Grey v Pearson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1857 |
| Date | 16 March 1857 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 10 E.R. 1216
House of Lords
Dig. x. 973; xiv. 1539; xv. 659, 715, 1027. S.C. 26 L.J. Ch. 473; 5 W.R. 454; below, sub nom. Pearson v. Rutter, 3 De G. M. and G. 398; 1 Eq. R. 352; 1 W.R. 421. On point as to rule for construction of written instruments, followed in many cases, e.g. Abbott v. Middleton, 1858, 7 H.L.C. 81; Thelluson v. Rendlesham, 1859, ib. 459; Ex parte Walton, 1881, 17 Ch.D. 751; Faber v. Lathom (Earl of), 1897, 77 L.T. 168. On point as to construction of particular will, considered in Reed v. Braithwaite, 1871, L.R. 11 Eq. 514; and cf. In re Chant (1900), 2 Ch. 345.
Will - Estates' Tail - Contingencies - Ultimate Limitation - "Die under 21, and without Issue."
JOHN GKEY and Others,-Appellants; WILLIAM PEARSON and Others,- Respondents [March 5, 6, 9, 16, 1857]. Dig. x. 973 ; xiv. 1539; xv. 659, 715, 1027. S.C. 26 L.J. Ch. 473 ; 5 W.R. 454; below, sub nom. Pearson v. Butter, 3 De G. M. and G. 398; 1 Eq. R. 352; 1 W.R. 421. On point as to rule for construction of written instruments, followed in many cases, e.g. Abbott v. Middleton, 1858, 7 H.L.C. 81; Thelluson v. Rendlesham, 1859, ib. 459; Ex parte Walton, 1881, 17 Ch.D. 751; Faber v. Lathom (Earl of), 1897, 77 L.T. 168. On point as to construction of particular will, considered in Reed v. Braithwaite, 1871, L.R. 11 Eq. 514; and cf. In re Chant (1900), 2 Ch. 345.] Will-Estates' Tail-Contingencies-Ultimate Limitation-" Die under 21, and without Issue." A testator who was possessed of two estates, S. and H., devised them to trustees, to pay debts, legacies, and annuities " and subject to the trusts aforesaid, all - the said premises hereinbefore devised shall be in trust for my grandson Robert W. and the heirs of his body; but in case he shall die under the age of 21 years, and without issue, my estate at H. (subject to the trusts hereinbefore respectively declared), shall be in trust for my granddaughter Ann W. and the heirs of her body; but in case she shall die under the age of 21 years, and without issue, the last mentioned premises shall be upon such and the same trusts as are hereinafter declared concerning my estate at S. And I declare and direct, that if my said grandson Robert W. shall die under the age of 21 and without issue," the trustees were to stand seised of S. on trust, to pay the rents and profits to the use of the testator's son Richard W., and his wife, for life " and subject to the trusts hereinbefore thereof declared, the estate at S. shall be in trust for " the family D. in fee. The trustees were to raise during the minority of Robert and Ann money for their maintenance. The grandson Robert W. attained 21, but died without issue; the granddaughter Ann W. also attained 21, but died without issue. Held (Lord St. Leonards dissentiente). First. The words must be read in their ordinary sense as written. The first limitation over depended on the double event of Robert dying under 21, and without issue, which not having happened, the limitation over did not take effect, but the estates descended to Richard, the son and heir-at-law of the testator, and through him to Robert, as his heir-at law. 1216 GREY V. PEARSON [1857] VI H.L.C., 62 [62] Secondly. On Robert attaining 21. the equitable remainder in fee of the S. estate, limited to the D. family, took effect in possession; but the ultimate limitation to that family only operated on the S., but not on the H. estate. Per Lord St. Leonards. First. The testator did not intend to die intestate as to either of his estates. A change might be made in the words of the will to give effect to his real intention. The first gift was in tail; the limitation over depended on Robert dying without issue, and was perfectly good as a remainder. Secondly. The remainder in fee to the D. family, did not depend on the previous contingencies taking effect; but was an ultimate devise of all the testator's re maining interest in the estates, so as wholly to exclude his heir-at law. Richard Watson, of Stainton in Cleveland, in the county of York, by his last will, dated 17th April 1817, duly executed and attested, after directing the payment of several annuities, gave his freehold dwelling-house, etc., at Stainton, and his freehold farm there in the occupation of John Sherwood, and six freehold cottages there, and his freehold dwelling-house, etc., and farm at Hemlington,* in the occupation of John Sherwood, to trustees on trusts, to raise annuities for different persons, and a sum of £2000 for the benefit of his granddaughter. The will then proceeded thus, " and, subject to the trusts aforesaid, all the said premises hereinbefore devised shall be in trust for my grandson, Robert Watson, and the heirs of his body; but in case he shall die under the age of twenty-one years, and without issue, my said messuage or dwelling-house and farm at Hemlington aforesaid, and my said six messuages or cottages at Stainton aforesaid (subject to the trusts hereinbefore thereof respectively declared), shall be in trust for my said granddaughter, Ann Watson, and the heirs of her body; but in case she shall die under the age of twenty-one years, and without issue, the said last-mentioned premises [63] shall be upon such and the same trusts as are hereinafter declared concerning my said messuage or dwelling-house and farm at Stainton aforesaid. And I declare and direct, that if my said grandson, Robert Watson, shall die under the age of twenty-one years, and without issue, then and in that case the trustees, their heirs, etc., shall stand and be seised of my said messuage or dwelling-house at Siainton aforesaid, now in my own occupation, and the said farm at Stainton aforesaid, now in the occupation of the said John Sherwood, upon the trusts following, that is to say, in trust to pay the rents, issues and profits of the same premises to or for the use of my son; Richard Watson, for and during his natural life, etc., and from and after his decease, in trust to pay the same rents, etc., unto my said daughter-in-law. Mary Watson, during her life, and subject to- the trusts hereinbefore thereof declared, the same messuage and farm at Stainton aforesaid, shall be in trust for my grandson, William Darnell, and the said Robert Watson Darnell, and my granddaughter, Elizabeth Darnell, in equal shares, as tenants in common, their respective heirs and assigns for ever." The trustees were also directed to raise, during the minority of the testator's grandchildren, Robert and Ann Watson, such yearly sums as they should judge proper, these sums to be applied immediately by the trustees, or paid into the hands of the testator's daughter-in-law, Mary Watson, for that purpose The testator had been twice married. By his first wife he had one daughter, Margaret, who married William Darnell, and had issue William Darnell, Robert Watson Darnell, and Elizabeth Darnell. By his second wife the testator had one son, Richard Watson, who was married, and had one son, Robert Watson, and one daughter, Ann Watson. [64] The testator died in August 1817, and left his son, Richard Watson, his heir-ai law; and Robert Watson and Ann Watson, his son's only children; his daughter-in-law, Mary Watson, (since deceased); and his grandchildren the three Darnells, all named in his will, him surviving. In 1829, through the deaths of other trustees, W. Rutter became the sole trustee. All the annuitants died, and the sum of £1000, part of the £2000, was raised for the granddaughter, Ann Watson. The testator's grandson, Robert Watson, attained twenty-one in May 1829, and entered into possession of the rents and profits of the devised premises, and con- * These two properties were for convenience sake called in the argument " the Stainton estate " and " the Hemlington estate." H.L. x. 1217 39 VI H.L.C., 65 GREY V. PEARSON [1857] tinued so up to the time of his death, without taking any step to bar his equitable estate tail therein. His father died in 1844, and he died in April 1848, without issue, having, by his will, devised all his real and personal estate charged with the payment of his debts, to his sister, Ann Watson, her heirs, etc. Ann Watson attained twenty-one, and proved the will of her brother, Robert Watson, and entered into possession of the premises, but never did any act to bar the estates tail created by the will of 1817. She claimed to be entitled to an equitable estate in fee in the premises, as devisee of her brother, Robert Watson, the heir-at-law of his father, Richard Watson, the heir-at-law of the testator, Richard Watson, upon the ground that the equitable reversion in fee in the hereditaments and premises expectant upon the estate tail of the said Robert Watson therein, which had not been barred, was, by the event of Robert Watson attaining his age of twenty-one years, undisposed of by the will of 1817, and had therefore descended, through Richard Watson, to his son and heir, Robert. Ann Watson continued in the pos-[65]-session or receipt of the rents and profits of the said hereditaments and premises up to her death, which happened on 7th February 1849, without her having been married. By her will, dated 25th November 1848, after giving various legacies, she devised all her real estate, whatsoever and wheresoever, unto and to the use of William Pearson and William Hill (since deceased), their heirs and assigns, upon certain trusts, and, after satisfying the same, for their own benefit, in equal shares. The testator's grandson, William Darnell, died in December 1849, having by his will, dated 13th August 1846, devised all his real estate to the Appellants. On the 20th of April 1850, Pearson and Hill filed their bill as devisees of Ann Watson, deceased, against William Rutter, as surviving trustee under the will of Richard Watson, made in 1817, and against Grey and the other Appellant, as devisees under the will of William Darnell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montesquieu and pepper (inspector of taxes) v. Hart
...the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther." 42 Stowell v. Lord Zouch, Plowden, 369. 43 (1857) 6 H.L.C 61; 10 E.R. 1216. The history behind these rules is that the sixteenth century Judges were immersed in the common law. To them, legislation wa......
-
Justice Ivan Rand and the role of a judge in the nation's highest court.
...Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 8 E.R. 1034; Abley v. Dale (1851) 11 C.B. 391, 138 E.R. 519; Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. 61, 10 E.R. 1216. (9) A.V. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 10th ed. (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., (10) C. Van Doren, A History of Knowledge (New York: ......
-
PROSECUTING NON-PHYSICAL ABUSE BETWEEN CURRENT INTIMATE PARTNERS: ARE STALKING LAWS AN UNDER-UTILISED RESOURCE?
...Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, 161-2 (Higgins J). (92) Ibid 162. (93) Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61. (94) Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214, 235 (Dawson (95) See ibid. (96) See Grey v Pearson (n 93) 1234 (Lord Wensleydale). (97) Crimes A......