Eddels v Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 1858 |
| Date | 19 March 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 808
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 302; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 255; 6 W. R. 401. Followed, Clark v. Clark, 1865, 34 L. J. Ch. 477.
[22] eddels v. johnson. March 19, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 302; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 255; 6 W. R. 401. Followed, Clark v. Clark, 1865, 34 L. J. Ch. 477.] A testator, having given to each of his six children a freehold estate, made a second devise to two of the children, and then gave, devised and bequeathed all the residue of his real and personal estate unto his said four children, naming three only. Held, that all the four children (other than the two) were entitled. The will contained specific bequests and devises, and a residuary gift of real and personal estate, but did not charge the real estate with the debts; and the personal estate not specifically bequeathed proving insufficient: Held, that the real and personal estate specifically given were to be applied rateably with the residuary real estate, in payment of the testator's debts. Where the will omits to charge the real estate with payment of debts, the real estate, whether devised specifically or in the form of residue, is to be applied in payment of all debts; and the late Wills Act, 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vic. c. 26, does not affect this charge. James Creed Eddels, of Kent Villa, Finchley New Road, Hampstead, Middlesex, by his will, dated the 6th of August 1853, gave and devised as follows :- I give and devise all my freehold messuages or tenements, lands and hereditaments, situate and being in the Vale in Ramsgate, in the county of Kent, and hereinafter particularly enumerated, unto my dear wife, Emma Marina, my daughter Emma Wil-mot, and Mr. Charles Johnson, of Charles Street, Middlesex Hospital, gentleman, and their heirs, upon the uses, trusts, intents and purposes, and with and subject to the powers, provisions, conditions and limitations hereinafter mentioned and expressed of or concerning the same, that is to say, as to the messuage or tenement, and dwelling-house, with the ground, offices and appurtenances belonging thereto, called G-lanmire House, to the use of my daughter Clara Elizabeth, for and during her life, and immediately after her decease to the use of any husband with whom she may intermarry and surviving .her, during his, life; and after his decease, to the use of such person or persons as my said daughter shall, by her last will and testament, direct or appoint, and in default of such appointment, to the use of the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue, to the use of my own right heirs for ever. And as to the messuage or tenement and dwelling-house, with the ground, offices and appurtenances belonging thereto, called Royal Villa, to the use of my said daughter Emma Wilmot, for and during her life, and immediately [23] after her decease, to the use of any husband with whom she may intermarry and surviving her, during his life; and after his decease, to the use of such person or persons as my said daughter Emma Wilmot shall, by her last will and testament, direct or appoint, and in default of such appointment, to the use of the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue, to the use of my own right heirs for ever. And 1 GIFT. 24. EDDELS V. JOHNSON 809 as to the messuage or tenement and dwelling-house, with the ground, offices, and appurtenances belonging thereto, called Chandos Cottage, to the use of my dear wife Emma Marina, until my daughter Thirza shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years, or marry, which shall first happen; but from and after the arrival of my daughter Thirza to the age of twenty-one years, or her marriage, which shall first happen, to the use of my said daughter Thirza...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dady v Hartridge
...Clemow (I Kay, 435); Cogswell v. Armstrong (2 K. & Joh. 227); WTieeler v. Howell (3 K. & Job. 198); Eddels v. Johnson (6 W. E. 401; S. C. 1 Giff. 22). the ViCE-CHANCELLOK [Sir E. T. Kindersley]. The question is, whether a residuary devise of real estate is, since the Wills Act, specific or ......
-
West v Lawday
...8 Ves. 105. Milne v. Slator 8 Ves. 295. Mirehouse v. Scaife 2 M. & Cr. 695. Emuss v. SmithENR 2 De G. & Sm. 722. Eddels v. JohnsonENR 1 Giff. 22. Pearmain v. TwissENR 2 Giff. 130. Edwards v. PughENR 2 Giff. 135. Clark v. Clark 11 Jur. N. S. 820. Daly v. HartridgeENR 1 Dr. & Sm. 236. Barnwel......