Jennor and Hardies Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 74 E.R. 258
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
Devises.
258 JENNOR AND HARDIES CASE 1 LEONARD, 283. [283] HILL. 28 Eon IN THE COMMON PLEAS. INTRAT. THIN. 27 ELM. ROT. 1606, CCCLXXXIII. JENNOR AND HARDIES CASE. Devises. The case was, Lands were devised to one Edith for life, upon condition that she should not marry; and if she died, or married, that then the land should remain to A. in tail, and if A. died without issue of his body in the life of Edith, that then the land should remain to the said Edith, to dispose thereof at her pleasure: and if the said A. did survive the said Edith, that then the lands should be divided betwixt the sisters of the devisor, A. died without issue living Edith. Slautleworth Serjeaut ; Edith bath but for life ; and yet be granted, that if lands be devised to one to dispose at his will aud pleasure without more saying, that the devisee bath a fee-simple; but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special limitation: as 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth, that A. shall have his lands in perpetuum during his life, he bath but an estate for life, for the words (during his life) do abridge the interest given before. And 22 Eliz, oue deviseth lands to another for life, to dispose at his will and pleasure, he bath but an estate for life : and these words (if A. dieth without issue in the life of Edith, that then the lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure) shall not be construed to give to Edith a fee-simple, but to discharge the particular estate of the danger, penalty, and loss, which after might come by her marriage, so as now it is in her liberty. And also he said, that by the limitation of the latter remainder, i. that the lands should be divided betwixt the daughters of his sister, the meaning of the devisor was not, that Edith should have a fee-simple, for the remainder is not limited to her heirs, &c, if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith ; for the devisor goeth further, that if A. overlives Edith, and afterwards dieth without issue, that the said land should be divided, &c. Walmesley contrary : and he relyed much upon the words of the limitation of the remainder to Edith. Quod integre remaneat dicta) Edithie, and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure, for the said division is limited to be upon a contingent, i. if A. survive Edith, but if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mansergh v Campbell
...Palmer, in support of the decree of the Master of the Rolls. They referred to Whiskon v. Clayton (1 Leon. 156); Jenner and Hardie's case (1 Leon. 283); Blewitt v. Roberts (1 Cr. & Phill. 274; 10 Sim. 491); Yates v. Maddon (3 Mac. & G. 532); Heron v. Stokes (2 Dru. & W. 89; S. C. 12 01. & Fi......
-
Williams, on the Demise of Porter, against Fry
...Mallorie's (a) Dyer, 128 a. (d) Moor, 303, 312. (g) 1 Roll. Abr. 411. (k) 1 Leon. 269. (m) Plowd. 57. (a) 5 Co. 106. (b) Plowd. 403. (e) 1 Leon. 283. (h) Owen, 112. (/) 3 Co. 19, 20. Cro. Eliz. 204. (n) Tit. " Condition," pi. 114. (b) 3 Leon. (c) Qucere 108. (/) Poph. 6. (i) 10 Co. 36. (o) ......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...BENCH. BOWYER and BLAIR. Bradley v. Westcott 13 Ves. 453. Jennor v. HardiesENR 1 Leon. 283. Anon.ENR 3 Leon. 71. Goodtitle v. Otway 2 Wilson, 6. Elton v. ShephardENR 1 Bro. C. C. 532. Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas 3 A. & El. 127. Barford v. Street 16 Ves. 135, 139. Roe v. Yeud 2 New R. 221. Doe ......
-
Leefe v Saltingston
...estate for life. 15 H. 7, 12. 1 Bulst. 219. Jones, 138 (c). But a devise to dispose at will and pleasure carries a fee. Bro. Devise, 39. 1 Leon. 283. Latch, Daniel and Upton's case. And when it is said to dispose, and not limited how to dispose, that is at will and (a) 2 Salk. 411. 4 Mod. 2......