Johnson Mil' & Ux', Plaintiffs; Sir Edward Northey et Al, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1700 |
| Date | 29 January 1700 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 863
LORD KEEPER.
[407] de term. S. hillarii, 1700, in curia cancellari^e. Case 375.-johnson Mil' & Ux', Plaintiffs ò Sir edward northey & AP, Defendants. Lord Keeper. Jan. 28, 29 [1700]. Pre. Ch. 134, S. C. A son's daughter cannot take by limitation to the heirs female of the body of ò the father, for such heirs female must derive all by females. The Earl of Cleveland having in 1638, settled the manor of Toddington, and several lands in Bedfordshire, to the use of himself for life, remainder to the Lord Wentworth for life, and to his first and other sons in tail; in default of such issue to the heirs female of the Earl, with a power to revoke by deed or will. The Earl of Cleveland and Lord Wentworth his son, make a letter of attorney to Thomas Byers to sell the premises to pay debts, and to pay the surplus as they should appoint. And an act of parliament was also made impowering trustees to sell to pay debts, and the surplus to the Earl of Cleveland. [408] The Lord Wentworth died without issue male, leaving issue a daughter, the Lady Philadelphia Wentworth, who in 1684, by deed conveyed to her mother the Lady Philadelphia and^her heirs, but kept the deed in her own custody, and after wards by will devised the lands to her mother for life, and then to be sold to pay debts, and died without issue. -?;i| Bill brought by the old Lady Lovelace, as only daughter and heir female of the Earl of Cleveland, and heir at law to the Lady Philadelphia Wentworth, to have the deeds and writings, and to set aside the deed of 1684, as gained by fraud, or as a trust for the daughter. And a bill was brought by the Lady Philadelphia Wentworth to have up the settlement of 1638, as being revoked, and to have all other deeds and writings which 864 LYDIATT V. FOACH 2 VEEN. 409, concerned the premises, setting out her title by the conveyance from her daughter by the deed in 1684. To which bill the Lady Lovelace answered to the effect of her bill, and the cause proceeded, and divers witnesses examined, and a decree was made against the old Lady Lovelace ex parte. The Lady Lovelace died, pending the suit, and John Lord Lovelace her son, being also dead, and the old Lady Wentworth being also dead, and having devised the lands to Sir Edward Nor they & al', to be sold for the payment of debts. Sir Henry Johnson and the Lady Wentworth, Baroness of Nettlestead, his wife, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Namara v Blake
...2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 223. Perry v. Phelps 17 Ves. 173. Davis v. BluckENR 6 Beav. 393. Toulmin v. CoplandENR 4 Hare, 41. Johnston v. NortheyENR 2 Vern. 407; S. C. Pr. in Ch. 134. O'Connell v. M'Namara 3 Dr. & War. 411. Watts v. HydeENR 2 Phil. 406. Milner v. Lord Harewood 17 Ves. 144. Greenwood v.......
-
Nathaniel Bayley, Appellant; Bryan Edwards, Respondent
...of the mother country and colonies. For the Appellant, Hardinge and Sewell cited Cann v. Cann (1 P. W. 723), Johnson v. Northey (2 Vern. 407 ; Prec. in Cha. 134), Levington v. Woton (1 Rep. in Cha. 28), and Roberts v. Hartley (1 Bro. C. C. 56). They insisted, 1, that setting down the plea t......
-
Magawley v Brady and Others Meyler and Foley v Brady and Others
...& Lef. 566. Worden v. Gerard Mitf. Pl. 96, n. West v. SkipENR 1 Ves. sen. 244. Laurenee v. Berney 2 Ch. Rep. 127. Johnson v. NortheyENR 2 Vern. 407. Hamilton v. HaugtonENR 2 Bli. P. C. 169. O'Connell v. M'Namara 3 Dr. & War. 411. Walkins v. Cheek 2Sim. & Stu. 205. Elland v. EllandENR 4 My. ......