Drant v Vause
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 1843 |
| Date | 24 July 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 1026
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 170; 6 Jur. 313. see Bowen v. Barlow, 1871-72, L. R. 11 Eq. 458; L. R. 8 Ch 171; Frewen, 1875, L. R. 10 Ch. 612, n.
1026 DRANT V. VAUSE 1Y. & C. C. C. 580. [580] drant v. vause. 1842. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 170 ; 6 Jur. 313. See Bow&n v. Barlvw, 1871-72, L. E. 11 Eq. 458; L. E. 8 Ch. 171 ; Frewen v. Frewen, 1875, L. E. 10 Ch, 612, n.] Under a lease for years, the lessees had an option to purchase the fee-simple of the demised lands. After the date of the lease, the owner made his will, whereby he devised the lands, specifically describing them to G. for life, with remainders over. After the testator's death the lessees elected to purchase the fee-simple of the lands. Held, upon the special terms of the will, that the purchase-money did not fall into the residue of the personal estate, but was subject to the same limitations as had been declared concerning the purchased lands, and therefore that G. took a life interest in the purchase-money. George Drant, the testator in this case, by a lease, dated 20th September 1827, demised certain freehold property at Sculcoates, in the county of York, to T. and E. I. Sisson for a term of fourteen years, with a covenant therein that they should have the option, at any time during the term, of purchasing the fee-simple of the premises at the price of 2000. By his will, dated the 17th March 1831, without noticing the lease, he gave, devised and appointed unto his friends Eichard Vause and Thomas Kennington, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, all his messuages or dwelling-houses, cottages, warehouses, lands, tenements, hereditaments and real estates whatsoever in the parish of Seulcoates and other specified places, and all other his freehold and copyhold hereditaments of which he or any person or persons in trust for him was or were seised or entitled, or should be seised or entitled, at the time of Iris decease, to hold the same unto the said "trustees, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, according to the respective nature of such estates, but, nevertheless, upon the trusts thereinafter expressed and declared; that is to say, upon trust out of the rents and profits of the real estates and the interest and income of the personal estate, or out of the personal estate itself, if his trustees should think proper, to pay such sum or sums [581] of money as, at the testator's decease, should be due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miley v Carty
...1 Cox Ch. Cas. 167; Weedingv. Weeding,ENR 1 J. & H. 424; and Mooney v. M'Mahon, [1911] 1 I. R. 125, applied. Drant v. Vause,ENR 1 Y. & C. Ch. Cas. 580; and Emuss v. Smith,ENR 2 De G. & Sm. 722, distinguished. In re Huddlestone's Estate,IR [1921] 1 I. R. 1; and In re Marlay,ELR [1915] 2 Ch. ......
- Nicol v Chant
-
Toft v Stephenson
...for preventing the operation of the statute: Lucas v. Dennison (13 Sim. 584), Berrington v. Evans (1 Y. & C. 434). Drant v. Vause (1 Y. & C. C. C. 580), Searle v. Colt (Id. 36), Batclielor v. Middleton (6 Hare, 75), Towler v. Chatterton (6 Bing. 258), and Doe d. Jukes v. Summer (14 M. & W. ......
-
Pendleton v Rooth
...that the right of redemption should be gone at the time the mortgagee's will was made; Noys v. Mardaunt (2 Vern. 583), Drant v. Vause (1 Y. & C. C. C. 580); Gamtt v. Evers (Mos. 364). Tha rule as to tenants in common would not apply, for the mortgagee had the whole legal estate. Secondly, w......