John Dubber, on Demise Thomas Trollope, Gent, against Sir Thomas Trollope, Bart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1764 |
| Date | 01 January 1764 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 300
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Followed, Fuller v. Chamier, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 685.
Case 230.-john dubber, on Demise thomas trollope, Gent, against Sir thomas : trollope, Bart. Trin. 7th and 8th G. 2, in C. B. [1764.] [Followed, Fuller v. Chamier, 1866, L. E. 2 Eq. 685.] Argument of Lord Chief Justice Eyres, upon his giving judgment in this cause. Devise of land to W. T. for life, remainder to his first son for life, remainder to the right heirs male of his body, remainder to the second, &c., sons of W. and the heirs male of their bodies, remainder to T. T. for life, and after, to his first heir male of his body. and for want of such, over. Held, T. T. took an estate in male.(l) (The corrections of the text in this case are from Serjt. Hill's MSS. Vol. 23, p. 162. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Eyre.)-[S. C. 8 Vin. Abr. 233; 23 Hill's MSS. 162 ; Coxe's MSS. d. 66, F. 114, H. 23.] [This is an] ejectment of the manor of GaswicJc, and other lands, in the county of Lincoln, upon the demise of Thomas Trollope, Gent. Upon Not guilty, pleaded, a special verdict is found to this effect: [454] That Sir Thomas Trollope, Bart, grandfather of the lessor of the plaintiff, and great-grand-father of the defendant Sir Thomas Trollope, was seised in fee of the lands in question, and had issue five sons, viz. William, Thomas, Christopher, James, Matthew; and being so seised, 20th March 1651, made his last will in writing, and thereby devised the manor of Caswick to his eldest son William Trollope for life, remainder to his first son for life, remainder to the right heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, remainder to his second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh sons of the body of William, and the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten, and for want of such issue, to his son Thomas Trollope for life, and after to the first heir male of his body lawfully begotten. For want of such heir male, to be and remain with his son Christopher Trollope, and the first son of his body lawfully begotten. And as for my son William, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh son. For want of such issue, to be and remain to his fourth son James Trollope, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, and so to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and the heirs male of their bodies.(2) For want of such issue, then to remain and be to his fifth son Matthew Trollope, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, and so to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh son. For want of such issue, to remain to the right heirs of Sir Thomas Trollope for ever. 6th May 1645, Sir Thomas Trollope died seised, and his eldest son, then Sir William Trollope, entered; and 18th May 1678 Sir William Trollope died seised, without issue male, leaving issue his only daughter Elizabeth, who afterwards died without issue. The jury [further] find, that Thomas Trollope, the second son of Sir Thomas Trollope, at the time of making the will, was [455] an infant, and unmarried, and died in the life-time of Sir William Trollope, leaving issue Thomas Trollope, father of the defendant Sir Thomas Trollope. That Thomas Trollope, after the death of Sir William Trollope, being then Sir Thomas Trollope, entered, and had issue the defendant, his eldest son ; and afterwards, 23d November 1729, died seised, leaving the defendant his son and heir. That Christopher Trollope and James Trollope, the third and fourth sons of the first Sir Thomas Trollope, the testator, died in the life-time of the said Sir Thomas (" of the last Sir Thomas"), without issue. That about 7th August 1691, Matthew Trollope, the fifth son of the testator, died leaving issue Thomas Trollope, his eldest son, lessor of the plaintiff. So that upon this special verdict it appears, that three of the five persons mentioned in the will, viz. William, Christopher, and James, the first, third, and fourth, are all dead without issue, and are quite out of the case. AMB. 456. DTJBBER V. TROLLOPE 301 And the question is between the heir male of Thomas Trollope, second son of Sir Thomas Trollope, the testator (in which branch of the family the estate has been all along enjoyed), and the heir male of Matthew, the fifth son, who is now the lessor of the plaintiff And the title he makes is under the remainder limited, to Matthew, the fifth sons * supposing that it has taken effect; because three of the remainders are spent by death without issue; and that the other is not subsisting, because the limitation to Thomas, the second son, did not create an estate tail, and was no more than an estate for life to him, and afterwards to his first heir male for life ; which estates are determined by his death, and by the death of his first heir male, who was the defendant's father: and consequently the remainder to Matthew, the fifth son, and the heirs of his body, must take effect in the plaintiff, who is his heir male. [456] So that the question arises upon the limitation to Thomas Trollope, the second son of the testator, to whom the estate is appointed to remain in these words : " T " my son Thomas Trollope for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monypenny v Dering
...of Exchequer, in the opinion they have given upon this case, observe upon those authorities. The First Institute, 27, Duller v. Trollope (Ambler, 453), Robinson v. Rolinson (1 Burr. 38, 2 Ves. 225), Hellish v. Hellish (2 B. & C. 520, 3 D. & E. 804), and Doe d. Herbert v. Selby (2 B. & C. 92......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...LOFTUS and STONEY. Dubber v. TrollopeENR Ambler. 453. Burley's caseENR Cited 1 Vent. 230. Curtis v. Price 12 Ves. 89. Doe v. PerrattENR 9 Cl. & Fin. 614. Counden v. ClarkeENR Hob. 29. Archer's caseUNK 1 Rep. 66. Wrightson v. MacaulayENR 14 M. & W. 214. Lord Beaulieu v. Lord CardiganENR Ambl......
-
Daniel Cain, - Appellant; John Teare, and Jane Elizabeth his wife, and John Nelson, - Respondents
...66), Stert v. Plat el (5 Bing. N.C. 434), Willis v. Hiscox (4 Myl. and C. 197), Cholmondeley v. Clinton (2 J. and W. 1), Dubber v. Trollope (Amb. 453), Locke v. Southwood (1 Myl. and C. 411), Holloway v. Holloway (5 Ves. 399), Jones v. Colbeck (8 Ves. 38), Elmsley v. Gorimg (2 Myl. and Keen......
-
Sheridan v O'Reilly
...Doe d. Burrin v. ChorltonUNK 1 Sc. N. R. 290. Doe v. GarrodENR 2 B. & Ad. 87. Domvile v. WinningtonELR 26 Ch. D. 382. Dubber v. TrollopeENR Amb. 453. Emperor v. RolfeENR 1 Ves. Sen. 208. Ex parte WynchUNK 5 D. G. M. & G. 188. Farrer v. BarkerUNK 9 Ha. 743. Forth v. ChapmanENR 1 P. Wms. at p......