George Wilford Bulkley, - Appellant; Anna Wilford, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 5 E.R. 888
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. xiii. 1436, 1441, 1469, 1483; xiv. 417. S.C. 2 C1. & F. 102. Cited in Stokes v. Prance, [1898] 1 Ch. 224. Distinguished in Lysaght v. M'Grath, 1882, 11 L. R. Ir. 142.
[Ill] ENGLAND. COURT OF CHANCERY. george wilfokd bulkley,--Appellant; anna wilford,--Respondent [1834], [Mews' Dig. xiii. 1436, 1441-, 1469, 1483; xiv. 417. S.C. 2 01. & F. 102. Cited in Stokes v. Prance, [1898] 1 Ch, 224. Distinguished in Lysaght v. M'Grath, 1882, 11 L. R. Ir. 142.] W., being seised of lands at R., entered into a contract for the sale of part of those lands ; and the title being complicated, the purchaser required that a fine should be levied of the lands under contract of sale. In this business W. employed B. as his solicitor, he being his heir presumptive. Under the advice of B. a fine was levied, not only of the lands sold, but of all the lands at R. belonging to W. Before the contract for sale W. had made his will, devising his real estate to his wife. W. died a few months after levying the fine ; and in conversations shortly after his death, B. used expressions which imported that, at the date of the conversations at least he knew that W. had made a will before the fine levied, and that the operation of the fine would be to revoke the will. He also, in answer to a representation that he ought to have apprised W. of that consequence, said, " Why should I put a sword into his hand to cut my throat 1" Upon a bill filed in equity by the widow, and an answer admitting the employ-ment as solicitor, and the advice to levy the fine, but denying knowledge or belief that a will had been executed by W., and also denying knowledge that a fine would operate to revoke the will, issues were directed to a court of law to try, 1. Whether the Defendant fraudulently induced W. to extend a fine levied by him beyond property sold to the commissioners, etc.; 2. Whether the Defendant fraudulently omitted to inform W. that the fine would revoke his will as to the lands comprised therein ; and the jury having found a verdict for the Plaintiff upon the second issue, Held, that B. was properly declared and decreed to be a trustee for the devisee. Whether such decree ought not to have been made upon the evidence in equity without directing issues.-Quaere. [112] In the month of June, 1823, the Respondent, Anna Wilford, filed her bill in the Court of Chancery against the Appellant George Wilford Bulkley and others, which bill was afterwards amended ; and it was thereby alleged, that Richard Rich Wilford (the testator in the bill named) was, at the time of making his will, seised in fee simple of the following lands and hereditaments (that is to say): the mansion house or dwelling 888 BttLKLEY V. WILFORD [1834] VIM BllGH N. 8, house called Ranelagh House, with the land, stable, and coachhouse thereto adjoining, together with two other pieces of land, also thereto adjoining, in one whereof there were five tenements erected, and in the other one tenement; the whole of the said mansion house, lands, and tenements comprising about two acres; which premises, or great part (particularly the mansion house), had been devised to him by the will of his father, who died in the year 1789, and the residue thereof purchased by him of sundry persons upwards of twenty years prior to filing such bill; that he was also in like manner entitled to another estate nearly adjoining thereto, commonly called the Ranelagh estate, comprising eighteen acres of land or thereabouts, with twelve messuages thereon erected; that the said Richard Rich Wilford, whilst of sound and disposing mind, signed and published his will, dated on the 28th day of March, 1822, and which was attested as by law is required for passing freeholds by devise, and thereby devised and bequeathed all and every his messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and real estates whatsoever and wheresoever, and the residue of his personal estate, unto the Respondent, her heirs, executors, [113] administrators, and assigns for ever, and appointed her and Joseph George Brett, and William Augustus Cane, executrix and executors of his said will; and that, by virtue of such will, she was in possession of some part of the said testator's real estates, and particularly of the mansion house, in which the testator had for upwards of thirty years before his death resided; but that the Appellant, George Wilford Bulkley, was in possession of other part thereof ; and further alleging that previously to the making of his will, the testator had entered into a contract with John La wrens Bicknell, gentleman, on the behalf of the then commissioners and governors of the Royal Hospital for soldiers at Chelsea, for the sale to them of part of the said land called the Ranelagh estate, in consideration of £9000, which contract was reduced into writing, and signed by the said John Lawrens Bicknell as the agent of, and on the behalf of the said commissioners and governors ; and the premises so contracted to be sold, were to be conveyed to the said John Lawrens Bicknell, as a trustee for the said commissioners and governors, and that the testator's title to some part of the said property called the Ranelagh estate was complicated, the said estate having formerly been held by trustees in trust, for certain shareholders therein, which shares were thirty-six in number ; and the titles to most of the said shares being separate and distinct; and in consequence of such complication, doubts arose respecting the testator's title to a part of the land so contracted to be sold; that it was therefore agreed, and formed part of the said contract with the said commissioners and governors, that the testator should, with a view to the completion of the said (Il4] contract, levy a fine of the said land so contracted to be sold to the said commissioners and governors, and that the Appellant, who had been employed by the testator for several years before as his attorney, and who had done much business for him as his attorney, was the attorney employed by the testator on the sale ; and further alleging that the Appellant, who from the conversations he had with the testator on the subject and otherwise, well knew, or believed, or suspected, that the said testator had made a will, and thereby left his real estates to Respondent, or to some other person, and who believed or considered himself to be at that time, and at the time of the levying of the fine hereinafter mentioned, as he actually was, the heir presumptive of the said testator, formed a scheme of causing the said testator to levy a fine which should in law include the whole of his said property, and thus revoke his will. And which, from the confidence reposed in him by the said testator as his attorney, he knew he should be able to effect; and that with such view and design the Appellant advised the said testator not to limit the fine which was intended to be levied as aforesaid,"to that part of the premises called the Ranelagh estate, which was contracted to be sold, but to levy a fine of the whole of premises called the Ranelagh estate, alleging that it would add little to the expense, and that by so doing, he would strengthen his title to the whole estate. And further alleging, that the testator being wholly ignorant of the effect of levying such fine, consented to act therein, as advised by the Appellant, and accordingly a fine sur conuzance de droit come ceo, etc. was by the procurement of the Ap-[115]-pellant, who acted therein as the attorney of the testator, levied in or as of Michaelmas term, in the year 1822, wherein John Lawrens Bicknell was Plaintiff, and the testator and the Appellant were deforciants of twenty messuages, twelve gardens, twenty acres of land, twenty acres of meadow, twenty acres of pasture 889 VIH BIJGH N. S. BULKLEY V. WlLFOfcD [1884] five acres of wood, and five acres of land covered with water, and the appurtenances in Chelsea, and that the Appellant caused the name of John Lawrens Bicknell to be inserted in the fine, as the Plaintiff, in order more effectually to conceal his design both from the testator and from the Respondent, and that the same might appear to have arisen out of the contract, and that the Respondent might be the more readily induced to consent to join in such fine ; and the Appellant, although he inserted in the fine such a number of acres as would in law comprise the whole of the testator's property at Chelsea, took care to insert twelve messuages only, in order that the testator, in case he should look into any of the documents, might have no suspicion that any other property belonging to him was included in the fine than his property called the Ranelagh property, on which there were exactly twelve messuages ; and in order to induce the Respondent to join in the fine, the Appellant not only represented to her that it was necessary to confirm the title to such part thereof as had been sold, but he also represented to her, in the presence of the testator, that it would strengthen and confirm his title to the residue of the property; and further alleging that the Appellant also, in furtherance of such fraudulent design, as aforesaid, did not state to the testator that the levying of [116] such fine would at law operate as a revocation of any will he might have made to any extent, but concealed the same from him; and the testator was, as the Appellant was aware, wholly ignorant that the fine would have any such operation, and that no uses were declared of the fine ; that the testator died on or about the 20th day of December, in the year 1822, seised of all the before-mentioned lands and premises, and without having altered or revoked his will, save at law, by the fine, and leaving the Respondent his widow, but no children, or brothers, or sisters, Mm surviving. That shortly after the death of the testator, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hill (Trading as R F Hill and Associates) v Van Erp
-
Hindson v Weatherill
...stamped with the sanction of Lord Eldon, who referred to it with approbation in the House of Lords in the case of Wilford v. BuLTdey (2 Cl. & Fin. 102; and 8 Bli. (N. S.) 111). In the case of Segrave v. Kirwan Sir A. Hart says that " the seal of the Ecclesiastical Court to a probate is conc......
-
Campbell v Ingilby
...representing herself to be single, it was held that her appointed estate was liable for the consequences. In Bulkley v. Wilfard (2 Cl. & Fin. 102; 8 Bli. (N. S.) Ill) the solicitor, who was also the heir at law of a testator, advised the levying of a fine which revoked the will, and then cl......
-
Nanney v Williams
...the Plaintiff. Cooke v. Lamolte (15 Beav. 234); Hoghton v. Hoghton (Ibid. 278); Meadows v. Meadmvs (16 Beav. 401); Bulkley v. Wilfonl (2 Cl. & Fin, 102); Holman v. Loynes (4 De G. M. & G. 270); Billage v. Sauthee (9 Hare, 534); Russell v. Jackson (Ibul. 387) were cited, and Hicks v. Sallitt......