Jackson, Widow, and Others against Jackson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1793 |
| Date | 21 November 1793 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 988
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[462] jackson, Widow, and Others against jackson and Others. Rolls, list Nov. [1793]. Father being tenant for life, and son tenant in tail in remainder, of an estate, a settlement was made, wherein was a power for the son, when in possession, to make a jointure. Father and son enter into a general covenant (without reciting, or referring to the power) that the son, within twelve months, shall make a jointure on a then intended wife : the father dies within twelve months; the son takes'possession and dies, without making any settlement: the estate is bound in the hands of the remainder-man. (See also accordingly Shannon v. Bradstreet, 1 Scho. and Lefroy, 52 et seq. Lord Bedesdale, C., refers, ibid. p. 63, to the principal case. See also Sugden on Powers, 355, et seq., 2 Ball and Beatt. 44, and 4 Dow. P. C. 248.) By settlement previous to the marriage of William and Mary Jackson (the father and mother of Matthew Jackson, the plaintifi's late husband) bearing date 16th and 17th September 1755, certain premises in Lackeriby, and an undivided third part of the manor of Brotton, in Cleveland, Yorkshire, were conveyed to the use of "William Jackson for life, remainder to trustees for preserving contingent remainders, remainder, as to part, to trustees to provide a jointure for Mary, and, as to other part, for raising portions for younger children, remainder, as to all the premises, to the use of the first and other sons of the marriage in tail general, with remainders over. The marriage took effect, and there were issue thereof John Jackson, who died before November 1787, unmarried and without issue, Matthew Jackson-, late husband of the plaintiff, and the defendant William Jackson. By indentures of lease and release, 1st and 2d November 1787, John Preston, the surviving trustee in the former indenture, William Jackson and Mary his wife, and Matthew Jackson their eldest surviving son, conveyed the premises comprised in .the indentures, to a trustee, for making him tenant to the prsecipe, in order to the suffering 4 BED, 0. 0. 463. JACKSON V. JACKSON 989 a recovery, the uses of which were to enure, as to the premises in Lackenby, to the use of William Jackson, the father, in fee, and as to the premises in Brotton, to the use of the same trustee for a term of 1000 years, upon the trusts therein declared and subject thereto, to the use of '-.William Jackson, the father, for life, remainder to the same trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the use and intent that Mary Jackson, the wife of the said William, in case she should survive her said husband, might receive £150 per annum for her life, remainder to Matthew Jackson for life, remainder to the same trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the first and other sons of Matthew Jackson, in tail, remainder to his daughters, as tenants in common; remainder to defendant William Jackson, £c., in the same manner; remainder to William Jackson [463] the father in fee: and in the same indenture was contained a proviso, enabling the said Matthew Jackson and William Jackson, when they should respectively be in the actual possession of the premises, by virtue of the limitations therein contained, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...& Myl. 301); Scroggx v. Scroggs (Amb. 272); Welksky v. Aforninglon ('2 Kay & J. 143); Fanner v. Martin (2 Sim. 502); Jackson v. Jackson (4 Bro. C. C. 462); Fry v. Capper (Kay, 163); Russell v. Jaekson (10 Hare, 204); Saauleman v. M'Kenzie (1 John. & Hem. 613); Chadieick v. Doleman (2 Vern. ......
-
Re Lambert's Estate
...Eisdell v. HammersleyENR 31 Beav. 255. In re Annlay's EstateUNK 23 L. R. Ir. 481. In re Borrowes I. R. 2 Eq. 468. Jackson v. JacksonENR 4 Bro. C. C 462. Johnson v. Touchet 16 W. R. 71. King v. KingUNK 13 L. R. Ir. 531. Lees v. Lees I. R. 5 Eq.649. Minchin v. Minchin I. R. 5 Eq. 178, 258. Re......
-
Countess of Mornington v Keane
...Coventry v. Coventry (2 P. Wms. 222), Alfwd v. Alfmd (Gilb. Eq. Rep. 167), Shannon v. Bradstreet (1 Sch. & Lef. 52), Jackson v. Jackson (4 Bro. C. C. 462). . the lord chancellor. The bill in this suit was filed by the Countess of Mornington against Daniel Keane and other Defendants, praying......