Doe on the demise of Davy against Burnsall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1794 |
| Date | 14 November 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 419
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
7 T. R. 533. 2 B. & P. 490. 4 East, 313. 7 do. 269. 2 Mar. 161.
Applied, Doe v. Selby, 1824, 2 B. & C. 929. Referred to, Jack v. Fetherstone, 1829, 2 Huds. &B. 337. Followed, Lees v. Mosley, 1836, 1 Y. & C. 611. Considered, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 59; 8 Ir. Eq. B. 751. Applied, Denman v. Jones, 1867, 16 L. T. 788. Approved, In re Moyles's Estate, 1878, 1 L. R. Ir. 162. For subsequent proceedings, see 1 Bos. & P. 215.
doe ON the demise OF davy against burnsall. Friday, Nov. 14th, 1794. Devise of " all the devisor's estates to A. and the issue of her body, as tenants in common, but in default of such issue, or being such if they should all die under 21 and without leaving issue," then over: held that all the limitations subsequent to that to A. were contingent, and were consequently destroyed by a recovery suffered by A. [7 T. R. 533. 2 B. & P. 490. 4 East, 313. 7 do. 269. 2 Mar. 161.] [Applied, Doe v. Selby, 1824, 2 B. & C. 929. Referred to, Jack v. Fetherstone, 1829, 2 Huds. &B:337. Followed, Leesv. Mosley, 1836, 1 Y.-&C. 611. Considered, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 59; 8 Ir. Eq. B. 751. Applied, Denman v. Jones, 1867, 16 L. T. 788. Approved, In re Moyles's Estate, 1878, 1 L. E. Ir. 162. For subsequent proceedings, see 1 Bos. & P. 215.] This was an ejectment to recover the possession of certain freehold premises in the declaration mentioned, which was tried at the sittings after Easter term last, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject -to the opinion of this Court on the following case. David Burnsall, being seised in fee of the premises in question, and being also . possessed of several leasehold estates, by will dated 26th November, 1791, properly attested, devised "all his freehold and leasehold estates, and all other his estates whatsoever both real and personal, subject and chargeable respectively with certain annuities therein mentioned, and a life estate to his wife in a certain part thereof, (after payment and discharge of all his debts, legacies, and funeral and testamentary charges and expences in and about executing his will), unto his niece Mary Owsfcwick otherwise Ellard, and the issue of her body lawfully to be begotten, as tenants in common (if more than one); but in default of such issue, or being such, if they should all die under the age of 21 years, and without leaving lawful issue of any of their bodies, then he devised the same unto his cousin Peter Davy, and the issue of his body lawfully to be begotten, as tenants in common (if more than one); but in default of such issue, or being such, if they should all die under the age of 21 years, and without leaving lawful issue of any of their bodies, or in case neither he nor any such his lawful issue (if any) should take upon himself or themselves the surname of Burnsall, by virtue of an Act of Parliament, &c. within two years, &c. that then and in either of such cases happening, the same estates and property should actually go, and he for that purpose thereby gave, devised, and bequeathed the same to S. Ganton,' his heirs, executors, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lees v Mosley and Another
...issue, namely, "in case my said son shall not marry and have issue who shall attain the age of twenty one years." In Doe d Davyv. Buintall (6 T R 30; IB & P 215) there was a limitation of the same nature. The gift was in one entire clause, to M O and the issue of her body as tenants in comm......
-
Re Moyles' Estate
...L. C. 171. Grieve v. GrieveELR L. R. 4 Eq. 180. Horne v. Pillans 2 M. & K. 25. Abbott v. MiddletonENR 7 H. L. C. 84. Davy v. BurnsallENRUNK 6 T. R. 30; 1 B. & P. 215. Jesson v. WrightENR 2 Bligh, 1. Roddy v. FitzgeraldENR 6 H. L. C. 823. Hockley v. MawbeyUNK 1 Ves. Jun. 142; 1 B & P. 215. F......
-
Clifford v Brooke
...Junr. 149. Brown v. Higgs 4 Ves. 708. Roddy v. FitzgeraldENR 6 H. L. C. 823. Bently v. OldfieldENR 19 Beav. 225. Doe d. Davy v. BurnsallENR 6 T. R. 30. Seale v. BarterUNK 2 B. & P. 485. Grier's Estate Ir. R. 6 Eq. 1. Jesson v. WrightENR 2 Bli. 1. Seale v. BarterUNK 2 B. & P. 485. Broadhurst......
-
Doe D. Todd v Duesbury
...d. Geering v. Shenton (Cowp. 410), Goodriyht v. Dunham (1 Doug. 264), Doe d. (Jomlerbadi v. Perryn (3 T. R. 484), Doe d. Davy v. Buntsall (6 T. R. 30), Lees v. Mosky (1 Y. & SM.&W.826. DOE V. DUESBURY 1147 Coll, 584), and Dansey v. Griffiths (4 M. & Selw. 61), sustain or consist with this v......