Hayward v Angell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1683 |
| Date | 06 February 1683 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 428
IN COURT, LORD KEEPER.
Case 221.-hayward versus angell. 6 February [1683]. In Court, Lord Keeper. Portions given by will to 3 daughters, upon condition they released certain lands to the heir ; one dies without releasing. Whether the portions of the other daughters shall be paid. Upon a demurrer to a bill of review upon a decree made by the Lord Chancellor Nottingham, the error assigned was, that the defendant's wife's father having given portions to his daughters, in case they should release to his heir their right to certain lands,(l) one of the daughters happened to die before she had given any such release, and therefore the heir refused to pay the portions; and thereupon the other daughters having exhibited their bill to be relieved, they were dismissed; whereas the portion was two thousand [223] pounds to each daughter, and the land to be released was not worth 500, and the performance of the condition was prevented by the act of God. For the demurrer it was argued, that this was a condition precedent, and being not performed there could be no relief ; and cited Fry and Porter's case, and that'this case was much stronger than that; for the words are, if his daughters should release 1 VEEN. 224. JOHNSON V. DESMINEERE 429 then he appointed them such and such portions upon condition they should release, &c., so that the condition was double ; and is as full as can possibly be penned, to exclude the daughters from all benefit of their portions, unless they should release : and Serjeant Maynard would have it to be stronger than an ordinary condition precedent, it being, if they should release then he gave, &c., and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
An v Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd
...[1933] Ch. 254, considered. (17) Hastings Bass decd., In re, [1975] Ch. 25; [1974] 2 All E.R. 193, considered. (18) Hayward v. AngelENR(1683), 1 Vern. 222; 22 E.R. 814, considered. (19) Jones v. Earl of SuffolkENR(1780), 1 Bro. Ch. Cas. 527; 28 E.R. 282, referred to. (20) Kent, ReUNK(1982),......
-
Northcote against Duke
...question whether a court of equity will relieve against forfeiture for breach of covenant, see Rose v. Rose, Amb. 332. Hayward v. Angel, 1 Vern. 222. Hill v. Barclay, 16 Ves. 402; 18 Ves. 56. Rolfe v. Harris, 2 Price, 206, in note Brace- bridge v. Buckley, 2 Price, 200, from whence it appea......
-
Carroll v O'Connor. Pike and Others v O'Connor and Others O'Connor and Others v Pike and Others
...PIKE and others and O'CONNOR and others. O'CONNOR and others and PIKE and others. Wallis v. Crimes 1 Cha. Ca. 89. Hayward v. AngellENR 1 Vern. 222. Hollinrake v. Lister 1 Rus. 500. Rose v. RoseENR Amb. 331. Mackenzie v. Mackenzie 16 Ves. 372. Rose v. Rose Ubi sup. Ogilvie v. Herne 13 Ves. 5......