Doe on the Demise of Oldham and Wife against Wolley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 1828 |
| Date | 28 April 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 951
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. (sub nom. Doe v. Deakin) 2 Man. & Ry. 195; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 286: at Nisi Prius, 3 Car. & P. 402. See Greaves v. Greenwood, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 293.
doe ON the demise of OiDHAM AND wife against wolley. Monday, April 28th, 1828. A will more than thirty years old may be read in evidence, without proof of its execution, although the testator has died within thirty years, and some of the subscribing witnesses are proved to be still living. After the lapse of a period of more than 100 years : Held, also, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the death of a party without issue might be presumed. [S. C. (sub nom. Doe v. DeaJcin) 2 Man. & Ry. 195; 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 286 : at Nisi Prius, 3 Car. & P. 402. See Greaves v. Greenwood, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 293.] Ejectment for lands in Worcestershire. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Vaughan B., at the last Spring Assizes for Worcester, it appeared that the lessors of the plaintiff claimed as devisees of Frances Wolley, who was said to be heir of T. Wolley, who died in 1800, seised of jbhe estate in question, having devised it to his widow for life, remainder to his right heirs. This will was dated the 21st February 1798, more than thirty years before the trial, but one of the subscribing witnesses was proved to be still living; and it was insisted for the defendant that he must be called to prove the execution of the will, as the testator had died within thirty years. The learned Judge thought that the thirty years must be computed from the date of the will, and over-ruled the objection. In order to prove that. Frances Wolley was heir of T. Wolley the testator, a deed was produced, being a settlement made in 1689, on the marriage of Thomas Wolley, the grandfather of T. Wolley the testator; by which it appeared that he had several brothers, of whom Edward, the [23] grandfather of Frances Wolley, was the youngest. No evidence was given to shew what had become of the other brothers, or that they died without issue. But wills of some members of the family, made after the date of the marriage-settlement, were produced, and they did not mention any brothers, except the grandfather of T. Wolley, the testator, and the grandfather of Frances Wolley. The learned Judge said that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the jury might presume that they died without issue, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Towers against Newton, Esquire
...would not have been sufficient even in an ejectment, according to the decision (on the second point) in Doe dem. Oldham v. Walley, 8 B. & C. 22. 1Q. B.SO. TOWERS V. NEWTON 1155 to York Castle. He brought himself by habeas corpus before Rolfe B., who on 26th September 1840 discharged him, on......
-
Mullaly v Walsh
...TrustsELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139. Timewell v. PerkinsENR 2 Atk. 102. Doe v. DeakinENR 3 Car. & Payne, 402; S. C. sub nom. Doe v. Wolley, 8 B. & C. 22. In re Webb I. R. 5 Eq. 235. In re Phene's TrustsELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139. Will Construction "Property" Residue confined to Personal Estate Pre......
-
Andrew v Andrew
...there being no evidence to the contrary, he was warranted in concluding that Daniel Stacey had died without issue. (See Doe v. We/Key, 8 Barn. & Cress. 22.) The purchaser excepted to this report. Upon the hearing of the exception, on the 12th of March 1830, the Vice-Chancellor differed in o......