Doe on the demise of Eleanor Shelley and Others against Edlin and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 January 1836
Date26 January 1836
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 906

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Doe on the demise of Eleanor Shelley and Others against Edlin and Another

S. C. 5 L. J. K. B. 137.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF ELEANOR SHELLEY AND OTHERS against EDLIN AND another. Tuesday, January 26th, 1836. Testatrix devised estates to N. in fee, in trust to receive and apply the proceeds to the use of S., the sister of the testatrix, for her life, and, from and immediately after the decease of S., to convey the same to such uses as S. should by deed or will appoint. There was no devise over. S. died in the lifetime of the testatrix : Held, 1. That the death of S. in the testatrix's lifetime was not an implied revocation of the will. 2. That the estate devised to N. did not lapse by reason of S.'s death, but vested in N. at the death of the testatrix. 3. That the estate so vested in N. was an absolute legal fee. [S. C. 5 L. J. K. B. 137.] This case was argued in Easter term 1834 (May 26th), on a rule to shew cause why a nonauit should not be entered, by Talfourd Serjt. and Cowling against, and Jervis and Justice in support of, the rule. The judgment of the Court states the facts and discusses the authorities so fully, that a further report of them is unnecessary. Lord Denman C.J. now delivered the judgment of the Court as follows :- This was an ejectment, which was tried before my brother Gurney, at the Summer Assizes for the county of Oxford, in the year 1833. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed as heir at law to Jane Newell, the person last seised, who died in the year 1830. The defence set up was under a will of Jane Newell, who, being seised in fee of the premises in question, on the 23d of July 1813, devised, amongst other things, as follows:- 583] " I give, devise, and bequeath unto my friend Charles Nuridy, of Watlington aforesaid, draper, all my real estates, and the rest and residue of my personal estate, whatsoever and wheresoever, which I shall die seised of or entitled unto, to hold unto him, the said Charles Nundy, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, upon special trust and confidence, that he the said Charles Nundy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, do arid shall receive the rents, issues and profits and annual proceeds thereof, arid of every part thereof, and pay and apply the same unto and to the use of my sister Mary Maretta Maria Scoolt, for and during the term of her natural life, for her own sole and separate use, as if she was sole and unmarried, and without being subject or liable to the control, debts, contracts, and forfeitures, disposal, or engagements of her present or any future husband ; and the receipts and discharges of the aaid Mary Maretta Maria Scoolt, and of such person or persons as she shall, from time to time, direct to receive the said rents, issues, dividends, profits, and annual proceeds, shall be good and effectual releases and discharges to the said Charles Nundy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for so much money as in such receipts shall be acknowledged or expressed to be received. And, from and immediately after the decease of the said M. M. M. Scoolt, upon this further trust, that he the said C. Nundy, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns do arid shall convey my aaid real estates, and assign and transfer and pay the rest and residue of my said personal estate to such uses, upon such trusts, and to and for such intents and purposes, and with and under and subject to such power's, provisoes, and declarations, and in such parts, shares, and [684] proportions, as she the said M. M. M. Scoolt, notwithstanding her coverture, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings, to be sealed and delivered by her, in the presence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Browne v Browne
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1856
    ...(2 Bing. N. C. 58); Biscoe v. Perkins (1 V. & B. 485); Doe v. Biggs (2 Taunt. 109); Silvester v. Wilson (2 T. R. 444); Doe v. Edlin (4 Ad. & E. 582); Shaw v. Wright (8 Vin. 262); Villiers v. Villiers (2 Atk. 71), were also cited. Mr. Amphlett and Mr. Hoare, for Lord Camperdown. The real que......
  • Jeffreson, Executor of Jeffreson, against Morton, and Dawson, and Others, Tertenants of Yarway
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...the principal note; and see further, accord. 6 B. & C. 403, 421, Houston, v. Hughes. 9 D. 6 R. 464, S. C. 2 B. & Ad. 554, Doe v. Walbank. 4 A. & E. 582, Doe v. Edlin. 7 A. & E. 636, Doe v. Ewart. 3 Nev. & P. 197, S. C. 1 Q. B. 430, Doe v. Davies. 1 G. & D. 3S, S. C. And it is by no means cl......
  • Lot B Ltd v Warry
    • Bahamas
    • Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
    • 13 June 1973
    ...Stevenson v Liverpool Corp (1874) LR 10 QB 81. In addition the judge attached importance to Doe d Shelley v. Edlin (1836) 4 AD & El 582, 111 ER 906 which was not put forward by counsel and is not relied upon before this Court. In expressing his decision the judge said: ‘For my part, I take ......
  • Poad against John Watson the Elder and John Watson the Younger
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 30 May 1855
    ...the plaintiff must fail altogether. In 'Doe dem. Davies v. Davies (1 Q. B. 430, 438) Patteson J. says: "Doe dem. Shelley v. Edlin (4 A. & E. 582) and Doe dem. Cadogan v. Ewart (1 A. & E. 636) lay down what the Court has, after much consideration, determined on review of the previous cases. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT