Doe D. York v Walker and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1844 |
| Date | 17 February 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1334
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 153. Followed, Douglas v. Douglus, 1854, Kay, 405; Goodlad v. Burnett, 1855, 1 K. & J. 347; Lady Langdale v. Briggs, 1856, 3 Sm. & G. 246: affirmed 8 De G. M. & G. 391; In re Farrer's Estate, 1858, 8 Ir. C. L. R. 377; Strevens v. Bayley, ibid. 416; Lewis v. Baker, (1905) 1 Ch. 46, Applied, Castle v. Fox, 1871, L. R. 11 Eq. 53; In re Portal and Lamb, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 602. Discussed, In re Champion; Dudley v. Champion, (1893) 1 Ch. 110. Referred to, Cole v. Scolt, 1848, 16 Sim. 263: affirmed 1849, 1 Mac. & G. 518; Page v. Young, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 503; Saxton v. Saxton, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 361; In re Bridger; Brompton Hospital v. Lewis, (1894) 1 Ch. 297; In re Fraser; Lowther v. Fraser, (1904) 1 Ch. 734. Referred to, In re Joseph; Pain v. Joseph, (1908) 1 Ch. 602.
doe d. yohk a walkkr and another. Exch. of Pleas. Feb. 17, 1844.-A testator, by his will, dated in February 1837, devised all his lands in B. to two trustees, to the use of Y. for life, with remainders over : he also bequeathed to the same trustees and Y. certain sums of money on certain trusts therein mentioned, and appointed them executors; and he gave to the three legacies of £100 nach for their trouble in the execution of his will. By a codicil dated in February 1838, (after the stat. 1 Viet. c. L'6, came into operation), after reciting the devisea 12 M. & W. S92. DOE V. WALKER 1335 and bequests contained in his will, and that he had since determined to appoint C. an additional trustee for the purposes in his will mentioned, he gave and devised all his messuages, lands, &e. described in and devised by his will, and also the several sums of money therein mentioned, to C., his heirs, executors, &c., upon the trusts in the will mentioned, and nominated him one of the executors of his will; and directed and declared, that it should be read and construed in the same manner and have the same operation and effect, as if C. had been named a trustee and executor with the other trustees ; and bequeathed to him the like legacy of £100. And in all other respects, the testator ratified and confirmed his said will: -Held, that the will was republished by the codicil, and passed real estates purchased by the testator after the date of the will and of the codicil. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 153. Followed, Douglas v. Douglas, 1854, Kay, 405; Goodliul v. Burnett, 1855, I K. & J. 347; Lady Lanrjdale v.'Brigys, 1856, 3 Sm. & U. 246 : affirmed 8 De G. M. & G. 391 ; In re Famr's Estate, 1858, 3 Ir. C. L. fi. 377; Strevens v. Bai/ie.y, ibid. 416; Lewis v. Baker, [1905] 1 Ch. 46. Applied, Castle v. fox., 1871, L.'li. 11 Eq. 553; In re Portal and Lamb, 1884, 27 Ch. 1 . 602. Dis-uussed, In re Champion; Dudley v. Champion, [1893] I Ch. 110. lief erred to, Cole v. Scott, 1848, 16 Sim. 263: affirmed 1849, 1 Mac. & G. 518; I'at/e v. Youny, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 503 ; Maxton v. Sa.jr.tm, 1879, 13 Ch. I). 36 L ; In re Bridyer ; Bwmpton Hospital v. Lewis, [1894] 1 Ch. 297 ; In re Fruser ; Lmotliar v. Fruser, [1904] I Ch. 734. Referred to, In re Joseph; Pain v. Joseph, [1908] 1 Ch. 602.] This case arose upon a special verdict, the material facts of which were as follows : - John Neal, late of Wardley, in the county of Rutland, esquire, was, at the time of making his will hereinafter mentioned, seized in fee-simple of certain messuages, farms, and lauds in the parish of Great Bowden, in the county of Leicester, and in the parish of Loddington, in the same county, and also of several messuages and pieces of land in the parish of Eelton, in the county of Rutland, and in Lingfield forest, which he had purchased of different persons. The said John Neal duly made and published his will, bearing elate the 20th day of February, 1837, and executed and attested as by law then required for the valid devise of freehold estates, containing as follows : " I give and devise all and every my messuages, farms, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, which I am seised of, or entitled to, in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy, situate in the parish or lordship of Great Bowden, in the county of [592J Leicester, with their rights, members, and appurtenances, to James Burgess, of Redlington Park, in the county of Rutland, grazier, and to my nephew John Walker, of Belton, grazier, their heirs and assigns, to the uses and upon the trusts, &c., hereinafter limited, declared, or expressed." These were, first, a trust for the payment to the testator's wife, Martha Neal, of an annuity of £200, with the usual powers of distress and entry; and subject thereto, thq premises were limited to the use of the lessor of the plaintiff, James York, (the soii of the testator's wife), and his assigns for life, with remainder to the use of the trustees to preserve contingent remainders, with divers remainders over. 'The other'messuages and lands of the testator were also specifically devised to the same trustees Jor other uses; and he bequeathed to them and to the lessor of the plaintiff divers sums of money on certain trusts therein mentioned, and appoiuted them and the lessor of the plaintiff executors of his will, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grealey v Sampson
...at p. 14. (2) [1893] 1 Ch. 101. (3) [1895] 1 I. R. 346. (1) [1903] 1 Ch. 688. (2) [1893] 1 Ch. 101. (3) [1904] 1 Ch. 726, at p. 734. (1) 12 M. & W. 591. (2) [1893] 1 Ch. 101. (3) 23 Ch. D. 218. (4) W. N. 1909, p. 59. (1) 53 Sol. Journal 673. (2) [1913] 2 Ch. 1, at p. 5. (3) [1904] 1 Ch. 726......
- Hawkins v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd
-
Lady Langdale v Briggs
...intention " appears by the will. They also referred to Cole v. Scott (1 Mac. & G. 518); Cockran v. Cockran (14 Sim. 248); Doe v. Walker (12 M. & W. 591); Douglas v. Douglas (Kay, 400); Goodlad v. Burnett (1 K. & J. 341); Knight v. Davis (3 Myl. & K. 358). Mr. Cairns and Mr. Martineau, for L......
-
Douglas v Douglas
...it is the same since the Act, unless a contrary intention appear by the will: Cole v. Scott (1 Mac. & G-. 518), Doe d. York v. Walker (12 M. & W. 591). Mr. Wileock, Q.C., and Mr. Jessell, for the Defeiida-nt. An intention that this will should not speak from the death of the testator, but f......