Doe on the demise of Mabberley v Mabberley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1833 |
| Date | 11 July 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1174
BEFORE LORD JUSTICE
[126] oxford summer circuit, 1833. Before Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and Mr Baron Gurney. Berkshire Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Tindal July llth, 1833 DOE ON THE DEMISE OF MABBERLEY V MABBERLEY (A devised the residue of a term determinable on lives to B After the decease of the testator, the administrator with the will annexed paid the rent reserved on the term for six years, and charged it to B ò-Held, that this was sufficient evidence of his assenb to the bequest to enable B to maintain ejectment ) Ejectment by the devisee of a term against the widow of the administrator with the will of the devisor annexed. The lease of the term was determmable on lives, subject to a quit rent of 3s. 6d a year, and it was produced by one of the persons upon whose life it was granted. The letters of administration were proved, and the possession of the devisor was also proved by the receipt of rent since the year 1806 To prove the administrator's assent to the bequest, it was shewn that the defendant's husband (the deceased administrator) had for several years paid the rent of 3s 6d a year to the lord at his court leet 111 behalf of the lessor of the plaintiff, and had, in an account in the defendant's handwriting rendered to the lessor of the plaintiff, debited the lessor of the plaintiff with several payments made between the years 1812 and 1818 Tindal, C. J., held that this evidence was sufficient to shew the assent of the administrator. Verdict for the plaintiff * Talfouid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe D. Chidgey v Harris and Wife
...v. Wankjord. (d) 6 B. & C. 112. See cases collected in the reporter's note, 4 M. & Kyi. 189. (a)3 See Daed. Mabberky v. Mabberley, 6 C. & P. 126 ; Yming v. Holmes, Stra. 70, WM. &W.823. DOE V. HARRIS 1297 the office of trustee, they were at least not sufficiently unambiguous to bo left to t......