Evans v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 1846 |
| Date | 28 March 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 840
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Blight v. Hartnoll, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 222.
[516] evans v. jones. March 27, 28, 1846. [See Slight v. Hartnoll, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 222.] Bequest to testator's brother and sisters, A., B. and C., for their several lives, share and share alike, and after the decease of either of them, then, as to the share or shares of one or either of them so dying, the testator bequeathed the same to the (1) That is, " The ease formerly mentioned of a legatee not standing in the place of a bond creditor against a devisee of land." (See Dickens's report.) T-St^--i i- 2COULS17. EVANS ,13. JONES 841 issue of the body or, bodies of him, her, or them so dying, begotten- or to be begotten by their present husbands, share and share alike, for ever. Assuming that A., B. and C. took life-estates only in the fund, the Court was of opinion that the words "issue of the body," &c., comprehended not only children but grandchildren and more remote descendants of A., B. and G. - Testator bequeathed all his personal estate, except the money laid out in stock, mortgages and bonds, to A.; and as to his money in stock and on mortgages and bonds, he gave the same to B. The gift to B. failed by an event analogous to a lapse. Held, that the property which was intended to be given to B. passed under the residuary bequest to A. Upon the construction of a will, Held, that certain legacies of stock, and of money on mortgages, bonds, &c., were specific. The will of Thomas Evans, dated the 12th December 1805, was partly as follows:- " I give and bequeath all my personal estate, except the money laid out or purchased in the 3 per cent. cOnsolSj money laid out on mortgages, bonds, notes and book debts, to my wife, Frances Lucy Evans, and her assigns, for ever. I give and bequeath to my nephew, Thomas Morgan, 100. I also give and bequeath to my nephew, John Thomas, 20. I also -give and bequeath my three pistols to my brother. I also give and bequeath to my brother, and each of my sisters, 10 apiece for mourning. And as for and concerning my other personal estate, consisting of sums in the 3 per cent, consols, and money on mortgages, bonds, notes and book-debts, I give and bequeath the same to my said wife for and during the term of her natural life; and from and after her decease, I give and bequeath the same to my brother, John Evans, Jane, the wife of Thomas Morgan, Ann, the wife of John Thomas, and Sarah Evans,'for and during their several lives, share and share alike; and from and after the decease of either of them, then, as to the share or shares of one or either of them so dying, I give and bequeath the same to the issue of the body or bodies of him, her, or them so dying, begotten or to be begotten by their present husbands, share and share alike, for. ever; and as to the share or shares of my said brother, or either of my said three sisters dying without issue lawfully begotten, then, as to his or their share or shares, so dying as aforesaid without issue, I give and bequeath the same tp the issue of the body, or bodies of such other sister or sisters, share and share alike, for ever." And [517] the testator appointed his wife, Frances Lucy, and his brother, John Evans, his executrix and executor. The testator was, at the date of his will and of his death, possessed of (amongst other personalty) 3800 3 per cent, consols, standing in his name; 400 secured on mortgage,; and a reversionary sum of 1000 consols, to which, under the settlement made upon his marriage with his wife, Frances Lucy, he was entitled, subject to her life interest, in the event of there being no issue of the marriage; The testator died in August 1806, without issue, leaving his wife and brother and the other legatees named in his wilty who were his sisters, surviving him. The will was proved by the executor and executrix; and the testator's debts and such of his legacies as were payable at his death were long since paid. The widow, during her life, received the dividends and interest of the above-mentioned sums of stock and money, and died in May 1822, having survived the testator's brother John, who died without leaving issue, and the testator's sisters, Jane and Sarah, the latter of whom had, in 1807, married Henry L. Williams. The bill was filed by the children of the testator's sisters, Jane Morgan and Ann Thomas, all of whom had been born in the testator's lifetime, against William Jones, the executor of the testator's widow, Ann Evans, the widow of the testator's brother John, the testator's sister, Ann Thomas, the children of the testator's sister Sarah, who had all been born in the lifetime of the widow, and some of the grandchildren of Ann Thomas, who had also been Born within that period, praying that the rights and interests of the parties entitled to that part of the testator's property which remained to be distributed might be declared, and that distribution might be made accordingly. , By the decree made on the hearing of theeause in July 1840 the Master was directed, in case he should find that all proper parties were before the Court, to take T.-C. VIII.-27* 842 ETANS V. JONES 2 COLL. 518. the necessary accounts; and, with a view to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key v Key
...or qualifying what I said, in Bird v. Luckie (8 Hare, 301), (the case that he brought to bear on me particularly), or in Evans v. Jones (2 Coll. 516), reported in the second of Mr. Collyer's volumes. I agree " certa pro in certis non relinquenda," but I say also, " In obscuris quod versimil......
-
Pride v Fooks
...cases to interpolate " such " is justifiable, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. The principle [259] of the cases is shewn by Emnx v. Jones (2 Coll. 516). Here neither any intention to be collected from the context, nor any probable intention, will be effectuated by supplying the word " such,......
-
Thompson v Whitelock
...widow. The 4100 was taken out of the residue only for a particular purpose, and that purpose having failed, it falls back ; Emms v. Junes (2 Coll. 516) ; James v. Irving (10 Beav. 276); Gambrid /f. v. Rout (8 Ves. 12, 25). Tidwdl v. Ariel is conclusive against the Plaintiff's claim, such wo......
-
Reynolds v Kortright
...Warren v. Newton (Dru. 474). On failure, therefore, of any of the particular gifts, they pass to the residuary legatee; Evans v. Jones (2 Coll. 516); Mitford v. Reynolds (16 Sim. 105). There is a marked distinction between a residuary gift, or devise charged with debts, and a trust to pay d......