Hopewell v Ackland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 1016
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
See S. C. 1 Salk. 239; 91 E. R. 212 (with note).
1016 DE TERM. SANCT. TEIN. 8 ANN.E 1COBYNS, 1M. [164] de term. sanct. trin. 8 ann.e. in C. B. case 111. hopewell vers. ackland. [See S. C. 1 Salk. 239 ò 91 E. R. 212 (with note).] A devise with the following words, whatsoever else I have in the world, will pass an estate in fee. 1 Salk. 239, S. C. 2 Vern. 687. 1 Eq. Abr. 177, pi. 14, S. C. 3 Com. Dig. 26. Infra, p. 337. In an action of ejectment upon a special verdict the case appeared to be this : John Ackland, seised in fee of the lands in question made his will in writing to this effect: Whereas I have given bond to leave my manor of Buckley to the daughter of my brother James Ackland, and the heirs of her body, if she live to attain the age of 21 years, but if she die before she attain that age, then it is to return to me again; if therefore my said brother's daughter shall happen to die before she attain her age of 21 years, I give the said manor to my brother Richard Ackland and his heirs; also I give to my brother Richard Ackland all my land, tenements, hereditaments whatsoever ; also I give to my brother Richard Ackland all my goods, chattels, monies, debts and whatsoever else I have in the world not before by me disposed of, he paying or securing to be paid all my debts and legacies ; and I make my said brother Richard Ackland my whole and sole executor of this my last will, and desire B. to be overseer thereof, and to see that my said executor and his executors pay the said debts and legacies; and by the same will he devised some small annuities for life, and others to charities in fee, and died. The daughter of his elder brother attained her age of 21, and claimed not only the manor of Buckley, but also all [165] the other lands of the testator after the death of Richard Ackland, who was now dead. The question was, whether by this will Richard Ackland had an estate in fee in those other lands, or only an estate for life 1 for it was agreed, that if he had but an estate for life, then the lessor of the plaintiff, who was heir at law of the testator, had a good title ; but if he had an estate in fee, then the title was with the defendant, who was son and heir of Richard Ackland the devisee. This case was argued last term by Serjeant Pratt for the plaintiff, and by Serjeant Parker for the defendant, and now by Serjeant Powis for the plaintiff, and by Serjeant Cheshire for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kielley v Carson and Others
...but secundiim legem et consuetudinem parliamenti. The same doctrine is stated in 3 Hawkins P.C., book 2, c. 15, s. 73, and by Blackstone, 1 Com. 164. It is monstrous to suppose for an instant, that there can be a lex et consuetude of an Assembly like Newfoundland, whose constitution existed......
-
Doe, on the Demise of Bunny, v Rout
...even without authority, the words of the will itself conduct us to the conclusion that the land passes by this devise. Hopewell v. AcMand (1 Com. 164), ia the first case in point of time; the will runs thus-:-"Whereas I have given my bond to leave ray manor of Buckley [81] to the daughter o......
- Hopewell v Ackland