Doe, on the Demise of King and Wife, against Catherine Frost
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1820 |
| Date | 02 May 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 761
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, Doe v. Spratt, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 740; Jones v. Ryan, 1846, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 250. Discussed, Ex parte Davies, 1851, 2 Sim. N. S. 122 Parker v. Birks, 1854, 1 K. & J. 164. Referred to, Coltsmann v. Coltsmann, 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 134; Upton v. Hardman, 1874, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 165.
[546] doe, on the demise of king and wife, against catheeine frost. Friday, May 2d, 1820. A testator having a son and daughter, and the latter having several children, devised to his son W. F. in fee; and if he should have no children, child, or issue, the said estate was, on the decease of W. F., to become the property of the heir at law, subject to such legacies as W. F. might leave to the younger branches of the family : Held, that W. F. took, under this will, an estate in fee, with an executory devise over to the person, who on the happening of the event contemplated by the will, should become the heir at law of the testator. [Distinguished, Doe v. Spratt, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 740; Jones v. Ryan, 1846, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 250. Discussed, Ex parte Davies, 1851, 2 Sim..N. S. 122 ; Parker v. BirJcs, 1854, 1 K. & J. 164. Kef erred to, Cottsmann v. Voltsmann, 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 134; Upton v. Hardman, 1874, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 165.] Ejectment for certain premises, situate in the county of Cambridge. At the trial, before Abbott C.J., at the last Summer Assizes for that county, the jury found a special verdict, which stated the following facts. William Frost, being seised in his demesne, as of fee, of and in the manor of Brinkley, in the county of Cambridge, and of certain lands and tenements in the several parishes of Brinkley, Wellingham, Carlton, and Westley, in the said county, being the manor, lands, and tenements in the said declaration mentioned, and which said premises were all purchased at one time by the said W. Frost, and were altogether legally conveyed to him by one conveyance, by his will on the 6th day of April, 1805, duly made and executed, so as to pass freehold estates, amongst other things, devised as follows ; that is to say ; " I give and bequeath to my well beloved son, William Frost, of the parish of Brinkley and county of Cambridge, farmer, and his heirs for ever, all my houses and lands, with all their appurtenances thereunto belonging; also I give to my well-beloved wife, Rebecca Frost, the sum of 1001., yearly and every year, during her natural life, to be paid her by the aforesaid W. Frost, half-yearly, out of the estate; and if the said W. Frost should have no children, child, or issue, the said estate is, on the decease of the said W. Frost, to become the property of the heir at law, subject to such legacies as he the said W. Frost may leave by will to any of the younger branches pf the family." After making the said [547] will, to wit, on the 25th day of August, 1807, the said W. Frost, the testator, died so seised as aforesaid, of the premises in the will mentioned, being also the premises in the declaration mentioned, and without having revoked or altered his will, and leaving Rebecca, his wife, him surviving, and leaving issue of his body, lawfully begotten, namely, William Frost, the devisee named in the will, his only son and heir at law, and Rebecca, the wife of Robert King, in the said declaration mentioned, and no other issue. W. Frost the Younger, the devisee in the will mentioned, had been in the possession of the estate devised to him by his father, the said W. Frost, the testator, a certain space of time, to wit, for seven years before his father's decease, and became seised thereof on the death of his said father, and continued so seised thereof until and at the time of his death. After the death of the said W. Frost the father, the said W. Frost the Younger, still continuing seised of the premises aforesaid, in the said declaration mentioned, by his last will and testament, duly made, so as to pass freehold estates, on the 10th day of July, 1810, devised, amongst other things, as follows; that is to say, first, " I do, as far as I lawfully or equitably may or can, by virtue and in pursuance of the last will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...Moore v. WatsonELR L. R. 2 C. P. 314. Edge v. WandersfordUNK 9 Ir. L. R. 161. Tinkler v. Roland 6 Nev. & Man. 848. Cossey v. DiggonsENR 3 B. & Ald. 546. The Marquis of Anglesea v. Dibden 10 Bingh. 568. Powell v. SonnettENR 3 Bingh. 381; S. C. on Appeal, 1 Bligh, N. S. 545. England v. Daviso......
-
Peyton v Lambert
...Hayes v. Hayes 4 Rus. 311. Blinston v. WarburtonENR 2 K. & J. 400; S. C., 2 Jur., N. S., 858; 25 Law Jour., Ch., 468. Doe v. FrostENR 3 B. & Ald. 546. In re Oƒ€™Donoghueƒ€™s Estate 3 Ir. Jur., N. S., 114. Pells v. BrownENR Cro. Jac. 590. Pinbury v. EllkinENRE......
-
Coltsman v Coltsman
...COLTSMAN and COLTSMAN. Wilkinson v. SouthENR 7 T. R. 555. Sheers v. JeffreyENR 7 T. R. 589. King v. FrostENR 3 B. & Ald. 546. Ex parte DaviesENR 2 Sim., N. S., 114. Parker v. BirksENR 1 K. & J. 156. Nichols v. HookerENR 1 P. Wms. 198. Jones v. RyanUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 249. Johnson v. JohnsonE......
-
Prentice v Brooke
...Div. 751. Ex parte WynchENR 5 De G. M. & G. 188. Andrew v. SouthouseENR 5 T. R. 292. Sharp v. SharpUNK 4 M. & P. 445. Doe v. FrostENR 3 B. & Ald. 546. Ex parte DaviesENR 2 Sim. (N. S.) 114. Parker v. BirksENR 1 K. & J. 156. Galland v. Leonard 1 Swanst. 161. Clayton v. LoweENR 5 B. & Ald. 63......