Doe, on the Demise of Bunny, v Rout
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1816 |
| Date | 02 July 1816 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 32
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Marsh. 397. Followed, Monk v. Mawdsley, 1827, 1 Sim. 290. Distinguished, Edwards v. Barnes, 1835, 2 Bing. N. C. 257; Reeves v. Baker, 1854, 18 Beav. 382. Held to be obsolete, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 38 L. T. 634; 8 Ch. D. 565.
. DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF BUNNY, V. ROUT. July 2, 1816. [S. C. 2 Marsh. 397. Followed, Monk v. Maivclsley, 1827, 1 Sim. 290. Distinguished, Edwards v. Barnes, 1835, 2 Bing. N. C. 257 ; Reeves v. Baker, 1854, 18 Beav. 382. Held to be obsolete, Smyth v. Smyth, 1878, 38 L. T. 634; 8 Ch. D. 565.] Bequest of "all my stock in trade, household goods, wearing apparel, ready money, securities for money, and every other thing my property, of what nature or kind 7TAUJTT.801 DOE V. ROUT 33 soever, to and for her own proper use and disposal:" Held not to carry land, being controlled by indications which rendered the testatrix's intent uncertain.-But if the testatrix's intent to pass land had clearly appeared, these words are sufficient to carry land. This case was argued on a former day in this term by Pell Serjt. for the Plaintiff, and Lens Serjt. for the Defendant. [80] gibbs C. J. now delivered judgment. This was an action of ejectment brought to recover a certain messuage in Andover. It wa tried at the Winchester spring assizes 1816, before Graham B., when a verdict was found for the Plaintiff on the demise of Bunny, subject to a point reserved upon the construction of the following will of Mary Rout, spinster:-"I dosire my just debts of every sort, with ray funeral expences, to be paid and properly discharged by my executrix hereinafter named ; and subject thereto, I give and bequeath unto ray sister Ann Rout, all ray stock in trade, household goods, wearing apparel, ready monies, securities for money, and every other thing, my property, of what nature or kind soever, to and for her own proper use and disposal. And I do hereby appoint her my whole and sole executrix of this my last will and testament." The will is executed so as to pass both real and personal estate, and both will pass by the language which is used, if the Court can collect a clear intent to convey both, but if only doubts are raised, they will not disinherit the heir. Mansfield G. J., in the case of Roe on the demise of Helling v. Yeud (2 New Rep. 214), lays down the law clearly upon this subject. The question therefore is, whether the Court can...
To continue reading
Request your trial