John Doe on the several demises of Francis Hearle, and Anna Maria Hearle, his Wife, and of the said Francis Hearle, - Plaintiff in Error; Susanna Jemima Hicks, - Defendant in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 5 E.R. 512
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Mews' Dig. xv. 382. S.C. 1 C1. & F. 20, and sub nom. Doe d. Hearle v. Hicks, 8 Bing. 475; 1 M. & Scott, 759; in Court below, 1 Y. & J. 470. Approved and acted on in Farrer v. St. Catherine's College, Cambridge, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 23; Langdale v. Briggs, 1873, 28 L. T. N. S. 469; Green v. Tribe, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 237; Follett v. Pettman, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 342; Leslie v. Rothes (Earl of), [1894] 2 Ch. 499; and French v. Hoey, [1899] 2 I. R. 484. And see Wallace v. Seymour, 1871, I. R. 6 C. L. 196.
VI BLIGH N.S. HEARLE V. HICKS [1832] [37] ENGLAND. EXCHEQUER CHAMBEK. john doe on the several Demises of francis hearle, and anna maria hearle, his wife, and of the said francis hearle,-Plaintiff (in Error); susanna jemima hicks,-Defendant (in Error) [1832]. [Mews' Dig. xv. 382. S.C. 1 Cl. & F. 20, and sub nom. Doe d. Hearle v. Hicks, 8 Bing. 475 ; 1 M. & Scott, 759 ; in Court below, 1 Y. & J. 470. Approved and acted on in Farrer v. St. Catherine's College, Cambridge, 1873, L. E. 16 Eq. 23; Langdale v. Briggs, 1873, 28 L. T. N. S. 469; Green v. Tribe, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 237; Follett v. Pettman, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 342; Leslie v. Bathes (Earl of), [1894] 2 Ch. 499; and French v. Hoey, [1899] 2 I. E. 484. And see Wallace v. Seymour, 1871, I. E. 6 C. L. 196.] J. H. by his will demised a copyhold mansion-house and pleasure-grounds, etc. at P. where he resided, to trustees in trust for his wife during her life or widowhood; and, upon her decease or second marriage, etc. upon such trusts, etc. as should best correspond with the uses, etc. therein-after declared, concerning the residue of his real estates, etc.; and he thereby bequeathed to his wife his plate, furniture, etc. The residue of his real estate he gave in trust for his son, and the issue of his son, in the usual course of settlement; and he thereby charged upon the residue a rent or annuity of £300 a year for his wife during her life, with a contingent increase of £100 per annum in case of the failure of the issue of his son. By a first codicil, which was made after the death of the son without issue, he revoked the bequest of the plate, furniture, etc., and in place thereof bequeathed to his wife for her own use all his farming stock, household goods, and all other his effects, in and about his residence at P.; and he thereby also gave to his wife absolutely, an additional annuity of £100 per annum; and he bequeathed to her the residue of his personal estate for her own use. By a second codicil he made her sole executrix and residuary legatee. By a third codicil he gave to his wife the proceeds and profits of five shares which he held in the County Fire Office for her life. On the 14th of Sept. 1822, the testator made a fourth codicil to his will as follows : -" I do make and add this further codicil to my will, hereby revoking and making null and void several of the dispositions heretofore made by me, in my said will and codicils, of my freehold, copyhold, and [38] personal estate and effects of all and every kind and description: and instead, and in the place of such devise, disposition, and bequest thereof, I do give, devise, and bequeath all and every my freehold, copyhold, and personal estate and effects of every kind and description whatsoever situated, unto my daughter, Anna Maria Hearle; and from and after the determination of that estate, I give, devise, and bequeath the same unto my grandson, John Graves, and his heirs in strict entail, as in my said will directed, with this additional clause, especial and positive orders, that in case the said John Graves should not be thirty-one years of age at the time my said estates shall devolve' on him by the death of my daughter, that he shall not take or be put in possession of the same until he shall have attained such age of thirty-one years, but that the rents and profits thereof shall accumulate and be in the hands of my trustees for the use and benefit of my said grandson and his heirs; and in failure of issue of the said John Graves, I order that my said estates and effects shall go and descend as is by my said will directed; and I do hereby ratify and confirm the several annuities and donations by me in my said will and former codicils given and bequeathed: and I do further give and bequeath unto 512 HEARLE V. HICKS [1832] VI BLIGH N. 8. my dear wife, Jemima, one other annuity of £100, to be paid to her in like manner, and with the like restrictions, as the former ones given her by my will and codicils, hereby in all other respects but what is above mentioned confirming my said will and codicils." By a fifth codicil, dated on the 3d of July 1823, he gave to his wife and at her disposal all sums of money which she or the testator might be entitled to out of the effects of her late father, or that any other friend might leave òher, and ordered his executors, in case she should die before him, to fulfil her will and disposal thereof. The testator died in 1825. Held, upon ejectment and special verdict, that the clause of revocation contained iii the fourth codicil did not apply to the devise to the wife of the copyhold and premises of P. with such clearness and certainty as to operate as a revocation of the explicit devise of those premises contained in the will. This case arose out of an ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer, in Hilary Term 1826, for the recovery of a copyhold, or customary mes-[39]-suage, or tenement and farm, called Plomer Hill House, with the appurtenances situate within, and being parcel of the manor of West Wycombe, in the county of Buckingham. The declaration contained several demises by Francis Hearle, and Anna Maria his wife, and by Francis Hearle alone; Susanna Jemima Hicks defended the ejectment, and pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried at Aylesbury, at the Spring. assizes for 1826, before Holroyd J. The jury found a special verdict, stating in substance that John Hicks was, at the time of making his will, seised in fee of certain freehold lands in Cornwall thereinafter mentioned, and of certain freehold lands and hereditaments in the county of Buckingham thereinafter mentioned, and of a certain copyhold messuage, or mansion-house, lands, and hereditaments, with the appurtenances, called Plomer Hill House, being the premises mentioned in the declaration ; and that John Hicks, on the 4th day of May, 1821, duly made and published his will in writing, dated on that day, and executed and attested, so as to pass real estate, and which will (amongst other devises) contained the devise following: In the first place, I give and devise all that my copyhold messuage or mansion-house, barns, stables, and buildings, pleasure-grounds, lands, and hereditaments called Plomer Hill House, in the parish of West Wycombe aforesaid, and now in my own occupation, together with the cottages, or tenements and premises thereunto belonging, with their appurtenances, unto and to the use of trustees therein named, their heirs and assigns; nevertheless upon the trusts following (that is to say) upon trust [40] for my present dear wife, Susanna Jemima Hicks, during her life or widowhood, or until she shall cease to reside at the same premises, or let the same, or permit them to be occupied by any other person than herself, she paying all taxes and outgoings in respect thereof, and keeping the same in good and tenantable repair; and from and after the decease or second marriage of my said wife, or on her ceasing to reside at the said premises, or letting the same to, or permitting them to be occupied by any other person than herself, then, and in either or any of the said cases, and whichever of the said events shall first happen, my said trustees, their heirs and assigns, shall stand and be seised or possessed of the said copyhold hereditaments and premises, with the appurtenances, upon and for such trusts, intents, and purposes, and with, under, and subject to the (such) powers, provisoes, and declarations as (regard being had to the nature and quality of the tenure of the said copyhold premises) will best of nearest correspond with the uses, trusts, intents and purposes, powers, provisoes, and declarations hereinafter expressed and declared, of and concerning the residue of my real estates, or such and so many of them as shall be then existing undetermined and capable of taking effect. He thereby also gave to his wife an additional annuity of £100 per annum, and bequeathed to her the residue of his personal estate for her own use. The residue of his real estate he gave in trust for his son, and the issue of his son, in the usual course of settlement; and he thereby charged upon that residue a rent or annuity of £300 a year for his wife during her life, with a contingent increase of £100 per annum in case of the failure of the issue of his son. [41] On the 10th May, 1822, the said John Hicks duly made and published a codicil, in writing, to his will, bearing date that day, and executed and attested so as to H.L. v. 513 17 VI BLIGH N. S. HEAELE V. HICKS [1832] pass real estate. By this codicil he made his wife sole executrix and residuary legatee. In other respects it is not material to the point at issue. On the 15th July, 1822, John Hicks made and published a second codicil, in writing, to his will, bearing date the same day, but which was not executed so as to pass real estate. By this codicil he gave to his wife the proceeds and profits of five shares which he held in the County Fire Office, for her life. In other respects it is not material to the point at issue. The said John Hicks, on the 18th of July, 1822, made and published a third codicil, in writing, to his will, bearing date the same day, but which was not executed so as to pass real estate. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennefather v Lloyd
... ... Hearle v. Hicks, 1 CI. & Fin. 20, and In re Stoodley, ... pecuniary legacies, and devised unto his said trustees the lands of Macroney, in the County of ... uses and trusts, namely, to testator's wife Margaret Mansergh for her life, and after her ... has died, I hereby appoint his brother John Tennant to be my trustee and executor in his ... ...
-
Henry Kemp Richardson, Clerk, and the Hon Anne Richardson, his Wife, v Edward Power and Catherine Goodall Power, his Wife, Mary Mantle, Widow, Thomas Watson, William Wartnaby and Harriett, his Wife, John Henry Holditch, and William Luck
...823; Egejton v. Broiunlow, 4 House of Lords Cases, 208, 23 Law J., Chan, 348; dm d. Hearle t. Hicks, 8 Bingh. 475, 1 M. & Scott, 759, 1 Clark & Fin. 20; C&mpart v. Austen, 12 Simons, 218; Ritssel v. Buchanan, 1 Simons, 628; Re Thruston's Trusts, 17 Simons, 21; Griffith v. Blunt, 4 Beavan, 2......
-
Re Richard Arnold's Estate
...& B. 22). A gift in a will can only be destroyed by something equally clear in the codicil: Doe d. Hearle v. Hicks (8 Bing. 475, and 1 Cl. & Fin. 20). Thirdly, in the gift over in the codicil, the word " vested " means vested in interest and not in possession; Parkin v. Hodgkinson (15 Sim. ......
-
Kellett v Kellett
...& Lat. 182. Lassence v. Tierney 1 M'N. & G. 551. Spong v. Spong 3 Bligh. N. S. 34. Conron v. ConronENR 7 H. L. C. 168. Doe v. HicksENR 1 Cl. & Fin. 20. Greville v. BrowneENR 7 H. L. C. 689. Randfield v. RandfieldENR 8 H. L. C. 225. Home v. PillansENR 2 My. & K. 15. Campbell v. Brownrigg 1 P......