John Andrews, - Appellant; Thomas Powys, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1723 |
| Date | 07 February 1723 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 1 E.R. 1094
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. v. 875; xv. 569.
A will of a person was proved in the Spiritual Court; but the executor of a former will brought a bill in equity, to discover by what means the latter will was obtained, and whether the testator was not incapable or imposed on, and to have an account of the personal estate. To this bill the defendant demurred, because it belongs to the Spiritual Court only to determine upon the validity of wills of personal estate, and the sanity or insanity of the testator. Demurrer over-ruled.
[504] case 3.-john andrews,-Appellant; thomas powys,-Respondent [7th February 1723]. [Mews' Dig. v. 875 ; xv. 569.] [A will of a person was proved in the Spiritual Court; but the executor of a former will brought a bill in equity, to discover by what means the latter will was obtained, and whether the testator was not incapable or imposed on, and to have an account of the personal estate. To this bill the defendant demurred, because it belongs to the Spiritual Court only to determine upon the validity of wills of personal estate, and the sanity or insanity of the testator. Demurrer over-ruled.] Viner, vol. 8. p. 548. ca. 9. vol. 11. p. 60. ca. 14. 66. ca. 11. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 377. ca. 6. 421. ca. 3. Mr. John Powell, of London, merchant, who had acquired a great personal estate, to the value of 100,000, and lived and died a batchelor, was, about Christmas 1719, seized with a fit of the palsy ; and soon after his recovery, ordered several letters to be written to the respondent, his nephew, at Salop, for whom he entertained a great affection, desiring him to come to London, and assuring him it should be a profitable journey. The respondent accordingly came to London in May 1720, when his uncle expressed great pleasure and satisfaction at his arrival, and acquainted him, that he intended to make his will, and settle his estate, and within a few days after, he accordingly gave instructions to Mr. Edward Baldwyn, with whom he had a long acquaintance, to draw his will; and after the same was prepared, and deliberately perused and considered by the testator, two parts thereof were transcribed by his direction, and blank spaces left for the name of his executor and residuary legatee, which he, with his own hand, filled up with the respondent's name ; and then took the transcripts along with him, and desired Mr. Baldwyn to meet him in the city on the 6th of June, when, as he declared, he intended to sign his said will, and would get two other persons, of good credit and repute, to be witnesses thereto. But the testator afterwards observing, that the respondent's name, which he had written in the blank spaces, was not in so fair and legible a character as he wished, occasioned by a trembling of his hand, which he had been troubled with ever since his palsy fit, he sent back the transcripts to Mr. Baldwyn, desiring him to prepare two other parts thereof, and meet him at the time before appointed : this being accordingly done, the testator, on the said 6th of June 1720, duly signed and published duplicates of his will, in the presence of the said Mr. Baldwyn and of Messrs. Atwell and Hammond, two eminent bankers in London ; and the same being sealed up in 1094 ANDREWS V. POWYS [1723] II BEOWN. separate covers, the testator took one of them, and delivered the other to Mr. Baldwyn, to be kept by him. By this will, the testator gave to his niece Mary Cross 500 ; to her children that should be living at his death 2500 ; to his niece Martha Powell 600 ; and all the residue of his real and [505] personal estate to the respondent, and made him sole executor. In August following, the testator went to the respondent's house at Salop, where he stayed above two months, and intended to stay much longer ; but Mr. Atwell, his banker, with whom he had near 30,000 in cash, happening to die, he was called up to London on that occasion, and the respondent attended him thither ; but, in the journey, the testator was seized with another fit of the palsy.-The respondent was obliged, within a few days after, to return into the country ; but, in November following, he came again to London, to visit the testator, who continued to express the same affection for him as before, or greater ; and as a fresh instance thereof, being informed that the respondent had a sudden occasion for 6000, he voluntarily lent him that sum, and pressed him to take more, and he likewise frequently sent the respondent's wife considerable presents. In December 1720, the respondent returned again into the country ; and then the appellant observing, that the testator, after his last fit of the palsy, was much impaired in his memory and understanding, found means to inveigle him from his lodgings in the city of London, where he had resided above twenty years, to go and lodge at the appellant's house at Westminster; and having got possession not only of the testator's person but also of his effects, the appellant managed him as he thought fit, and rarely suffered any of his relations, or others, to revisit him; and when they did, they were never permitted to be alone with him. At this time, the testator was so feeble that he could not walk without support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Gregory
...(Prec. Ch. 123); Goss v. Tracy (1 P. W. 287). This jurisdiction has not of late years been exercised, but it exists; Andrews v. Powys (2 Bro. P. C. 504), Kerrich v. Bransby (7 Bro. P. C. 437), Bennet v. Fade (2 Atk. 324), which are commented on in Middleton v. Sherbwne (4 Y. & C. 358); Webb......
-
Watkins v Brent
...been decided on an exparte application, 1 MY. & OR. 101. W ATKINS V. BRENT 315 and is no authority either way. In Andrews v. Pmvys (2 Bro. P. C. 504, Toml. ed.) a will and codicil had been proved in the Ecclesiastical Court; but the person who had been named executor in a former will filed ......
-
Boulanger v. Johnson & Johnson, (2003) 170 O.A.C. 333 (DC)
...Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43]. Drummond-Jackson v. British Medical Association, [1970] 1 E.R. 1094, refd to. [para. Cahoon v. Franks, [1967] S.C.R. 455, refd to. [para. 48]. Statutes Noticed: Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, sect. 2......
-
Gingell v Horne
...vii. p. 644), Harriot v. Marriot (ubi supra), Taylor v. Sheppard (1 Youn. & Coll. 271), Holy v. Goodson (2 Mer. 77), Andrews v. Powys (2 Bro. P. C. 504), Thynn v. Thynn (1 Vern. 296), Devenish v. Baines (Prec. Gh. 3), Herbert v. Lawns, (Rep. Ch. 12). And the statutes 24 H. 8, c. 12, 25 H. 8......