Edwards v Alliston
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1827 |
| Date | 10 December 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 734
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Doe dem. Clift v. Birkhead, 1849, 4 Ex. 110.
[78] edwaeds v. alliston. Rolls. Dec. G, 10, 1827. [See Doe dem. Clift v. Birkhead, 1849, 4 Ex. 110.] Cross remainders cannot be implied in a deed, and are not created as to accruing shares by a limitation of the entire estate to an only surviving child and his issue, or by a gift over of the entire estate in remainder after the failure of all issue, or by an express creation of cross remainders as to the original shares. By indentures of lease and release bearing date on the 26th and 27th of August 1782, being the settlement made on the marriage of James Orompton and Sarah Carney, Thomas Sandford, the uncle of Sarah Carney, conveyed certain lands and tenements to the use of Sarah, the wife of him Thomas Sandford, and her assigns, for her life ; remainder to the use of James Grampian and his assigns, during his natural life; " remainder to the use of Berkhead Hitchcock and Robert Dean, and their assigns, during the life of James Crompton, upon trust to support contingent remainders ; remainder to the use of Sarah Crompton, and her assigns, during her life ; remainder to the use of all and every the child and children of the body of James Crompton on the body of Sarah his wife, lawfully begotten or to be begotten, equally to be divided between or among them ; if more than one, share and share alike as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants, and to the use of the several and respective heirs of the body and bodies of all and every such child and children lawfully issuing ; and if there should be a failure of issue of the body or bodies of any auch child or children, then as to the part or share, or parts or shares, of such child or children, when issue should so fail, to the use of the remaining and other children of the body of James Crompton, on the body of Sarah his wife lawfully begotten or to be begotten, equally to be divided between or amongst them, if more than one, share and share alike, and they to take as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, and to the use of the several and respective heirs of the [79] body and bodies of such remaining and other children lawfully issuing ; and, in case there should be a failure of issue of the bodies of all such children but one, or, if there should be but one such child, then to the use of such only remaining or only child, and the heirs of his or her body lawfully issuing:" and for default of such issue, to the use of the right heirs of Thomas Sandfordjlor ever. There were seven children of the marriage, four of whom died without issue : viz. James Dickenson, who died in 1823 ; Thomas, who died in 1785 ; Joshua, who died in 1800 ; and Margaret, who died in 1811. In 1825, Mary, Sarah, and Louisa, the three surviving children and their husbands suffered a common recovery, which, it was declared, should enure to the use of Edwards and Barlow, and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Doe d. Clift v Birkhead
...come to an opposite decision, this Court must be under the necessity of overruling that express authority ; that ia the case of Edwards v. Alliaton (4 Russ. 78), where Sir J. Leach, the Master of the Rolls, held that cross-remainders cannot be implied in u deed, and are not created 1(148 DO......
-
Douglas v Andrews
...which a child took under a settlement, accruing as well as original; Doe dem. Cliff v. Birkhead (4 Exch. Rep. 110), overruling Edwards v. Alliston (4 Russ. 78); so the words "part or share" had been held to apply to accruing shares; Leeming v. Sherratt (2 Hare, 14). [351] Secondly, that it ......
-
Goodwin v Finlayson
...on which the Chief Baron relied, in giving judgment, was the general effect of the whole, and he expresly overrules the case of Edwards v. Attiston (4 Russ. 78), before Sir John Leach. But I do not think that Doe d. Clift v. Birkhead governs this case beyond this : that the principle is, th......
-
Bainton v Bainton
...but erosa-remainders may, nevertheless, be raised by the general words in a deed ; Doe d. Watts v. fFainevnigkt (5 Term Rep. 427Edwards v. AUiston (4 Russ. 78 ; and see Doe dem. Clift v. Birkhead, 10 Exch. 110), in which the express cross-remainders were only of the original shares. Here th......