Doe dem. Jones and Others against Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 371
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & M. 654; 1 L. J. K. B. 244.
[43] doe dem. jones and others against davies. 1832. Testator, after premising that, should his daughter die unmarried, he would not have his estate sold or frittered away after her decease, or left to any body who would not reside on it, but that it should: be entailed, and residence be made the absolute groundwork 372 DOE V. DAVIBS 4 B. & AD. 44. of such entail; devised all his real estate to trustees and their heirs: " But to permit, nevertheless, my daughter S. J. not only to receive the rents and profits thereof to her own use, or to sell or mortgage any part, but also to settle on any husband she may take the same or any part thereof for life, should he survive her, but not without his being liable to impeachment for waste or non-residence, or neglecting necessary repairs. But should my daughter have a child, I devise it to the use of such child, from and after my daughter's decease, with a reasonable maintenance for the education, &c. of such child in the mean time. Should none of these eases happen," he then devised the estate after his daughter's decease to trustees to preserve contingent remainders for the use of his nephew, on condition of residence, or of giving security for his residence when of age, if he should be a minor when the remainder vested. There were other remainders over. He added, that he did not will to restrain his daughter as a tenant for life, but that in case of misconduct in any of the remainder-men, she might, by the advice or consent of the trustees, set aside such a one by her will. He further added, " I recommend it to my daughter, for want of issue to herself, not to leave in legacies above 6001. and that out of my charge on N., which I have also articled for, and entail the rest for the further support of this house :" Held, that the word " child " in this devise was nomen eollectivum; that the daughter took an estate tail; that the estate during her life and after her decease were not of different qualities; and, therefore, that a recovery suffered by her after the testator's death, was valid. [S. G. 1 N. & M. 654; 1 L. J. K. B. 244.] Ejectment for messuages and lands in Cardiganshire. The cause came on for trial at Cardigan, at the Lent Assizes, 1831; and a special verdict was found, to the following effect:- Henry Jones, being seised in fee of the premises in question, made his will in 1793, and thereby devised as follows :-"Having laboured in early life under various difficulties and ineumbrances, I felt it my unavoidable duty, by the strictest care and economy, to lighten those burdens as far as was consistent with the necessary expenees of life (which some might have attributed to covetousness), because my wife and child would be less able to extricate themselves in ease of my death. But now, since it was God's will to allow me length of days, and to enable me to clear my debts, should my daughter die unmarried, I would not have the small estate I have been at the pains of improving and enlarging so, to be sold or frittered away after her decease, or left to any body who would be [44] above residing upon it; but that it should be entailed, and the residence of the several remainders in turn be made the absolute groundwork of such entail, imminent business and common or neighbourly visits excepted. I therefore give, devise, and bequeath, unto William Lewes of Llysnewidd, Thomas Lloyd of Bronwith, and Lewis Gwynne of Monachty, Esquires, and the survivor of them, and the heirs of such survivor, all my real estate; but to permit, nevertheless, my beloved daughter, Susanna Maria Jones, not only to receive the rents and profits thereof to her own use, or to sell or mortgage any part if occasion requires, but also to settle on any husband she may take, the same or any part thereof for life, should he survive her; but not without his being liable to impeachment for waste or non-residence, or neglecting necessary repairs of the house and farm. But should my daughter have a child, I devise it to the use of such child from and after my daughter's decease, with a reasonable maintenance for the education, &c. of such child in the mean time. Should none of these cases happen, I give and devise my said real estate, from and after my said daughter's decease, unto the said W. L., T. L., and L. G., and the survivor of them, and the heirs of such survivor, in trust to preserve contingent remainders for the use of my nephew John Jones of Carmarthen, now at Eton School, if he shall be at full age at my daughter's decease, and complies with such residence and keeping the houses and farm in good repair, or shall give my trustees security for so doing when he arrives at that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lees v Mosley and Another
...will give him an estate tail. Wilde's ea.se (6 Rep 17 b ), B/oadhui^t v. Motn (2 B. & Ad. 1), Doe d. Jones v. Davte* (1 Nev & Man. 654 , 4 B. & Ad. 43) The cases cited on the other side, in which there were no limitations over, are clearly not applicable to the present. In Doe v. Bunu all (......
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...BISHOP DORRIAN. Mellish v. MellishENR 2 B. & C. 520. Garrod v. GarrodENR 2 B. & Ad. 87. Wyld v. LewisENR 1 Atk. 432. Jones v. DaviesENR 4 B. & Ad. 43. Smart v. Prujean 6 Ves. 560. Slywright and Page's Case 1 Leon v. 166. Wilson v. ShortUNK 6 Ha. 366. The Attorney-General v. DelaneyUNK Ir. R......
-
Doe on the Demise of John Andrew Gallini against Arthur Gallini, Francis Albert Gallini, and Mary Gallini
...which argument he referred to Robinson v. Bobinson (1 Burr. 38J, Doe dem. Garrod v. Garrod (2 B. & Ad. 87), and Doe dem. Jones v. Davies (4 B. & Ad. 43); also to Roe dem. Dodson v. Grew (2 Wils. 322), (commented upon, as illustrating the doctrine in Shelley's case, in Fearne's Cont. Rem. 18......
-
Webb v Byng
...person at once, and it is considered unnecessary to provide for a difficulty which is not likely to arise. They referred to Doe v. Danes (4 B. & Ad. 43); Wood v. Barron (1 East, 259); Doe v. Bradley (16 East, 399); Snowball v. Proctor (2 Y. & C. C. C. 478); f-'aughan v. Marquis of Head/art ......