Dux Devon, v Kinton Wid'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1716 |
| Date | 05 December 1716 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 1072
LORD CHANCELLOR.
^ Case 638.-Dux devon, versus kinton Wid'. Lord Chancellor. Dec. 5 [1716]. [l]Eq. Ca. Ab. 242, pi. 8, S. C. A. seised of a leasehold estate to him and his heirs for three lives, settles it on his daughter and her husband for their lives, remainder to the use of his own executors and administrators. The daughter and her husband die. A. dies indebted by simple contract, and devises his estate to his wife. Decreed that the use of this estate being limited to the executors and administrators of A. this makes it personal estate in A., and being personal estate, A. cannot devise it exempt from his debts, though due but by simple contract. Kinton having an estate granted by the Bishop of London, to him and his heirs for the lives of A. B. and C., upon his daughter's marriage conveyed it over for the use of his son and daughter for their lives,(l) remainder to his own executors, administrators, and assigns; his daughter being dead, and Kinton dying indebted to the plaintiff (whose steward he was) by simple contract, and having devised this estate to his wife, the defendant^ The question was, whether the residue of this term expectant on his son-in-law's decease, should be assets to pay a creditor by simple contract. By the statute against Frauds and Perjuries (Stat. 29, Car. 2, cap. 3, sect. 12, and see stat. 14 Geo. II. cap. 20, sect. 9), an estate pur auter vie is made devisable, and is assets to pay bonds and specialties, if it comes to the heir, and assets general, if it comes to the administrator : but if it be devised (as in this case Mr. Kinton has devised it to his wife), the devisee takes it as devised to him; and it is no more assets now, than it was before the statute of Frauds and Perjuries. Lord Chancellor. As'to the statute against fraudulent devises (Stat. 3 Wm. and Mary, cap. 14), although the general words in it may extend to a [720] devise of an estate pur auter vie, yet that is only for creditors by specialty; and the plaintiff here was only a creditor by simple contract. But in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Executors and Administrators
...in A., and being Personal Estate, A. cannot devise it exempt from his Debts, though due but by Simple Contract: Decreed, Devon v. Kinton, 2 Vern. 719. Vide [Raggett v. Clerke] 1 Vern. 234. (C) where upon the death of one of the executoes, the surplus of the personal estate, after debts and ......
-
Ripley v Waterworth. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
...as entitled to take. Why is not an executor to be considered special occupant as well as an heir at law 1 In The Duke of Devon v. Kinton (2 Vern. 719) the Lord Chancellor took it, that even before the Statute of Frauds, if an estate pur auter vie came to an executor or administrator, it wou......
-
Brenan v Boyne
...v. GreyENR 30 Beav. 352. Low v. Burron 3 P. W. 262. M'Clintock v. Irvine 10 Ir. Chan. Rep. 485. The Duke of Devonshire v. KintonENR 2 Vern. 719. Kerr v. Cassidy 1 Hud. & Br. 224, n. Williams v. JekylENR 2 Ves. sen. 681. Campbell v. Sandys 1 Sch. & Lef. 281. Ripley v. Waterworth 7 Ves. 425. ......
-
Atkinson, Administratrix v Baker
...namely, the heir of W. Atkinson. If it be contended, that the administratrix of W. Atkinson may take this as a special occupant, arid 2 Vern. 719. 3 Atk. 466, and Garth. 376, be cited, it may be answered, that the plaintiff, as the. administratrix, might have taken if it had not been limite......