Elizabeth Green, Widow, Palintiff, against Edward Henry Green, Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1816 |
| Date | 27 November 1816 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 873
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. with note, 19 Ves. 665.
elizabeth: green, Widow, Plaintiff, ayainst edward henry gkeen, 'Defendants June 27, Sept. 2, Nov. 1, 27, [181.6]. [See S. C. with note, 19 Ves. 665.] By settlement on the marriage of E. G. with the Plaintiff, estates, to which E. G. was entitled as tenant in tail in remainder, are expressed to be settled, as to part, to the use of E. G. for life, remainder to the Plaintiff for life, remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage, and, as to part, to the use of E. G. for life, remainder to the first and other sons, &c., immediately on the determination of his life estate. Other estates, to which the Plaintiff was entitled in fee-simple, are by the same settlement conveyed to similar uses. Upon the death of E. G-., the Defendant (his only son and heir-at-law) enters on the estates to which he was entitled as tenant in tail under the settlement, and brings ejectments to recover possession of those to which his father was entitled as tenant in tail at the time of the settlement, and into which the Plaintiff had entered on his death, as tenant for life under the settlement, as not having been duly conveyed to the uses of the settlement. An injunction was granted, on the ground of election, to restrain the Defendant from proceeding in these ejectments. Edward Green, deceased, the late husband of the Plaintiff and father of the Defendant, being by virtue of a settlement made in the year 1740, on the marriage of his father and mother, and of a subsequent deed dated in the year 1753, entitled as tenant in tail male, in remainder expectant on the decease of the survivor of them his said father and mother, to the manor of Lawford, and various other hereditaments, freehold [87] as well as copyhold, intermarried with the Plaintiff, who was the daughter of Henry Grossman and Elizabeth his wife ; and by indentures of settlement, dated the 2d and 3d of September 1768, previous to the said marriage, it was witnessed that Edward Green the elder and Catharine his wife (the father and mother of the Plaintiff's said late husband), and he the Plaintiff's said late husband, conveyed those estates, as to part thereof to the use ofj the father and mother successively for life, with, remainder to Edward Green, the Plaintiff's husband, for life, with remainder to the Plaintiff for life, with remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage in tail, and, as to other parts, immediately to the husband for life, with remainder to the first and other sons in tail ; subject, as to a portion of the latter, to the trusts of a term of 800 years for raising the portions of younger children of the marriage. By the same indenture, Grossman, and wife (the Plaintiff's father and mother), together with the Plaintiff, conveyed certain hereditaments, of which they or some or one of them were or Avas at that time seised in fee-simple, to the same G. xv.-28* 874 GRKEN V. GREEN 2 MEK. 88. respective uses, as to the several parts thereof, after the death o! them the Plaintiff's said father and mother, as the uses to which the former estates were conveyed respectively, after the death of Edward Green the elder and his wife. The settlement contained several covenants on the part of Edward Green the elder and of Grossman and wife, to surrender certain copyhold parts of the premises intended to he conveyed to the uses of the settlement, and a covenant by Grossman to assign his interest in a mortgage, on which the sum of 800 was due, upon trust to lay out the same in the purchase of real estates to the use of the Plaintiffs husband for life, with remainder to trustees for a term of years for the better securing the portions intended for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v Ingilby
...of the way, contracts in contemplation of marriage are governed by the same rules as other contracts. I omitted to cite Gfreen v. Green (2 Mer. 86), which shews that the marriage consideration does not cover the failure of all other considerations in the way contended for, and it was a deci......
-
Young v Savill
...and the Court would take care that its own contract was carried into full effect. Thellusson v. Wood/ord (13 Ves. 209), Green v. Green (2 Mer. 86), Goring v. Nash (3 Atk. 186). Secondly, that the Plaintiff and the other next of kin of Mrs. Parker, being merely volunteers, and not within the......
-
Judd v Pratt. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
...condition. The distinction, though not generally observed, before the cases of Tibbits v. Tibbits and Green v. Green, 19 Ves. 656, 665 ; 2 Mer. 86 ; 1 Jac. 317, is marked with precision by Lord Commissioner Eyre, 1 Ves. Jan. 523, Blake v. Bunbwry; and by Lord Chief Justice De Grey, 2 Ves. j......
-
Armstrong v Lynn
...v. BeechyENR 2 Sim. & St. 282. Loveridge v. CooperENR 1 Russ. 3. Ware v. Lord Egmont 4 D. M. & G. 423. Green v. GreenENR 19 Ves. 665; 2 Mer. 86. Gaskin v. RogersELR L. R. 2 Eq. 291. Cooper v. Cooper L. R. 6Ch. App. 15. Cooper v. CooperELR L. R. 7 H. L. 54. Wombwell v. HanrottENR 14 Beav. 14......