John Toovey and Kempster Hughes Knight, an Infant, by Kempster Knight, his Father and Next Friend, against John Bassett, and George Bassett, John Charles Lowth, and Ann his Wife, Robert Huntsman and Jeronomy his Wife, Aubrey Bowles Hughes, Jane Toovey, Catherine Bassett, and James Roe and Harriett his Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1809 |
| Date | 31 July 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 850
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Yarrow v. Knightly, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 741.
[460] john toovey and kempstek hughes knight, an Infant, by Kempster Knight, his Father and Next Friend, against john bassett, and george bassett, john charles lowth, and ann his Wife, robert huntsman and jeronomy his Wife, aubrey bowles hughes, jane toovey, catherine bassett, ani james roe and harriett his Wife. Tuesday, July 31st, 1809. Under a devise to the testatrix's daughter E. for life, remainder to her children and their heirs for ever; but in case E. die without leaving any issue of her body, then to-certain other grandchildren by other daughters equally to be divided between them share and share alike as tenants in common; but in case of the death of either of her grandchildren, under age and without leaving any issue, the share of him or her so dying should be for the benefit of the survivors of the respective family, &c. Held that the grandchildren took a fee in their respective shares, by reason of the devise over on their dying under age, with an executory devise over if any of them died under 21 and without leaving issue at the time of their respective deaths; and therefore the limitation over was not too remote. [Referred to, Yarrma v. Knightly, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 741.] The Master of the Rolls sent the following case for the opinion of this Court. Ann Michael, widow, being seized in fee of a freehold estate called Perry Lands,, at Shipley and West Grinstead, in Sussex, and being possessed of a leasehold estate at Midhurst in the same county for the remainder of a term of years unexpired, by her will dated the 13th of December 1786, and duly executed and attested, after stating " that she thereby disposes of her worldly estate wherewith God had been pleased to bless her as follows," devised thus: "First, I give and devise all that my messuage, lands, &c. called Perry Lands, in the parishes of Shipley, and West Grinstead, and also all that messuage and garden in Midhurst, &c. unto my daughter Elizabeth Michael, to hold all the said several premises unto her for and during the term of her natural life; and, in case of her marriage, for and during the term of the natural life of her husband; and from and after the decease of the survivor of them, my said daughter [461] Elizabeth and her husband, (ia case she marries) I give and devise . the same premises unto all and every the children on the body of my said daughter Elizabeth by her said husband to be begotten, and unto their heirs; and if but one child, then unto such only child and to his or her heirs for ever. But in case my said daughter and her husband die without leaving any issue of her body, then I do hereby give and devise all the said several premises unto my grand-children John Toovey, (son of my daughter Jane Toovey,) John, George, and Ann Bassett, (children of my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purefoy v Rogers and Others
...v. James. The effect of the statute has been also recently considered in Elborne v. Goode, T. T. 1844, coram Knight Bruce V.C.] (y) [10 East, 460, Toovey v. Bassett. 2 M. & S. 608, Marshall v. Hill. 6 Pri. 179, Doe v. Coleman.] English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 1181 COURT OF KING'S BENCH P......
-
Rotheram v Rotheram
...589. Montgomery v. MontgomeryIR 8 I. E. R. 740. Crozier v. Crozier 3 Dr. & W.373. Mitchell v. Coulson 1 H. & Br. 210. Toovey v. Bas-setENR 10 East, 460 Glover v. MoncktonENR 3 Bing. 15. In Doe d. Cannon v. RucastleENR 8 C. B. 876. In Doe d. Willis v. MartinUNK 4 Term Rep.39. Owen v. SmythEN......
-
Pruen v Osborne
...will. We submit that he took an estate in fee, which became indefeasible on his attaining 21. This case is similar to Toovey v. Bassett (10 East, 460); but this is a stronger case; for there no words of limitation were 'added to the devise to the testator's grandchildren. There is no older ......
-
Synge's Trusts. v
...M. & Cr. 56. Stone v. MauleENR 2 Sim. 490. Forth v. ChapmanENR 1 P. Wms. 663. Campbell v. HardingENR 2 Russ. & M. 402. Tooney v. BassetENR 10 East, 460. Fitch v. Friend 2 De Gex & Sm. 405. Moor v. RaisbeckENR 12 Sim. 123. Needham v. SmithENR 4 Russ. 318. Doe v. Webber B. & Ald. 720. Forth v......