Edward Slater and Maria Ann, his Wife v Dangerfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1846 |
| Date | 21 February 1846 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 848
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 16 L. J. Ex. 139.
edward slater and maria ann, his Wife v. dangerfiei.d. Feb. 21, 1846.-A testator devised lands to his grandson, G. D., to hold the same unto and to the use of the said G. D., for the term of his natural life; and from his decease, unto and to the use of all and every the lawful issue of the said G. D., their heirs and assigns for ever, equally, as tenants in common and not as joint-tenants, when ; and as he, she, or they should attain his, her, or their age or ages of twenty-one years. And the testator devised all the residue arid remainder of his real and personal estate arid effects, whatsoever and wheresoever, not before otherwise disposed of, to his daughter, S. D., absolutely, for her own sole and separate use. -Held, tbat, in the above devise, issue was to be construed "children," and [therefore G. D. took an estate for life only, with remainder to his children as ;purchasers, and not an estate tail; and therefore that, on his death without issue, S. D. took under the residuary devise, notwithstanding a deed of disentailer executed by G. D. in his lifetime : for a deed of disentailer, executed under the ,3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, has no effect in barring future contingent estates, unless the party executing it was in fact a tenant in tail. 1 [S. C. 16 L. J. Ex. 139.] This was an action of detinue for the title-deeds of an estate, of which the declaration alleged that the plaintiffs were lawfully possessed, as of their own property, in right! of the plaintiff Maria Ann. The defendant pleaded non detiriet; secondly, that t|e plaintiffs, in right of the said Maria Ann, were not possessed as of their own property [264] of the deeds, &c. in the declaration mentioned. Issues thereim. By consent of tha parties, the following case was stated, under a Judge's order, for the opinion of this Court:- Henry Taylor, of Barking, in the county of Essex, carpenter, being seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the hereditaments, for the deeds and writings relating to which!this action is brought (and which are hereinafter described as and called, "the premises in question"), on the 21st day of August, 1823, duly made, signed, arid published his last will and testament in writing, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and thereby (amongst others things) gave and devised the premises in question iii the words following:-"Also, I give and devise unto my grandson, George HiM. &W.2S5. SLATER V. DANGERFIELD 849 Dangerfield, all those three freehold messuages or tenements which I purchased of Jumes Hawkins Hay liar, with the outhouses, yards, and gardens and appurtenances thereto belonging, situate in the High-street of Harking aforesaid, and tiow in the occupation of William Bowers, John Wallround, and William lieed ; also all that freehold piece or parcel of marsh land which I purchased of James Sanders, Esq., called Little Paradise Marsh, containing by estimation four acres or thereabouts, with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in Harking aforesaid, and now in the occupation of James Crow, his under-tenants or assigns : To hold the same unto and to the use of my grandson, George Dangerfield, for and during the term of his natural life : And from and immediately after his decease, I do give and devise the same unto and to the use of all and every the lawful issue of my said grandson, George Dangerfield, their heirs and assigns for ever, equally, as tenants in common and not as joint-tenants, when and as he, she, or they shall attain his, her, or their age or ages of twenty-one years." And in the said will was also contained a devise and bequest of the residue and remainder of the real and personal estate of the said testator, in the [265] words or to the effect following, that is to say : " Also I give and bequeath all my stock and utensils in trade, household furniture, plate, linen, and china, and all other my real and personal estate and etlects whatsoever and wheresoever, not hereinbefore by me otherwise disposed of, unto my said daughter, the wife of the said James Dangerfield, to and for her own sole and separate use, benefit, and disposal, independent of, and without being subject or liable to, the debts, control, management, or engagements of her present or any future husband she may marry, in manner hereinbefore mentioned." The said Henry Taylor, after the making of the said will, died seised of the said premises in question, and without having revoked or in any manner altered the same will, leaving the said George Dangerfield and Sarah Dangerfield respectively hitn surviving, and also leaving his grandson, Henry Wellington Taylor, his heir-at-law, and which said will was duly proved in the proper ecclesiastical court. The said George Dangerfield entered into possession of the promises in question, and continued possessed thereof until the month of July, 18:24, when he departed this life without having had any issue. The said George Dangerfield, on the 16th day of January, 1844, by an indenture of disentailer, duly executed by the said George Dangerfield, Eliza, his wife, and the said Henry Wellington Taylor, conveyed the premises in question to the said Henry Wellington Taylor and his heirs, to the uses, on the trusts, and for the purposes in that indenture mentioned. The said Sarah Dangerfield, the residuary devisee, departed this life in the month of May, 1837, intestate, leaving Henry Dangerfield, her eldest son and heir-at-law. The said Henry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peyton v Lambert
...3 H. L. Cas. 106; S. C., 14 Jur. 771. Cormack v. CoponsENR 17 Beav. 397. Goodright v. Denham Dougl. 264. Slater v. DangerfieldENR 15 M. & W. 263, 272, 274. Ex parte DaviesENRUNK 2 Sim., N. S., 114; S. C., 21 Law Jour., Ch., 135; 15 Jur. 1102. Jesson v. Wright 2 Bli., O. S., 1. Roddy v. Fitz......
-
Kavanagh v Morland
...or there have been superadded words of limitation, as in Greenwood v. Rothwell (5 M. & Gr. 628; 6 Beav. 492), and Slater v. Dangerfield (15 M. & W. 263). Mr. J. V. Prior, for the Defendants. The main question is as to the effect of the word "issue" in the ultimate gift [21] to the issue of ......
-
Parker v Clark
...v. Atwood (15 Q. B. 929). See also Cannon v. Bucastle (8 C. B. 876). But see Greenwood v. Both-well (6 Beav. 492), Slater v. Dcmgerfield (15 M. & W. 263). Mr. Elmsley and Mr. Prendergast appeared for the children of Mrs. Parker. Mr. Walkers Mr. Toller and Mr. J. V. Prior appeared for the tr......
-
Thomas Voller against John Carter
...than to his daughter. The importance of this circumstance appears from the language of the Court of Exchequer in Slater v. Dangerfield (15 M. & W. 263, 275). Joseph Brown, contra. It is true that the words "for her life only" are not conclusive against giving to the devise the effect of an ......