Dormer v Fortescue
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 1744 |
| Date | 28 April 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 875
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Hicks v. Sallit, 1854, 3 De G. M. & G. 813; Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1874, L. R. 17 Eq. 400.
3 ATK. 121. JEFFREYS V. JEFFREYS 873 Case 46.-jeffreys versus jeffreys, Trinity/ Term, 16 Geo. 2 [1743]. A. by his will bequeaths to his two daughters Ann and Elisabeth 2702, 3s. capital stock in the bank of England, and 2000 sterling capital stock in the English East India company, to be equally divided between them; after making his will he sold 702, 3s. of the bank stock. The court held that the testator having the stock at the time he made his will, he meant to give that very individual stock, and the sale of part afterwards was an ademption pro tanto. (Vide Purse v. Snaplin, ants [Atk.], 1 vol. 414, and the note to that case.) The questions in this cause arose upon the will of one James Jeffreys, dated the 11th of June 1734, in which was the following clause. " Imprimis, to my two daughters now in Dantzick, Ann Louisa, Jeffreys, and " Elizabeth Jeffreys, I give and bequeath two thousand seven hundred and two pounds " three shillings, capital stock in the bank of England, and two thousand pounds sterling " capital stock in the English East India Company, to be equally divided between "them." At the time of making his will he had 2702, 3s. bank stock and 2000 East India stock, but before his death sold seven hundred and two pounds three shillings of the bank stock, so that the testator at the time of his death had only 2000 bank stock, and 2000 East India stock. The bill was brought by the daughters and legatees against the widow and executrix of the testator (who was a second wife of the testator, and by whom he had left other children, and devised to them the whole residue of his personal estate), charging that the testator had received 20,000 and upwards of their mother's estate and that what he had devised to them was the whole provision made by him for the plaintiffs, and prayed that they might be decreed to have the benefit of this devise, and that the executrix might be directed to purchase out of the other assets, which were very considerable, enough to make up the deficiency in the bank stock of the seven hundred and two pounds three shillings. Against this the defendant the executrix insisted, that the sale of this stock by the testator in his life-time was an ademption of the devise pro tanto, and by her answer set forth that the plaintiffs had very large...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vice v Thomas
...v. Pembeiton, 13 Ves 297 , Ai-mitage v. Wadsiuoith, I Madd. 189, HitctuLm* v. Lander, Coop 34, Calveiley v. ffilhams, 1 Ves. jun. 213. (e) 3 Atk. 124; see Dobson v. Leadbetter, 13 Ves. 230. In Dormei v Fortescue Lord Hardwicke says, " Where a man brings his bill in this Court, where there i......
-
Forster v Forster
......Garrick ( 1 ); Dormer v. Fortescue ( 2 ); Thomas v. Thomas ( 3 ); Hicks v. Sallitt ( 4 ). The Statute of Limitations does not apply, and at any rate under the terms ......
-
Taylor on the Demise of John Tracy Atkyns v Horde
...more will a feoffment in the present case. Ro. Ab. 609. Let us also examine, 1st, whether making a feoffment with livery gains any free- * 3 Atk. 124. 950 NOTES OF CASES IN K. B. ETC. 1 KENY. 1M. hold to the feoffor? 2ndly, whether it conveys any to the feoffee? 3dly, admitting a freehold d......
-
Monypenny v Bristow
...deeds till the sums paid by his testatrix, which sums the will has charged on the devised estates, have been repaid (Dormer v. Fortes/Me-, 3 Atk., 124). The nature of those counter-claims, too, creates a mutual accountability which especially calls for equitable interposition. The widow hav......