Henry Stapilton v Philip Stapilton and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 August 1739 |
| Date | 02 August 1739 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 223. See Stockley v. Stockley, 1812, 1 V. & B. 31, and Fane v. Fane, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 708.
[2] Case 2.-henry stapilton an Infant, by ann his Mother, Plaintiff ; philip stapilton and others, Defendants. August the 2d, 1739. [S. C. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 223. See StocEey v. Stockley, 1812, 1 V. & B. 31, and Fane v. Fane, 1875, L. E. 20 Eq. 708.] Philip Stapilton tenant of the premisses in question for 99 years, if he so long lived, remainder to his first and other sons in tail, remainder to his right heirs, having two sons, Henry and Philip, they by lease and release of the 9th and 10th Sept, 1724, in order to settle and perpetuate the manors, &c., in the name and blood of the Stapiltons, and for making provisions for Ms sons, and for preventing disputes that might possibly arise between them or any other person claiming an interest in the estates, and for barring all estates tail, release and confirm to two trustees all those manors, &c., to hold to them and their heirs (as to part), to the use of Philip the father, his heirs and assigns for ever, and (as to another part) to the use of the father for life, to Henry the son for life, remainder to trustees for preserving, &c., remainder to his first and every other son in tail male, remainder to Philip the son C. vi.-1 2 STAPILTON V. STAPILTON 1ATK. 3. for life, with like remainders to the daughters of Henry in tail, remainder to the daughters of Philip the son in tail, remainder to the right heirs of Philip the father. And as to the other part, to the use of Philip the father for life, remainder to Philip the son for life, &c. By a deed dated on the 21st of August 1661, Philip Stapilton was tenant of the premisses in question for 99 years, if he so long live, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to his right heirs. [3] Philip having two sons, Henry and Philip, they by deeds of lease and release the 9th and 10th of Sept. 1724, reciting, thao for settling and perpetuating all manors, &c., in the name and blood of the Stapiltons, and for making provision for his two sons. &c., for preventing disputes and controversies that might possibly arise between the said two sons, or any other person claiming an interest in all or any of the estates therein after mentioned, and for barring all estates tail, and for answering all and every the purpose and purposes of the parties thereto, and for and in consideration of the sum of os. release and confirm to Thompson and Fairfax all those manors, &c. To have and to hold to them, their heirs and assigns, to the use (as to part) of Philip the father, his heirs and assigns for ever, and as to another part, to the use of Philip the father for life, remainder to Henry the son for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to his first and every other son in tail male, remainder to Philip the son for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to his first and othersons in tail male, remainder to the daughters oiHenryin tail, remainder to the daughters of Philip the son in tail, remainder to the right heirs of Philip the father. And as to the remaining part, to the use of Philip the father for life, with like limitations in the first place to Philip the son and his issue, and then to Henry and his issue, remainder in fee to the father. There were covenants to suffer a recovery within 12 months, and likewise for farther assurances.-N.B. To this deed, the heir of the surviving trustee in the deed in 1661 was not a party. But by deeds of lease and release dated the 28th and 29th of Sept. 1724, to which the heir of the surviving trustee of the deed of 1661 was a party, the father and two sons make Thompson and Fairfax tenants to the prsecipe, in order to suffer a recovery for the purposes mentioned in the former deeds of the 9th and 1 Oth of Sept. Before any recovery suffered Henry died, leaving issue the plaintiff. Afterwards, by lease and release the 12th and 13th of Apr. 1725, to which the heir of the surviving trustee of the deed of 1661 was a party, Philip the father and Philip the son covenant to suffer a recovery, in which Thompson and Fairfax were to be tenants to the prsecipe, to the use, as to part, of Philip the father, his heirs and assigns ; and as to the other part, to the use of Philip the father for life, remainder to Philip the son in fee. [4] In Trinity term 1725, a recovery was suffered, in which were the same tenant to the prsecipe, the same demandant, and the same vouchees (except Henry who was dead), as were covenanted to be by the first deed ; it was likewise suffered within twelve months after the first deed. The father Philip Stapilton being dead, the plaintiff, as son and heir of Henry, brought his bill to establish his title to the premisses in question, and for the whole estate as tenant in tail under the old settlement, and to be let into possession, and for an account of rents received by Philip Stapilton the son, due since the death of the plaintiff's grandfather, and to have the same applied for the plaintiff's benefit during his infancy, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from receiving any more rents. The defendant, Philip the son by his answer confesses the several deeds before-mentioned, but says, Henry was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chan Lam Keong and Ors v Tan Saw Keow and Ors; Re Tan Soh Sim, deceased
-
Baker v Bradley
... ... over, or substitutions in favour of any one of the others of the said children, grandchildren and issue respectively, ... ...
- Cartwright v Cartwright
-
Reade v Reade
...R. READE and READE. Stapilton v. StapiltonENRUNK 1 Atk. 2; 2 W. & T. L. C. 836. Tennent v. TennentsELR L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 6. Roberts v. Dixall 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 668. Plunkett v. LewisENR 3 Hare 316. Hayes v. Garvey 2 J. & L. 268; 8 Ir. Eq. R. 90. Lord Chichester v. CoventryELR L. R. 2 H. L. 71......