Earl of Warwick v Greville
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1809 |
| Date | 11 July 1809 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 934
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
[123] earl of warwick v. greville. Prerogative Court, Trinity Term, July llth, 1809 -Primogeniture gives no right to an administration. Judgment-Sir'John Nicholl. The question in the present case arises upon the grant of an administration to the goods of the Kight Hon. Charles Greville who has died intestate The deceased left two brothers, one sister, and a nephew the son of a deceased sister; the property must be distributed amongst the four , and there are three persons to whom administration may be granted : The Earl of Warwick, the elder brother, prays that it may be granted solely to himself, or to himself jointly with his brother Mr. Bobert Greville : the younger brother, Mr. Robert Greville, prays that it may be granted solely to himself, and he is supported in this prayer by the nephew Mr. Churchill, who is entitled to an equal distributive share of the property : the sister, Lady Frances Harpur, prays first that it may be solely to her brother Robert, then solely to Lord Warwick, or jointly to him and her brother Robert, and lastly, solely to herself, or jointly to herself and the elder or both brothers The statement is rather complicated, but the result of it is that there is a moiety of the interests concerned praying the sole administration for Mr. Robert Greville, a quarter of the interests pray-[124]-ing the sole administration to Lord Warwick; a quarter praying the sole administration to Lady Frances Harpur; a quarter the joint administration to the two brothers, a quarter a joint administration to the elder brother and the sister, or to both the brothers and the sister, for Lord Warwick unites in praying that it may not be jointly to himself and his sister. The (a) statute leaves it to the ordinary to grant [125] letters of administration to the next of km , all here have an equal interest; all except the nephew stand in an equal degree of relationship; none have a legal preference , the selection rests with the discretion of the Court; that discretion, however, is not to be arbitrarily or capriciously assumed, but to be a legal discretion governed by principle and sanctioned by practice , in exeieising it the Court is not to be guided by the wishes or feelings of parties, but is to look to the benefit of the estate and to that of all the persons interested in the distribution of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, deceased)
... ... On the one hand there are the cases of Hudson v Hudson [1737] 1 Atk 460 ; 26 ER 292, Earl of Warwick v Greville [1809] 1 Philim 123 , Bell v Timiswood [1812] 2 Phill Ecc 22 ; 161 ER ... ...
-
Lee Peter Michael v Tacplus Property Services Pte Ltd
...SLR 183, CA (folld) Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary [1985-1986] SLR (R) 991; [1986] SLR 48, PC (folld) Earl of Warwick v Greville (1809) 1 Phill Ecc 123; 161 ER 934 (folld) Fountain Forestry Ltd v Edwards [1975] Ch 1 (refd) Hudson v Hudson (1737) 1 Atk 460; 26 ER 292 (folld) Smith v Everett (185......
-
Iredale v Ford and Bramworth. [ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS]
...interests, unless there is a substantial objection to the party asking for the grant Budd v. Stiver, 2 Phill. 115 ; Watuick v. Greville, 1 Phill 123. Our application is supported by three-fourths of the interests. Two of the sisters apply for the grant, and the third has executed a proxy of......
-
Bishop, Re Lorna (Deceased)
...in their mother's estate being a two thirds share while Adam has a one third share. In the judgment in Warwick v. Greville 1809 1 Phill 123–161 ER 934 it was stated: “the just duty of the Court is to place the estate in the hands of that person who is best likely to convert to the advantage......