Doe dem. Knott v Lawton and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1838 |
| Date | 10 May 1838 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 863
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[455] doe dem. knott v. lawton and others. May 10, 1838. Devise :-" I give and bequeath to my sons, Joshua and James, my estate that I now occupy, together with the factory thereon; except the house I now occupy, with the cottages thereon, which I give to my daughters, Martha and Alice jointly:" then, after charging with certain payments, "my estate heretofore given to my sons,"-" I give and bequeath to my son Joshua that estate lying at EL, occupied by F., which I hold under lease from S., during the term of my lease:"-Held, that the sons took a fee in the factory, and the daughters a fee in the house. This was an action of ejectment brought by the lessor of the Plaintiff to recover possession of an undivided moiety of certain premises in the occupation of the Defendants. After issue was joined, the following case was, by consent of the parties, submitted for the opinion of the Court:- James Knott, of Lees, in the parish of Under Lyne, in the County of Lancaster, by his last will and testament, signed with his hand, attested and subscribed in his presence by three credible witnesses, and bearing date the 2d of February 1824, after directing payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, and giving a legacy of 11. to his eldest son John, whom he appointed his executor, made a devise in the following words :-" I give and bequeath to my sons, James and Joshua, my estate that I now occupy, together with the factory and all the edifices and appurtenances thereon, except the house I now occupy, and five yards for a passage, being together eighteen yards in front, and about twenty yards back, with the cottages thereon, occupied by Daniel Clegg and Mr. Cleverty, and all other conveniences thereon, which I give to my daughters Martha and Alice jointly, share and share alike." He then devised to his daughter Martha a smithy, and to his daughter Alice a plot of land and building thereon, occupied bv certain persons named; and after charging the " estate heretofore given to my sons," with certain payments particularly specified, in a subse-[456]-quent part of the will he bequeathed to Joshua, "That estate or tenement lying and being at Hartshead, occupied by E. F., which I hold under lease from the Earl of Stamford and Warrington, during the term of my lease." The said James Knott was at the time of making his will seised in fee-simple of all the premises described in the first of the above devises, and died seised thereof in September 1826, without having revoked or altered his said will, leaving his said son John heir-at-law, and his said sons James and Joshua him surviving. The daughters, Martha and Alice, both survived the testator. Martha is still living; but Alice died in August 1836, leaving her husband James Mellor and one son, born of the marriage, her surviving. John Knott, the testator's eldest son and heir at law, died in the life-time of Alice, intestate as to his real estate, and without leaving lawful issue; and thereupon, James Knott, the lessor of the Plaintiff, being the testator's second son, became and was the heir at law as well of the testator, James Knott, as of the said John Knott. The Defendants were the tenants in possession of the premises which were so devised as above mentioned by the testator to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v Bennett
...edition) (p. 133); [269] Jobson's case (Cro. El. 576); Footner v. Cooper (2 Drew, 7); Randall v. Tuchin (6 Taunt. 410); Doe v. Lamtm, (4 Bing. N. C. 455; 6 Scott, 303); Knight v. Selby (3 M. & Gr. 92); Moore v. Cleghorn-(10 Bea. 423); Smith v. Smith (11 C. B. (N. S.) 121); and ByfieWs case,......
-
Hill v Rattey alias Potts
...is excepted is a fee or an absolute interest, then the thing excepted must be a fee or an absolute interest: Doe dem. Knott v. Lawton (4 Bing. N. C. 455, 461, 462), Davenport v. Coltman (12 Sim. 588), Hotham v. Button (15 Ves. 319), Marshall v. Hopkins (15 East, 309). The bequest to the Pla......
-
Drew v Barry
...2 Salk. 577. Case v. DrosierENR 2 Keen. 764; S. C. on Appeal, 5 M. & C. 246. Skes v. SykesELR L. R. 13 Eq. 56. Knott v. LawtonENR 4 Bing. N. C. 455. Brenan v. Boyne 16 Ir. Ch. R. 87. Mansergh v. Campbell 3 De G. & Jon. 237. Roddy v. FitzgeraldENR 6 H. L. C. 823. Colclough v. Colclough Ir. R......
-
Tisdall v Tisdall and Others
...DayENR 16 East 67. Goodtitle v. Wood Wills. 211. Heath v. HeathENR 1 Bro. C. C. 147. Doe v. WettonENR 2 Bos. & P. 324. Doe v. LawtonENR 4 Bing. N. C. 455. Andrew v. SouthhouseENR 5 T. R. 292. Green v. WardENR 1 Russ. 264. Porter v. BradleyENR 3 T. R. 143. Roe v. JefreyENR 7 T. R. 589. Radfo......