Evans v Rosser
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1864 |
| Date | 09 March 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 435
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 10 L. T. 159; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 385; 12 W. R. 570. See Allen v. Jackson, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 632; 1 Ch. D. 402; In re Moore, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 121.
Condition. Restraint of Marriage. Second Marriage of a Man.
[190] evans v. rosser. March 8, 9, 1804. [S. C. 10 L. T. 159 ; 10 Jur. (1ST. S.) 385 j 12 W. R. 570. See Allen v. Jackson, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 632 ; 1 Ch. D. 402 ; In re Moore, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 1'21.] Condition. Restraint of Marriage. Second Marriage of a Man. Bequest to testator's widow during widowhood, remainder to his son-in-law " during the term of his natural life or marriage again," with a gift over " after the decease or marriage " of the son-in-law. Held, on the construction, that this was a gift for life or until marriage, and not a gift with a condition of defeasance on marriage. Whether a condition defeating a gift to a man on his second marriage is good or bad, gucere. This ease came on upon demurrer. The bill stated as follows:-David Cornelius by his will devised and bequeathed his freehold, leasehold and personal estate to his wife for life, in ease she should so long continue his widow, with remainder to his son-in-law, the Plaintiff, Thomas Evans (in the said will described as married to the testator's daughter Elizabeth, since deceased), to hold to him and his assigns for and during the term, of his natural life, or marriage again with any other person except his (the testator's) daughter Elizabeth, it being his will and desire that no part of his said estate should descend or go by right of representation, or be devised or bequeathed to any other person or persons but to his relatives, representatives and descendants, and those of hia (testator's) wife. And from and immediately after the decease or marriage of his said son-in-law the Plaintiff, Thomas Evans, the testator devised and bequeathed one moiety of his said freehold, leasehold and personal estate unto and between his (testator's) next of kin living at the time of the decease of his said son-in-law, the Plaintiff, Thomas Evans, in case he survived his (the testator's) wife Mary, or in case he did not survive her, then his (the testator's) next of kin living at the time of his said wife's decease. And as to the other moiety, unto and between the next of kin of his said wife Mary living at the time of the decease of the Plaintiff, in case he survived his (the testator's) wife Mary, or in case he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott, Deceased. Montgomery v Poterton
...in the events that have happened the unmarried niece is absolutely entitled. r. w. l. (1) [1843] 2 Hare, 570. (2) 48 L. T. R. 212. (3) 2 H. & M. 190. (4) 3 D. M. & G. ...
-
The Trusts of The Will of Jane King, and The Statutes 22 & 23 Vict. C. 35, and 23 & 24 Vict. C. 38
...Bellairs v. BellairsELR L. R. 18 Eq. 510. Bullock v. Bennett 7 D. M. & G. 283. Potter v. Richards 24 L. J. Ch. 488. Evans v. RosserENR 2 H. & M. 190. Heath v. Lewis 3 D. M. & G. 954. Ward v. GreyENR 26 Beav. 485. Maples v. BainbridgeUNK 1 Mad. 590. Newton v. MarsdenENR 2 J. & H. 356. Scott ......
-
Oliver v Menton
... ... The gift is not invalid because its duration depends on two alternatives: Evans v. Rosser(2), and I see nothing to affect its present validity in the fact that the particular donee is the lady who shall happen at some future time ... ...