John Wheeler, Plaintiff; William Duke, George Duke, John Lightwood and Sarah, his Wife, John Duke and Elizabeth Duke, William Duke the Younger, Elizabeth Lightwood, Thomas Lightwood, William Duke, Son of George Duke, George Duke the Younger, Sarah Duke, John Duke the Younger, Mary Ann Duke, Maria Duke, Ann Clements, and Ann Duke, Widow, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 377
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Tyr. 61; 2 L. J. Ex. 33.
[210] john wheeler, Plaintiff; william duke, george duke, john liuhtwood and sarah, his Wife, john dcjkk and mlizaiieth i)i;ke, wiluaji duke the younuer, elizabeth Liatmvooo, thomas lujhtwood, william duke, Son of George Duke, gkoruk duke thk younger, harah duke, joun l)uke the younqer, mary ann duke, maria duke, ann clemknts, and ann l uke, Widow, Defendants. Exch. of Pleas. 1832.-By marriage settlement, land was conveyed to trustees to the use of the husband for life, and from and after his decease, in case the wife survived him, To the use and intent that the wife should receive 14s. per weelc; and subject thereto that the trustees should, from time to time, i and at all times thereafter, stand possessed of the residue to the use of all and every the child and children of his former wife, namely, A. B., C. D., E. F., G. Hj, and [. K., and their issue lawfully begotten and to be begotten, equally to be divided between and amongst them in equal shares and proportions, as tenants i in common, and not as joint tenants, and his, her1, or their respective issues : - Held, that the five children took estates for life, and that no estate was taken by grandchildren born after the settlement and before the death of the settlor, the husband, or by grandchildren born after bis death. [S. C. 3Tyr. 61; 2 L. J. Ex. 3:5.] The Master of the Rolls sent the following case for the opinion of this Court:- George Duke (since deceased) being seised in fee previous to, and in contemplation of, his marriage with Ann Grove, now the defendant Ann Duke, by indentures of lease and release, bearing date respectively the 2nd and .'Srd days of April, 1M28, between the said George Duke of the first part, the said Ann Grove of the second part, and Ithe said Ann Clements, the plaintiff John Wheeler, Thomas Harrison (since deceased), and the defendant William Duke, the son of the said George Duke, ,of the third pai% reciting that the said George Duke was seised in fee of a piece of land and sixteen rpessuages or dwelling houses which he had erected thereon, and premises in Walmer Lane, in Birmingham, being the premises thereby released; and that a marriage was intended to be had and solemnized by and between the said George 378 WHEELER V. DUKE 1 C. & M. 211. Duke and Ann Grove; and that it was agreed by and between the said George Duke and Ann Grove, upon the treaty of the said marriage, that, in case the said Ann Grove, the [211] said intended wife of the said George Duke, should survive him the said George Duke, she should receive, out of the rents and profits of the said sixteen messuages or dwelling-houses erected upon the said piece of land, for and during the term of her natural life, the sum of 14s. per week; and that the residue of the rents, issues, and profits of the said sixteen messuages or dwelling-houses from and after the decease of the said George Duke, should be equally divided between and amongst the then children of the said George Duke by his former wife, namely, William, George, Sarah, John, and Elizabeth, and their issue; and for which purpose the said George Duke had agreed to grant and convey the said piece of land, sixteen messuages or dwelling-houses and premises, upon the trusts, and for the several ends, intents, and purposes hereinafter mentioned, expressed, and declared of and concerning the same : He, the said George Duke, in pursuance of the said agreement, and in contemplation and prospect of the said marriage, and for the purposes of making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald
...v. Taggart 1 Sch. & Lef. 84. Uvedale v. HalfpennyENR 2 P. Wms. 151. Van Grutten v. Foxwell [1897] App. Cas. 677. Wheeler v. DukeENR 1 C. & M. 210. VOL. /.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 477 FITZGERALD v. FITZGERALD. M. R. 1901. Settlement—.Rectffication—Mistake—Limitation of real estate without ......