Doe on the Demise of Mansfield against Peach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 496
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Discussed, Burdett v. Spilsbury, 1843, 10 Cl. & Fin. 350.
doe on the demise of mansfield against peach. Saturday, May 21st, 1814. Where lands were settled to the use of such person or perso.ns, &c., as R. P. and T. P. should, during their joint lives, by any deed or writing under both their hands and seals, to be by them duly executed in the presence of, and to be attested by two witnesses, limit and appoint, and until such appointment to the use of R. P. for life, remainder to the use of T. P. for life, and they by deed, signed, sealed, and delivered by them, in the presence of two witnesses, appointed the land to J. M., but the attestation indorsed on the deed, and subscribed by the witnesses, only specified that it was sealed and delivered i y'E. P. and T. P. in their presence, but not that it was signed: Held that this was not a due attestation as required by the power; and that a subsequent attestation by the witnesses, after the death of E. P., certifying that the deed was signed as well as sealed and delivered in their presence, did not cure the defect in the original attestation. [Discussed, Burdett v. Spilsbury, 1843, TO Cl. & Fin. 350.] Ejectment. At the trial before Wood B. at the last Lent'Assizes for the county of Northampton, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case : By indentures of lease and release (29th and 30th September 1782,) to which Robert Peach, Thomas Peach (the defendant) described as eldest son and heir at law of the said R. Peach, and John Mansfield (the lessor of plaintiff), were parties, and a recovery suffered in pursuance thereof, the premises in question were settled to the use of such person or persons, and for such estate and estates, uses, trusts, intents, and purposes, and in such parts, shares, and proportions, manner, and form, with or without power of revocation, as they the said E. Peach and T. Peach should during their joint lives by any deed or writing, deeds or writings, [577] under both their hands and seals, to be by them duly executed in the presence of, and to be attested by two or more credible witnesses from time to time, give, grant, convey, direct, limit, or appoint; and for want of, and until such gift, grant, conveyance, direction, limitation, or appointment should be made, to the use of the said R. Peach for his life, subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v Vincent and Others
... ... promoted by Ralph Barnes, one of the executors named in such Will; against George Giles Vincent, and the Reverend William Short, the executors, and ... Chief Justice Mansfield, however, dissented from the other Judges. The cases of Doe dem. Mansfield v. Peach (2 Mau. and Sel. 576), Wright v. Barlow (3 Mau. and Sel. 512), and ... ...
-
Al-Ibraheem v Bank of Butterfield Intl
...v. KempENR(1803), 3 East 410; 102 E.R. 655, dicta of Lord Ellenborough, C.J. applied. (3) Mansfield v. PeachENR(1814), 2 M. & S. 576; 105 E.R. 496. (4) Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen-Tangen, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989; [1976] 3 All E.R. 570. (5) Rutland v. WytheENR(1843), 10 Cl. & Fin. 419; 8 E......