John Jones, Plaintiff, and William Jones, Thomas Jones, Henry Jones, William Taylor, and William Coker, and Joseph Jones, and Others (Infants), Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 62
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS FOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
[161] john jones, Plaintiff, and william jones, thomas jones, henry jones, william taylor, and william coker, and joseph jones, and othekh (Infants), Defendants. The Master of the Rolls for the Lord Chancellor. March 17, July 29, 1817. A Court of Equity has no jurisdiction to determine on the validity of a Will, either of real or personal estate. Demurrer to bill by heir at law, for a discovery, seeking also relief, allowed; the relief sought being, first, that an issue might be directed to try the question in a different county, on an allegation of undue influence -an heir at law not being entitled to any issue except by consent, and a bill in equity not lying to change the venue. Secondly, for the production of title-deeds, without its being shewn how they can be of service in assisting him to recover at law. Thirdly, to restrain the Defendant (Devisee) from setting up outstanding terms, unsupported by allegation that there are any outstanding terms which may be set up. Fourthly, for an injunction to stay waste and destruction, &c., and for a receiver,-there being no instance of the Court so interfering, as between heir at law and devisee, where there adverse rights are in litigation ; and on the ground of negligence and delay ; the bill having been filed more than 3 HER. 162. JONES 1'. JONTCS fiH two years after the death of the presumed testator ; and no action yet brought ; although the commission of the alleged acts of waste and destruction stated to have been immediately after his death, fifthly, that the. Plaintiff may be let into possession of copyholds unsurrendered to the use of the will ; that being mere legal relief, although he might have been entitled to the discovery whether there were any copyholds unsurrendered. The bill also going on to pray, in the character of one of the next of kin, for an injunction from interfering with the personal estate, and a receiver ; I lie injunction asked being for an indefinite period, and no allegation of a suit depending in the Ecclesiastical Court. And, although some of the discovery sought might have been proper to he obtained on a bill for discovery only, yet the Demurrer allowed as to that also, upon the ground that, to support a general Demurrer to a bill seeking discovery and relief, it is sufficient to shew that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he prays. The Bill, filed July o, 1810, stated that William Jones (deceased) was at the time of his death seised of large freehold and copyhold estates in the county of [162] Suffolk, and had contracted to purchase other estates in the same county, and was also possessed of leaseholds and of a considerable other personal estate ; and that he died on the ."51st January 1814, intestate and without issue, leaving the Plaintiff his heir at law, who at his death became entitled to all his said real estates. The bill further stated that the Testator was very old and infirm, and for some time previous to his death not of disposing mind, but that, after his death, one Froxt an attorney produced to some of the relations who were assembled at the house of the deceased, several loose sheets, which he informed them were the Testator's will, made by him only two days before his death ; one only of these sheets being signed with his name, and not attested so as to pass real estates, by which it appeared that he had given large parts of his real estates to his nephews (the three first named Defendants), and other parts thereof (together with his personal property), to the Defendants Taylor and (loker (whom lie also appointed executors) upon trust to sell, and pay divers legacies and annuities ; and, as to the residue, in trust for the Defendant Thomas .Jones. That! this will had never been proved ; but the. Devisees had entered into possession of the estates thereby given to them respectively, [163] and the trustees and executors had also proceeded to act under the trusts thereby reposed in them. The bill further alleged that the Plaintiff intended to bring actions for the recovery of the estates, but that he could not safely proceed without a discovery of the matters aforesaid, especially of any outstanding terms or other incuinbrances which might be set up to defeat him at law, and also that, from the extent of the property, and the number and influence of the persons claiming under the will, he could not hope for a trial within the county ; for which reason the bill claimed the assistance of the Court in directing an issue Devisavit vel non to be tried in another county. The prayer of the bill was as follows-" That the Defendants may answer the premises, and that after a full discovery of the matters aforesaid it may be declared that the said pretended will was not the true last will of the said William Jones, and that the said rough draft bearing date the 29th day of January 1814 may be declared to have been obtained from the said William Jones by fraud, if signed by him in mistake and ignorance of its contents, and that the same may be delivered up to be cancelled, or that an issue, whether the said William Jones made any will or not, may be directed to be1 tried at the assizes to be holden in and for any county adjoining the said county of Suffolk; and that all proper and usual directions may he given for the trial of such issue ; and that the Defendants may produce all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bainbrigge v Baddeley
...or equitable, pendente lite, but unless the title of the Plaintiff is established he has ho locus standi in this Court; Jones v. Jones (3 Mer. 161. See S. C. 7 Hare, 219, n.), Davenport v. Davenport (1 Hare, 217), Haigh v. Jaggar (2 Coll. 231). There may be cases, under very special circums......
-
Boyse v Rossborough
...of the devisee, there will be no reciprocity for the heir at law in possession; Pemberton v. Pemberton (13 Ves. 290), Jones v. Jones (3 Mer. 161), Maclcrell v. Hunt (2 Madd. 34, n.). The Plaintiffs relied below on Grove v. Young (5 De G. & S. 38), the bill in which was filed under the direc......
-
Vice v Thomas
...525); Pulteney v (a)1 For the first branch of the argument, and also for a more full statement of the second, see Mr. Smirke's report. (a)2 3 Mer. 161 , in which case it was held that an heir-at-law cannot maintain a bill against a devisee to enforce the direction of an issue, devisavit vel......
-
Hindson v Weatherill
...(1 P. Wms. 388), Bennett v. Fade (2 Atk. 324), Well v. Claverden (2 Atk. 424), Kerriek v. 'Bransby (7 Bro. P. C. 437), Jones v. Jones (3 Mer. 161), Podmore v. Gunning (7 Sim. 644), Allen v. Macpherson (1 Ph. 133; S. C. 1 H. of L. ,Ca. 191). As to the devise, the Plaintiff may be entitled to......