Johnson v Telford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1830 |
| Date | 25 February 1830 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 94
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Allen v. Anderson, 1846, 5 Hare, 169.
[244] johnson n. teltord. Feb. 25, 18:50. [See Allen v. Awle-nan, 1846, 5 Hare, 169.] An heir is not put to his election between a Scotch estate and benefits given to him by a will, by the force of mere general expressions; especially if the uses of the will are not applicable to Scotch property. An heir is not to he disinherited by ambiguous expressions. A testator, by a codicil, reciting that he had purchased certain freeholds since the date of his will, devised them to trustees upon the trusts expressed in his will, and directed that, if any hereditaments purchased by him at any time or times should happen to be conveyed after the date and publishing thereof, his heir-at-law, or other real representatives, and every other person in whom the same should be vested, should, forthwith upon his decease, convey and assure the same to his trustees upon the trusts of his will: he purchased other estates afterwards: Held, that, as to the subsequently-purchased estates, a case of election was not raised against the heir taking benefits under the will. John Simpson, by his will, dated the 12th of August 1807, gave, devised, and bequeathed, limited, and appointed all and every his real and personal estate, whatsoever and wheresoever, which he, or any person in trust for him, were or was, or should be seised or possessed of, or entitled to, in possession, reversion, remainder or 1RUSS. & M. 24S. JOHNSON V. TELFORD 95 òexpectancy, and all his estate or interest therein, subject to the payment of his debts, funeral expenses, and certain annuities and legacies, unto and to the use of Thomas Telford and Joseph Loxdale, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, upon trust that they, and the survivor of them, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, should, during the joint lives of his the testator's two daughters, Jane Johnson and Mary Ann Newton, pay the interest, dividends, and aiuinal produce of Jill his said real and personal estate and effects, into the hands of his two daughters, in equal shares and proportions, for their respective sole and separate use ; and that, from and immediately after the decease of his daughters respectively, they should stand seised and possessed of his real and personal estate and effects, upon certain trusts for the benefit of the children of Jane Johnson and Mary Ann Newton, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowyer v Blair
...2 Atk. 102. Comfield v. GilbertENR 3 East. 516. Berry v. Usher 11 Ves. 87. Helling v. Yeud 2 New R. 214. Johnson v. TelfordENR 1 Russ. & M. 244. Doe d. Bunny v. RoutENR 7 Taunt. 79. Doe d. Hurrell v. HurrellENR 5 B. & Al. 18. Wallam v. Kenuorthy 9 Ves. 137. Gulliver v. Poyntz 3 Wils. 141. T......
-
Maxwell v Maxwell
...of authority, would have been in favour of the Appellants, but considered the case as governed by the decisions in Johnson v. Telford (1 Russ. & M. 244, 248) and Allen v. Anderson (5 Hare, 163). A very important question therefore is, whether these cases are, in this branch of the Court, bi......