Doe, on the Several Demises of Andrew and Others, against Lainchbury and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1809 |
| Date | 06 June 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 1015
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Doe v. Dring, 1814, 2 M. & S. 458; Wilce v. Wilce, 1831, 7 Bing. 674; Edwards v.Barnes, 1835, 2 Bing. N. C. 260.
[290] doe, on the several demises of andrew and others, against lainohbury and others. Tuesday, June 6th, 1809. A devise of all the residue of the testator's "money, stock, property, and effects, of what kind or nature soever," to A. and B. " to be divided equally between them, share and share alike," will pass real as well as personal estate, where from other parts of the will it appeared that the testator had applied the words property and effects to real estate. As where he began his will by stating " as to mf money and effects,. I dispose thereof as follows," &c., and then proceeded to dispose of parts of his real estate. And again, having lands interlaying with another's lands, he directed the purchase of the latter, if offered for sale, to be added to his other adjoining property. [Eeferred to, Doe v. Dring, 1814, 2 M. & S. 458; Wike v. Wilce, 1831, 7 Bing. 674; Edwards v. Barnes, 1835, 2 Bing. N. C. 260.] In ejectment for the recovery of one undivided moiety of certain messuages in (a) Cro. Eliz. 80. 1016 DOE V. LAINCHBTJEY 11 EAST, 291. the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in Middlesex, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case. James Lainchbury being seised in fee of the said messuages, and also seised and possessed of other real and personal estate of considerable value, consisting, among other things, of an estate in the county of Oxford, part freehold and part copyhold, and of various leaseholds in the county of Middlesex, by his will, dated the 13th of March 1800, and duly executed and attested, devised as follows: "As to the little money and affects with which the Almighty has intrusted me, I dispose thereof as follows, that is to say, first, I order my set of chambers (in Gray's Inn) to be sold within twelve months after my decease, together with such part of my fixtures, books, and furniture as may not be wanted and not hereinafter-disposed of. I leave unto my brother William Lainchbury all my houses, farm, lands, and estate, both freehold and copyhold, situate at Eamsdon and Finstuek in the county of Oxford, for his life; all of which said premises, being copyhold, have been by me surrendered to the use of my will. And if my said brother William should happen to die before his present wife Martha, then I leave unto his said widow Martha 201. a-year, payable quarterly during her life, out of my landed estate above mentioned, by the person or persons next after in possession; and which after [291] my said brother's death I leave all the said houses, farm, lands, and estate, as aforesaid, unto my nephew James Lainchbury for his life...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowyer v Blair
...406. Bridgewater v. Duke of BoltonENR 6 Mod. 106. Nicolls v. Butcher 18 Ves. 195. Hogan v. Jackson Cow. 299, 304. Doe v. LainchburyENR 11 East, 290. Doe v. LanglandsENR 14 East, 370. Doe d. Morgan, v. MorganENR 6 B. & C. 512. Edwards v. BarnesENR 2 Bing. N. C. 25. Tilly v. SimpsonENR 2 T. R......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...Archer's caseUNK 1 Rep. 66. Wrightson v. MacaulayENR 14 M. & W. 214. Lord Beaulieu v. Lord CardiganENR Ambler, 533. Doe v. LainchberryENR 11 East, 290. Doe v. Morgan 6 B. & Cr. 512. Doe v. EvansENR 9 Ad. & El. 720. Mayor, &c., of Hamilton v. Hodsden 6 Moo. P. C. C. 76. Sanderson v. DobsonEN......
-
Jones, d. Joseph Henry, - Plaintiff (in Error); William Hancock, and Ann his Wife, and Others, - Defendants (in Error): and Long, d. John Joseph Henry, - Plaintiff (in Error); William Hancock, and Ann his Wife, etc., - Defendants (in Error)
...property may carry a fee; and it was said, by Lord Thurlow I think, that all I am worth would carry a fee. In Doe d. Andrew v. Lainchbury, 11 East. 290, property and effects were applied to real estate, such appearing to be the testator's intention; and a great number of other cases were th......
-
The Record of Title Act, 1865, and of The Rev. John Sheridan, A Recorded Owner. Folio No. 519
...Cowp. 299. Penwarden v. GibertENR 3 Br. & B. 85. Tanner v. Moore 3 p. W. 294. Smith v. CoffinENR 2 H. BL 444. Andrew v. LainchburyENR 11 East. 290. Edwards v. BarnesENR 2 Bing. N. C. 252. Chillcott v. WhiteENR 1 East. 33. Frankin v. TroutENR 15 East. 394. Marquis Titchfield v. HorncastleUNK......