James v Richardson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 343
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
See Allgood v. Blake, 1872-73, L. R. 7 Ex. 359; 8 Ex. 160.
case 626. james v. eichardson. [See Allgood v. Blake, 1872-73, L. R. 7 Ex. 359; 8 Ex. 160.] S. C. T. Jo. 99. 2 Lev. 232. 1 Vent. 334. 3 Keb. 832. T. Ray. 330. Pollexf. 457. See S. C. p. 472. Henry Weakes deviseth the manor of D. unto Higden, during the life of Robert Jordan, upon trust that Robert should take the profits, and after the death of Robert Jordan, to the heira male of the body of Robert Jordan now living, and to such other heirs male and female of the said Robert Jordan. Higden makes a feoff-ment, and levies a fine in the life of Robert Jordan; [459] he had issue John at the time of the devise. The question was, whether John had an immediate estate in remainder vested in him by this devise, as though he had been named, or whether it rested in contingency during the life of Robert the father, quia non est hceres viventis ? For if so, then it was agreed by all, that it was destroyed by the fine of the devisee for the life of Robert. And the Court did incline, that by reason of the words "now living" John should take an estate in remainder immediately, and not in contingency; and that the words "heirs male of Robert now living" are a sufficient description of the person of John, although iu strictness of law a man cannot be said to have an heir during his life. Advis. vuli Cur. (S. C. post, p. 472.)
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 353
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
case 647. james v. richardson. S. C. continued from p. 459. " Heirs male of tJte body of A. now living" is a good descriptio personce hi a devise, and A.'s son and heir apparent may thereby take a vested remainder during the life of A. Now this ease was argued by Serjeant Pemberton, that this should be a contingent remainder, and should not vest an estate immediately in John the son of Robert. (b) Judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed on error in the Exchequer Chamber. 2 Lev. 212. T. Ray. 302. From the other reports we collect that the objection waa taken in arrest of judgment; that the defendant was heir apparent to his father, although this did not appear on the record, 1 Vent. 332-3; that the promise in the declaration was laid to have been made to the father, T. Ray. 302; that the Court laid some stress on the nearness of relationship, which was held to...
To continue reading
Request your trial