Doe, on The Several Demises of William, Elizabeth, and John, Usher, against Samuel Jessep
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 1810 |
| Date | 18 May 1810 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 113
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Discussed, Malcolm v. Taylor, 1832, 2 Russ. & M. 447. Approved and applied, Pearson v. Rutter, 1853-57, 3 De G. M. & G. 404; affirmed (sub nom. Grey v. Person), 6 H. L. C. 85. Applied, Seccombe v. Edwards, 1860, 28 Beav. 444. Referred to, Steen, 1871, Ir. R. 6 C. L. 12; Reed v. Braithwaite, 1871, L. R. 11 Eq. 520; Long v. Lane, 1885, 17 L. R. Ir. 17.
DOE, ON THE SEVERAL DEMISES OF WILLIAM, ELIZABETH, AND JOHN, USHER, against samuel jessep. Friday, May 18th, 1810. Under a devise to A. (a natural son) then under age, and the heirs of his body; and "if he die before 21, and without issue," then over to other relations and ultimately to the testator's own right heirs; Held that A. having attained 21, the limitations over did not take effect; as, by the natural sense of the word "and," they were made to depend upon the happening of both events, i.e. the son's dying before 21, and without issue. And this construction was not varied by a codicil made after the son attained 21, by which the testator confirmed every part of his will so far as his affairs were consistent. [Discussed, Malcolm v. Taylor, 1832, 2 Euss. & M. 447. Approved and applied, Pearson v. Butter, 1853-57, 3 De G. M. & G. 404; affirmed (sub nom. Grey v. Pearson), 6 H. L. C, 85. Applied, Seccombe v. Edwards, 1860, 28 Beav. 444. Referred to, Steen v. Steen, 1871, Ir. E. 6 C. L. 12; Seed v. Braithwaite, 1871, L. E. 11 Eq. 520; Long v. Lane, 1885, 17 L. E. Ir. 17.] In ejectment to recover possession of a freehold estate at Brentford in the parish of Baling in Middlesex, the plaintiff declared on the joint demises of the three lessors of the plaintiff, and also on their separate demises, which were laid on the 1st of Jan. 1810. A verdict was found at the-sittings for the defendant, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case : John Jessep, being seised in fee of the premises in question, by his will dated 20th of April 1779, devised all his freehold and copyhold messuages, lands, &c. in the parish of Baling (the copyhold being surrendered to the use of his [289] will) unto S. Clarke, Wm. Usher, and D. Gold win, their heirs and assigns, "in trust to and for my natural son John Jessep, an infant of the age of 15 years, whom I had by Mary Clarke, and the heirs of his body lawfully issuing for ever. And my will further is, that if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcolm v Taylor
...And the Court of King's Bench has certainly gone against, though they cannot be said to have overruled, his decision in Doe v. Jtxxep (12 East, 288). The reason given by Lord Ellenborough for questioning the case of Broumsworil v. Edwards, that in a will words are to be taken in their natur......
-
Ex parte Simpson
...meaning of the words 'without ever having been married', see Ex parte van Staden, 1925 O.P.D. 294; Voet, 28.7.29; 68.3.13. Doe v Jessop, 104 E.R. 113; Seccombe v Edwards, 54 E.R. 435; Steen v Steen, I.R. (6 C.L. 8), are not in G point. Appellant's application relating to relief under sec. 1......
-
John Mortimer, Joseph Milner and Rosamond his Wife, George Mortimer, Richard Mortimer, Joseph Westerman, Ann Johnson, John Wilkinson and Susannah his Wife, Matthew Snowden, and James Stephenson v Joseph Hartley, Samuel Atkinson, Joseph Johnson, James Hartley, and Edward Denton, and Attorney General
...and that, though he died without issue, yet it did not go over to the mother, but descended on his heir-at-law. In Doe d. Usher v. Jessep (12 East, 288), under a devise to A. (a natural son), then under age, and the heirs of his body, and, " if he die before twenty-one and without issue," t......
-
Ex parte Simpson
...meaning of the words 'without ever having been married', see Ex parte van Staden, 1925 O.P.D. 294; Voet, 28.7.29; 68.3.13. Doe v Jessop, 104 E.R. 113; Seccombe v Edwards, 54 E.R. 435; Steen v Steen, I.R. (6 C.L. 8), are not in G point. Appellant's application relating to relief under sec. 1......