Doe dem. Clarke v Ludlam and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1831 |
| Date | 21 January 1831 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 106
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 5 Moo. & P. 48; 9 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 74 Dictum applied, Maxwell v. Maxwell, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 714. Explained, Tore v. Browne, s1855, 5 H; L. C. 574 Applied, Usticke v. Peters, 1858, 4 K. & J. 447. Referred to, In re Mason, [1901] 1 Ch. 635; [1903] A. C. 1.
doe dem. clarke v. ludlam and another. Jan. 21, 1831, [S. C. 5 Moo. & P. 48; 9 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 74. Dictum applied, Maxwell v. Maxwell, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 714. Explained, Torre v. Browne, 1855, 5 H. L. C. 574. Applied, Ustieke v. Peters, 1858, 4 K. & J. 447. Referred to, In re Mason, [1901] 1 Ch. 635; [1903] A. C. L] Since the statute 55 G. 3, c. 192, a copyhold will pass under a general devise of real estate, although there be no surrender to the use of the will. This was an action of ejectment. At the trial of the cause before Gaselee J., Lincoln Summer assizes 1830, a nonsuit was entered, with liberty to enter a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case :-- On the 6th of March 1830, George Ludlam, late of Crowle in the county of Lincoln, being then seised in fee of a freehold estate at Crowle, and also of three copyhold messuages or dwelling-houses at Crowle, being part and parcel of the manor of Crowle in the said county, executed his last will, which, after several legacies, proceeded as follows:-"I give and bequeath unto my housekeeper Mary Biggie, of Luddington in the said county of Lincoln, the legacy or sum of 51. I give and devise unto the said Mary Biggie the west end or part of my dwelling-house at Crowle aforesaid, now in the occupation of Fanny Loughton, to and for her use and during the term of her natural life; and at her decease I give and devise the same premises [276] to my executor hereinafter named : and I direct that the legacies hereinbefore bequeathed shall be paid by my executor hereinafter named at the end of twelve calendar months next after my decease. I give, devise, and bequeath unto John Clarke of Epsworth, in the said county of Lincoln, the whole of my real and personal estates and effects whatsoever and wheresoever, which I may be possessed of at the time of my decease, subject to the payment of the legacies hereinbefore bequeathed, and to his heirs and assigns for ever; and I do hereby appoint the said John Clarke wle executor of this my last will, and revoke and make void all former wills and testamentary dispositions by me at any time before made, and declare this to be my last will and testament. In witness, whereof," &c. The will was attested by only two witnesses. The testator died seised of the above 7BING. 277. DOE V. LUDLAM 107 freehold and copyhold estates, without having made any surrender to the uses of his will. John Clarke, the person named in the will as devisee and executor, and the lessor of the Plaintiff, in the present action, was a stranger in blood to the testator, but had intermarried with one of his nieces. The dwelling-house, of which the west end or part was specifically devised by the will to Mary Higgle for life, with remainder to the lessor of the Plaintiff, was one of the three copyhold messuages above mentioned. By the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torre v Browne
...the Will; and a copyhold was held to pass under a general devise of real estate, though there was no surrender; Doe d. Clarke v. Ludlam (7 Bing. 275); but still it was said that copyholds would not always pass by a general devise without a surrender; for that the Statute had merely supplied......
-
Doe, on the demise of John Winder and Mary, his Wife, against Robert Lawes
...on Smith v. Triggs (1 Str. 487). And it was considered, in Doe dem. Smith v. Bird (5 B. & Ad. 695), (where Doe dem. Clarke v. Ludlam (7 Bing. 275), was recognised), that an express or implied devise of copyholds, made before atat. 55 G. 3, c. 192, would pass them without surrender, though i......
-
Seaman v Woods
...on Copyholds (4th edit. vol. 1, p. 128). Mr. R. Palmer, in reply, cited Tmre v. Browne (5 H. L. Gas. 555); Doe d. Clarice v. Ludlam (7 Bing. 275). the master of the rolls reserved his judgment. July 31. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. This is a question of some peculiarity, and ......
-
Usticke v Peters
...devise of copyholds not surrendered to the uses of a will made since the passing of the Act 55 Geo. 3, c. 192, as to which Doe v. Ludlam (7 Bing. 275) has decided that they will pass by a general devise. It is conceded that property of this description [448] passes not to the executor, but ......