Fitzhugh Cranvel against Sanders
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 424
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
case 3. fitzhugh cranvel against sanders. Words in the future tense expressive of a testator's intention to revoke his will can never amount to a revocation ; but if ho say, " I do revoke it," it is sufficient. Ante, 115. Cro. Eliz. 306. Dyer, 310. 1 Eoll. Ab. 614. Styles, 343. 418. 1 Sid. 73. Owen, 76. Powel on Dev. 533. 1 Com. Dig. 10. 13. 2 Bl. Kep. 1115. Dougl. 34. Cowp. 52. 87. 812. A testator must be of sound mind to revoke his will. 6 Co. 23, a. Powel on Dev. 145. Ejectment. Upon evidence to a jury, it was resolved by the Court, and so delivered to the jury, that if one make his will in writing, of land, and afterward upon communication saith, that he hath made his will, but that it shall not stand ; or " I will alter my will, &c." these words are not any revocation of the will, for they are words but in futuvo, and a declaration what he intends to do : but if he saith, "I do revoke it, and bear witness thereof," he hereby absolutely declares his purpose to revoke it inprcesenti, and it is theti a revocation (a). Also Montague said to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherburne's Case
...ten shillings yearly, for all tithes of wood (a) This case was reconsidered, and judgment for the defendant affirmed. Post. 433. (a) Cro. Jac. 497. 1 Ro. Ab. 615. Moor, 874. (b) See 29 Car. 2. c. 3. which restrains parole revocations. 558 MICHAELMAS TERM, 35 AND 36 ELIZ. IN B. E. CBO.EUZ.30......
-
Richardson and Lang v Barry
...c. 37 , 34 & 35 Hen. 8, c 5) and the statute of frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) wills in writing could be revoked by parol. Cianvel v. Saunders (Cro, Jac. 497). Under sections 5 and 6 of the statute of frauds what is requisite for the execution of a will is different from what is requisite for its......
-
Holmes's Case
...for good behaviour. On a special verdict for arson, if it be found no felony, yet the party may be fined for the trespass. Sed vide Cro. Jac. 497. Kely. 29. and 2 Hale P. C. 172. where Lord Hale doubts the propriety of this point of the case, because being tried for felony, the prisoner hat......