Earl of March v Pigot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1771 |
| Date | 14 June 1771 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 471
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[2806] michaelmas term, 12 geo. 3, B. R. 1771. rudsdell versus rudsdkll. Saturday, 9th Nov. 1771. The intention of a testator if not contrary to the rules of law must take place. This was a case out of Chancery, for the opinion of this Court, on a will. It was a very long case : but it may admit of some abridgement. The substance of it was-that Jonathan Rudsdell, seised in fee of a freehold estate of the value of 103 per annum, soon after his marriage made a settlement by deed poll dated 30th January 1744, whereby, in consideration of the marriage lately had between him and his wife, and of natural love and affection for her, and for making some provision from and after his death for her and such younger sons and such daughters as he might have by her, he grants to Benjamin Collyer an annuity of 50 issuing out of particular lands and tenements, to hold to the said Benjamin Collyer his heirs and assigns, to the use of his wife Mary Rudsdell and her assigns for her life; and, after her decease, to the use of all and every of his children on the body of his said wife lawfully begotten or to be begotten, (other than an eldest or only son,) as tenants in common, and not as joint-tenants, and their heirs and assigns severally for ever; and for default of such children, to the use of his right heirs, for ever, A clause of distress is here inserted; and also a proviso, that if at any time, after the decease of him and o his wife, his eldest or only son by his said wife, or his heirs or assigns, should be willing to pay to all or any other of his children by her, or the heirs of them or any of them, being of the age of 21 years or upwards, for and in satisfaction and discharge of the said annuity or yearly rent charge, or his or their part or parts thereof respectively, so much lawful money of Great Britain as the same shall amount unto at or after the rate of 25 years purchase, then such monies shall and [2807] may be paid, and shall be taken and accepted accordingly; and from and after such payment thereof, the said annuity or yearly rent-charge, or so much thereof as shall be so bought off or paid for, shall cease and determine; and the same shall be given up released and discharged by the person or persons receiving such monies to the person or persons paying the same, at his or their request and charge, by such ways and means as he or they shall reasonably require. On the 20lh July, 1754, the said Jonathan Rudsdell, having then issue by the said Mary his wife only one child, a daughter, named Susannah, who was born in May 1748, made his will, as follows-* Item--Whereas after my intermarriage with my loving wife Mary Rudsdell, I entered into certain articles and covenants to leave unto her the yearly income of fifty pounds per annum to be paid to her yearly out my real estate during her natural life, in case I should happen to die before her; and, after her decease, to leave it, if I had more than one child, to the youngest child, if only two were living at her decease; but if I left more than two children, at my death, of her body lawfully begotten, then the said 50 per annum to be equally divided amongst all such younger children as shall survive their mother my loving wife Mary Rudsdell, share and share alike, the said 50 per annum to be paid out of my real estate; now my mind and will is, and I the said Jonathan Rudsdell make it my earnest request to my loving wife Mary Rudsdell, (as it will be much to her * Note. I have not transcribed the words of mere form nor foreign clauses. 474 RUDSDELL V. RUDSDELL a BURR. 2808. advantage,) that, instead of the aforesaid 50 per annum, she the said Mary Rudsdell would, for her natural life, accept of one full half or moiety of the yearly income of all my messuages, lands and tenements situate lying and being in the town of Kingston upon Hull and in Beverley in the county of York...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Small and Others against Gibson
...not a fit subject of insurance." The present plaintiffs may rely upon the observations of Lord Mansfield in [132] Earl of March v. Pigot (5 Burr. 2802, 2804), as to the case of Mills v. Roebuck (1 Park, Ins. 467), in the Exchequer Chamber. His Lordship is reported to have there expressed di......
-
Pugh against Jenkins
...insurance upon an " event," wherein the assured had " no interest," contrary to stat. 14 G. 3, c. 48, s. 1. In The Earl of March v. Pigot (5 Burr. 2802), where the subject of the wager was, which of two persons would survive the other, it was not thought by the Court to make any difference ......
-
Gilbert, Clerk, against Sir Mark Sykes
...610. (6)1 Cowp. 729. (a)2 3 Burr. 1278. ' (6)2 Skin. 353. (c)1 11 East, 142. (d)1 4 East, 407. (e)1 1 Lev. 33. 1-Keb. 56. and 65. (f)i 5 Burr. 2802. (g) 3 Term Rep; 697. . (a)3 7 Term Rep. 535. (Vf 8 Term Rep. 575. (c)2 1 Term Rep. 56. (d)2 2 Term Rep. 610. (e)2 2 Bos. & Pull. 130. ,(/)2 10......
-
Hussey v Crickitt
...on the same grounds which had been taken at Nisi Pnus In addition to the former decisions, Best, Serjeant, cited Earl of March v. Piyot, 5 Burr. 2802, where two heirs apparent ran the lives of their respective fathers against each other, and no objection was made to the subject of the wager......
-
Insurable Interest
...for example, Depaba v Ludlow (1720), 1 Comyns 360; Goddart v Garett (1692), 2 Vern 269 (Ch). 6 See, for example, Earl of March v Pigot (1771), 98 ER 471. In this famous case, Earl and Pigot signed a contract pursuant to which Pigot agreed to transfer a fixed sum to the Earl if Pigot’s fathe......