Doe dem. Pell against Jeyes and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1830 |
| Date | 26 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 908
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 82.
908 DOE .V. JEYES 1 B. & AD. 593. [593] doe dem. pell against jeyes and another. Friday, Nov. 26th, 1830. Estates at Wootton were settled to the use of John Langford for his life, remainders to his eldest son, the son's wife, and their children, and ultimately to J. L. himself in fee. By lease and release afterwards executed, J. L., for the advancement of his eldest son and younger son, and for the settling, conveying, and assuring the messuage, lands, &c. after-mentioned and particularly described, granted and released the same, which were also in Wootton, but were entirely distinct from the first-mentioned estates; and also all other his messuages, cottages, closes, lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever in Wootton or elsewhere; and the reversion, remainder, rents, &c. of all and singular the premises granted and released, and all his estate therein, to the use that he J. L. should receive thereout an annuity of 301. a year for his life, and after his decease that his eldest son should receive thereout an annuity of 101. a year for his life; and subject to the said annuities, to the use of J. L.'s younger son, his heirs and assigns for ever. He also assigned all his household goods to the younger son, on his covenanting to pay 201. to the elder: Held, that the first-mentioned estates, though not named, passed to the younger son by the general words; and that although the annuity of 101. could not legally be charged on both estates, this did not negative the intention to pass both ; but that the annuity must be taken as charged upon the estate which might legally be subjected to it, the property being sufficient. [S. G. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 82.] This was an ejectment tried at the Spring Assizes for the county of Northampton, 1821, when a verdict was taken for the defendants, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case :- John Langford the Elder, of Wootton in the county of Northampton, being seised for his life of the premises hereinafter next mentioned, with remainders to his wife for her life, and to himself in tail, and remainder or reversion to himself in fee simple, did, by lease and release of the 2d and 3d September 1771, and by a fine duly levied and proclaimed, in consideration of an intended marriage between his son and heir apparent, John Langford, and one Ann Spencer, convey and assure to certain parties, all that messuage, tenement, or farm-house and homestead, with the appurtenances, situate in Wootton, all that one yard land by estimation of arable, meadow, and pasture ground, lying dispersedly within the open and common fields, parish, and precincts of Wootton, &c., and two closes particularly described and named, to the uses, successively, of himself for his life; of his wife fqr her life; of his said [594J son John for his life, and of the trustees for his life, to support contingent remainders ; of Ann Spencer, the son's intended wife, for her life, and in bar of dower; of the first and other son and sons of John Langford the Younger by his said intended wife successively in tail; to the daughter and daughters of the same marriage as tenants, in common in tail; and in default of such issue, to the use of the said John Langford the Elder, his heirs and assigns for ever. The marriage of John Langford the Younger and Ann Spencer took place shortly after the making of this settlement. The wife of John Langford the Elder died in 1780. By an award, bearing date 23d June 1779, made by commissioners under an Act for inclosing lands in Wootton, certain allotments were given to the said John Langford the Elder in lieu of the one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowyer v Blair
...472. Church v. Mundy 12 Ves. 426. Mostyn v. ChampneysENR 1 Bing. N. C. 341. Doe v. FossickENR 1 B. & Ad. 189. Doe d. Pell v. JeyesENR 1 B. & Ad. 593. Ridout v. PainENR 3 Atk. 493. Doe v. Scott 3 M. & Sel. 300. Peacock v. MonkENR 2 Ves. Sen. 190. Doe v. JonesENR 10 B. & C. 459. WILL CONSTRUC......
-
The Trusts under the will of Samuel Wright
...be collected, from the context, for considering them as used in a special and restricted sense." He also cited Doe d. Pell v. Jeyes (1 Barn. & Ad. 593), where, by a conveyance of a specifically described estate at W., another estate at W. was also held to pass under the general words "and a......
-
Tennent v Tennent
...494. Dree v. WeatherbyENR 11 East, 322. Doe v. BartleENR 5 B. & Ald. 492. Mostyn v. Champneys 1 Bingh. N. C. 341. Doe d. Pell v. JeyesENR 1 B. & Ad. 593. CASES IN EQUITY. 361 1844. Chancery. TENNENT v. TENNENT. WILLIAM TENNENT devised all his estates and property to trustees, in trust, as t......