Hopwood and Another v The Earl of Derby and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1855 |
| Date | 29 January 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 453
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Issue. Jurisdiction. Lancashire Chancery Court. Venue.
1K.&J.255. HOPWOOD V. EABL OF DERBY 453 [255] hopwood and another v. the earl of derby and others. Jan. 29, 1855. Issue. Jurisdiction. Lancashire Chancery Court. Venue. A testator, by his will and three codicils, the last of which was dated in 1851, devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate in favour of his eldest son and heir, subject to portions for the testatpr's younger children, and appointed his eldest son and another person executors. By a fourth codicil, dated in April 1853, he substituted another person as executor in the place of his son. And, by a will, dated in May 1853, he altered the disposition of his property, modifying considerably the benefit formerly given to his eldest son, and giving his younger children interests in remainder. At the suit of the younger children against the heir, an issue was directed by the Palatine Court of Lancaster, to try the validity of the will of 1853. Thereupon the eldest son and heir filed his bill in the High Court of Chancery to set aside the will of 1853, and also the codicil of that year, and to establish the preceding will and codicils. Upon an interlocutory motion in this suit before the issue in the former suit had come on for trial, another issue was directed to try the validity both of the will and the codicil of 1853. It is not a sufficient reason to change the venue of such an issue, that one of the parties interested, and whose conduct is impeached, is lord-lieutenant of the county where the action is to be tried. This was a suit by Edward John Gregge Hopwood and the Eev. George Heron, the executors of a will and three codicils of Robert Gregge Hopwood, the testator in the cause, seeking to establish that will and codicils against the Defendants, who claimed under a subsequent will or a subsequent codicil'of the same testator. The first-named Plaintiff was also the eldest son and heir of the testator; the other was his co-executor and the surviving trustee of a term of 1000 years under the first-mentioned will and codicils. The will and three codicils under which the Plaintiffs claimed were dated respectively--will, 29th of April 1829 ; first codicil, 7th of July 1834; second codicil, 19th of February 1850; and third codicil, 16th of April 1851; and their effect was to give the testator's real and personal estate to the Plaintiff, the eldest son, absolutely, subject to a term of 1000 years in the real estate vested in the other Plaintiff, [256] upon trust to raise money in aid of the personal estate, to pay the testator's debts, and also to raise portions for younger children. The Defendants claimed under a will, dated the 14th of May 1853, which considerably altered the disposition of the testator's property, giving limited interests to the first Plaintiff and his children, and interests in remainder to the testator's younger children, and appointed Lord Sefton (who had married the testator's daughter) and Lord Derby executors. If that will were set aside, the Defendants were interested to support the validity of a fourth codicil to the first will, dated the 12th of April 1853, which appointed Lord Sefton executor in the place of the Plaintiff, Edward...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Gregory
...Mer. 161); Scaife v. Scaife (4 Rusa. 309); Tatham v. Wright (2 Russ. & M. 1); Eaworth v. Marriott (1 M. & K. 643); Hopwood v. Lord Derby (1 K. & J. 255). It is established that a devisee may come to this Court to establish a will; Boyse v. Rossbomugh (Kay, 71); Boyse v. Coldough (1 K. & J. ......