 H. & Br. at p. 228. (7) 4 L. R. Ir. at pp. 657, 659. (8) 9 M. & W. 662. (9) [1896] A. C. 158. (10) L. R. 7 Ch. 192. (11) 2 P. Wms. 316. (12) 16 Ir. Ch. R. 87. (13) 3 Doug. 425. (14) [1897] 2 Ch. 67. (15) [1899] 1......
-
Earl of Mountcashell v More-Smyth
...v. BradyUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 653. Kilworth v. MouncashellUNK, 31 L. R. Ir. 31. Kilworth v. MountcashellUNK, 31 L. R. Ir. 81. Lewis v. LewisENR 9 M. & W. 662. M' Clintock v. IrvineUNK 10 Ir. Ch. Rep. 480. M' Dermott v. Balfe Ir. R. 2 Eq. 440. Oxenden v. Lord Compton 2 Ves. Jun. 70. Philips v. Phi......
-
Re King, Deceased. King v King
...and KING Blake v. Jones 1 H. & B. 227 n. Blake v. Jones 1 Hud. & Br. 227. Brenan v. BoyneUNK 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 87. Doe d. Lewis v. LewisENR 9 M. & W. 662. More-Smyth v. MountcashellENR 9 M. & W. 662. Mountcashell v. More-SmythELR [1896] A. C. 158. Philpotts v. JamesENR 3 Doug. 425. Sheppard v......
-
Re King, Deceased King v King
...M. R. IN RE KING, DECEASED KING and KING. Blake v. Jones 1 H. & Br. 227, note. Brenan v. Boyne 16 Ir. Ch. R. 87. Lewis v. LewisENR 9 M. & W. 662. More-Smyth v. Mountcashell (Earl of)ELR [1896] A. C. 158. More-smyth v. MountcashellUNK [1895] 1 Ir. R. 63. Philips v. PhilipsENR 1 P. Wms. 34. P......