Huxstep against Brooman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1785 |
| Date | 09 March 1785 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1224
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[437] hux[s]tbp against brooman. [9th March 1785.]. Lincoln's Inn Hall-Devise of " all I am worth," will pass real estate. (See per Lord Chancellor in Thruxton v. Attorney General, 1 Vernon, 34-1. Cliffe v. Gibbons, 2 Ld. Raym. 1324. Barnes v. Patch, 8 Yes. 604, 607. Woollam v. Kenworthy, 9 Ves. 137, &c., et. cit.) This was a bill for an account of the real and personal estate of, the testator, under a most singular will. " Feversham, November 1783. This being my last " will and testament. I give and bequeath to Mary, daughter of Mary Suxtep, " and likewise to the son and daughter of Susan Topley, all the overplus of my " money; and likewise beg of my executor, that he will pay into the hands to the " above children's friends, all the money that is due to me on settling my father's " account-Friday-I give and bequeath to them all I am worth, except 20 which " I give to my executor Mr. Thomas Brooman : signed Edward Brooman, Witness " William Dean, Elizabeth Boots (and underneath, about the middle of the paper), " Sarah Coslon.'"-The word worth was nearly obliterated, and the whole will bore manifest proof of the testator's being very illiterate.-The testator was entitled to a share, with his brothers, in a gavel-kind estate, which had lately descended by the death of his father ; and the only question was, whether this will passed the real estate. Mr. Mansfield (for the plaintiff) barely said, all he is worth must pass the real as well as personal estate. Mr. Madocks and Mr. Harvey (for the defendants), insisted that here being no expression, in the will, which pointed at the real estate, only the personalty could pass ; no determined case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v Coltman
...Mr. Willcock, for the Plaintiff, the testator's daughter, Charlotte Davenport, supported the certificate. They cited Hmtep v. Brooman (1 Bro. C. C. 437); Hopewell v. Ackland (1 Salk. 239); Pitman v. Stevens (15 East, 505); Hyley v. Hyley (3 Mod. 228); Tanner v. Morse (Ca. temp. Talb. 284); ......
-
Acherley v Vernon
...236. (k) Inchley and Robinson's case, 2 Leon. 41. S. C. Owen, 88. (d) But see Cro. Jac. 145. Cro. Eliz. 525. Owen, 155. 1 Lev. 212. 1 Bro. C. C. 437. 1 Burr. 268. (e) Although the intention of the testator be ever so apparent, the heir at law must, of course, inherit, unless the estate is g......
-
Monk v Mawdsley
...H. Black. 444), Cooke v. Farrand (7 Taunt. 122), Barnes v. Patch (8 Ves. 604), Doe v. Gilbert (3 Brod. & Bing. 85), Huxstep v. Bromum (1 Bro. C. C. 437), Goodtitle v. Maddern (4 East, 496), Beachcrofl v. Beachcrojt (2 Vern. 690), Pitman v. Stevens (15 East, 505), Hogan v. Jackson (Gowp. '29......
-
JAMES REDMOND BARRY and JAMES BARRY GIBBONS, Executors of WILLIAM LANE, deceased, v EUSTACE STAWELL, WILLIAM WISE, and Others Same Plaintiffs v Same Defendants
...Lord Dacres v. Tuite 2 Ch. Rep. 127. Jenour v. Jenour 10 Ves. 572. Lowten v. The Mayor of ColchesterENR 2 Mer. 115. Hall v. SmithENR 1 Bro. C. C. 437. Morgan v. ScudamoreENR 2 Ves. jun. 313, and 3 Ves. 195. Morgan v. Scudamore 3 Ves. 196. Averall v. Wade 1 Moll. 571, n. Betagh v. Concanon L......