Doe, Lesses of Wall, Langlands
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1811 |
| Date | 02 July 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 644
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Not applied, Doe v. Rout, 1816, 7 Taunt. 82. Referred to, Doe v. Earles, 1846, 15 M. & W. 456. Applied, Meeds v. Wood, 1857, 19 Beav. 224; Gyett v. Williams, 1862, 2 J. & H. 436. Not applied, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 567.
[370] doe, Lessee of Wall, against langlands. Tuesday, July 2d, 1811. A testator, possessed of real and personal property, after several pecuniary legacies,, "gave and bequeathed all and every the residue of his property, goods and chattels to be divided equally between A. and B., share and share alike, after all his debts paid :" and in fact the personalty was not quite sufficient to pay all thei debts and legacies: but Held that the word property, though thus followed by goods and chattels, was sufficient of itself to carry the reality." [Not applied, Doe v. Bout, 1816, 7 Taunt.. 82. Referred to, Doe v. Earles, 1846-, 15 M.. & W. 456. Applied, Meeds v. Wood, 1854, 19 Beav. 224; Gyett v. Williams, 1862,, 2 J. & H. 436. Not applied, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 567.] This ejectment was brought to recover possession of an undivided moiety of two messuages in the parish of St. George in the East, in Middlesex, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict at the sittings at Westminster, before Lord Ellenborough, C.J.,. subject to the opinion of the Court upon this case. Thomas Doran, being seised in fee of the premises in question, by his will dated 24th of July 1808, and duly executed, (after giving several pecuniary legacies,), bequeathed to Mrs. Brown, his sister, 101.; and then bequeathed as follows: "To Eosey Doran and Edward Wall I give and bequeath all and every the residue of my property, good's, and chattels, to be divided equally between them, share and share alike, after all my debts are paid." And he appointed Mr. Short and P. Delany^ executors; the latter of whom prepared the will. The personal estate of the testator was worth 4001., which was not. sufficient, by 701., to pay all his debts and legacies. Mrs. Brown and Eosey Doran were sisters and heirs at law of the testator. The testator left no widow, or child, or brother, Edward Wall, (the lessor of the plaintiff,}, one of the residuary devisees, was the testator's cousin. The will contained no other words concerning the property of the testator, except those before mentioned. If the plaintiff were entitled to recover, the verdict was to stand : if not, a verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v Coltman
...law of testator's daughter, Mary Newbold, also supported the certificate; he cited Doe v. Lainchbury (11 East, 290), and Doe v. Langlamds (14 East, 370). Mr. G. Richards and Mr. Lee, for Thomas Coltman, the testator's heir at law. The testator's Hertfordshire and Lincolnshire estates were o......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...6 Mod. 106. Nicolls v. Butcher 18 Ves. 195. Hogan v. Jackson Cow. 299, 304. Doe v. LainchburyENR 11 East, 290. Doe v. LanglandsENR 14 East, 370. Doe d. Morgan, v. MorganENR 6 B. & C. 512. Edwards v. BarnesENR 2 Bing. N. C. 25. Tilly v. SimpsonENR 2 T. R. 659, note. Hopewell v. Acklad Comm. ......
-
Coard v Holderness
...75). [151] Mr. Roupell and Mr. Doria, for Defendants in the same interest, cited Den v. Trout (15 East, 394); Doe d. Wallv. Langlunds (14 East, 370); Noel v. Hoy (5 Madd. 38); Thomas v. Phelps (4 Russ. 348); Sanderson v. Dobson (10 Beav. 478 ; 1 Exch. Rep. 141); William v. Thomas (12 East, ......
-
Gyett v Williams
...asked whether he meant to die intestate as to after-acquired realty, he would have replied in the negative to that also. Doe v. Langlands (14 East, 370) is a much stronger case than this; for there the words were "property, goods and chattels," and those were held sufficient to pass realty.......