Grove v Young
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1851 |
| Date | 11 November 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 1008
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Grove v. Bastard, 2 Ph. 619; 41 E. R. 1082; 1 De G. M. & G. 69; 42 E. R. 478. See Boyse v. Rossborough, 1853-54, Kay, 96; 3 De G. M. & G. 817; 6 H. L. C. 2.
1008 GROVE V. YOUNG SDEG.&SM.38. [38] grove v. young. Nov. 11, 1851. [See Grove v. Bastard, 2 Ph. 619; 41 E. R 1082; 1 De G. M. & G. 69; 42 E. K. 478. See Boyse v. Rossborough, 1853-54, Kay, 96; 3 De G. M. & G. 817; 6 H. L. C. 2.] An heir at law of a testator brought an action of ejectment against the devisee, and failed. In a subsequent suit by the devisee against a purchaser, to enforce specific performance, the Court, on the ground that the will was open to suspicion, directed the devisee to substantiate the will against the heir. The devisee thereupon filed his bill against the heir, asking a decree establishing the will. The heir, by answer, set up as a defence incompetency in the testator, and fraud and undue influence, and went into evidence in support of this defence. At the hearing an action of ejectment by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was, on the Defendant electing such action instead of an issue, directed to be tried at law. At the trial the devisee called witnesses, but the Defendant called none; and a verdict was given for the Plaintiff. On the cause coming on upon further directions, the Court established the will, without costs as regarded the general result of the suit and the action of ejectment, but with costs to be paid by the Defendant of so much of the suit as was caused by the issues raised of fraud and improper practice by the devisee. The Plaintiffs were devisees, in trust to sell, of, freehold estates, under the will of a testator; who by his will, which was executed during his last illness, and within a few months before his decease, after leaving considerable legacies to his mother and brothers and sisters, devised and bequeathed the great bulk of his property to the Plaintiffs, upon trusts for sale, for the benefit of the solicitor who drew the will, and his two children, one of whom was the testator's godchild. The testator died in 1844. The Plaintiffs entered into possession of the devised estates, and contracted with a Mr. Bastard for the sale to him of part of the property devised to them. The testator's heir at law, after the date of the contract of sale with Mr. Bastard, brought an action of ejectment against the devisees to recover the devised property, on the ground that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyse v Rossborough
...Pemberton (13 Ves. 290), Jones v. Jones (3 Mer. 161), Maclcrell v. Hunt (2 Madd. 34, n.). The Plaintiffs relied below on Grove v. Young (5 De G. & S. 38), the bill in which was filed under the direction of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) given in Grove v. Bastard (2 Phil. 619); but all......
-
Roberts v Kerslake
...whether the heir had a probable ground for disputing the testator's capacity to make a will; which is all we contend. Grove v. Young (5 De G. & S. 38), the only case on which the Plaintiff relied beside Berney v. Eyre, was one in which the conduct of the heir had been extremely vexatious ; ......