Doe on the several demises of George, Earl of Egremont, and Edmonstone, against Mary Ann Forwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1842 |
| Date | 25 June 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 647
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 11 L. J. Q. B. 321. Distinguished, Doe v. Courtenay, 1848, 11 Q. B. 709; Doe v. Poole, 1848, 11 Q. B. 723. Held overruled, Noble v. Ward, 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 138.
[627] DOE ON THE SEVERAL DEMISES OF GEORGE, EARL OF EGREMONT, AND edmonstone, against mary ann forwood. Saturday, June 25th, 1842. Lands were settled, with a power to lease. A., tenant for life under the settlement, made, in May 1807, a lease which was not a good execution of the power, and received rant in conformity with the terms of the lease, by which the rent was payable on Lady Day, Midsummer, Michaelmas, and Christmas Days. B., a succeeding tenant for life, also received rent in conformity with the terms, and afterwards, in conjunction with C., remainder man in tail expectant upon B.'s estate for life, settled the land to such uses as C. should appoint, and, in default of appointment, to C. for life, remainder to a trustee for C., for C.'s life, remainder to the righl heirs of C. C. received rent before B.'s death, according to the terms of the lease; and, after B.'s death, gave notice to the lessee, on 21st March 1838, to quit "on 29th September next, or at the expiration of the current year of your tenancy." On 19th February 1839, C. appointed to N. in fee. Held, that, as between C. and the lessee, the notice was good, and determined the tenancy ; and that N., at the expiration of the notice, might evict the lessee; for that, if N. held under the creator of the power, B., no notice to quit was necessary as against N., and if N. held under the appointor, C., he might take advantage of the notice at its expiration. A lease had been granted, conformably to the power. A later lease (the first above mentioned) was expressed to be granted (d) 1 C. M. & R. 919, 930. S. C. 5 Tyr. 458, 472. See Begina v. Bliss, 7 A. & E. 550. 648 DOE V, FORWOOD 3 0-B. MS. " for the consideration of the surrender of the present lease, and which is hereby surrendered accordingly," and of a sum of money. The earlier deed of lease was actually given up on the execution of the second. The second lease was not valid, as an execution of the power; but rent was received according to its terms, by successive tenants for life and in remainder under the settlement. Held, that the surrender of the first lease was good. [S. C. 11 L. J. Q. B. 321. Distinguished, Doe v. Courtemy, 1848, 11 Q. B. 709; Doe v. Pooh, 1848, 11 Q. B. 723. Held overruled, Noble v. Ward, 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 138.] Ejectment for lands in Devonshire. The demises were, first, of George Wyndham, Earl of Egremont, dated 1st October, 1838; secondly, of Neil Benjamin Edmonstone, dated 1st November, 1839. On the trial, before Rolfe B., at the Devonshire Spring Assizes, 1840, a verdict was found for the plaintiff subject to a case, which was stated substantially as follows. Charles Earl of Egremont, before and at the date of his will bearing date Slat July 1761, and from thence to his death, was seiaed in his demesne as of fee of the premises mentioned in the declaration; atid, being so seised, by his will, bearing date as aforesaid, and duly executed, &c., devised all his manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments, and parts and shares of manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments, in the county of Devon, late the estate of his father Sir William Wyndham (of which the premises mentioned in the declaration were part), [628] to the testator's second son, Percy Charles Wyndham, and his assigns, for life; with remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to the first and other sons of the said Percy Charles Wyndham, respectively, in tail male; remainder to testator's third son, Charles William Wyndham, and his assigns for life ; remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to the first and other sons of the said Charles William Wyndham, successively, in tail male; remainder to testator's eldest son, George Lord Cockermouth, and his assigns, for life; remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to the first and other sons of the said George Lord Cockermouth, successively, in tail male; remainder to the fourth, fifth and all and every other the son and sons of the said testator's body lawfully begotten, or to be begotten, whether born in his lifetime or after his decease, severally, successively and in remainder, one after another, as they should be in priority of birth, and the respective heirs male of the body of such son and sons lawfully issuing. The will contained a power to the persons to whom any estate for life was devised, when in actual possession, to make leases; which power was set out in the case. The said Charles Earl of Egremont died (a), 21st [629] August 1763, without (a) The following appear to be the material dates. 21st August 1763. Death of Charles Earl of Egremont, the testator. Percy Charles Wyndham entered as tenant for life. llth July 1785. Valid lease by Percy Charles Wyndham to Heath. This lease, before the next date, assigned to Weech. llth May 1807. Invalid lease by Percy Charles Wyndham to Weech, in consideration of the surrender of the former lease. This lease assigned to the defendant before the next date. 6th August 1833...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd against Harrison
... ... (trustees), of the second part, and the several other persons whose names and seals are set and ... ...
- Tallerman & Company Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd
-
Whitmore v Wakerley
... ... , whereupon the present rule was obtained, against which Hayes, Se*, now spewed cause The question ... ...