Jongsma v Jongsma
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1787 |
| Date | 11 June 1787 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1204
AT THE ROLLS, SIR LLOYD KENYON.
jongsma versus jongsma. At the Bolls, Sir Lloyd Kenyan. June 11, 1787. Testator gave to his executors " all his goods, estates, bonds, debts, to be sold," &c. The word" estates " will pass a copyhold which was surrendered to the use of the will. The testator gave to his executors " all his goods, estates, bonds, debts, to be sold" and applied as therein mentioned. The only question was, whether the word " estates " so coupled, would pass a copyhold estate which was surrendered to the use of the will. His Honour [Sir Lloyd Kenyon] said that (according to the case of Tiddy v. Simms, in Easter Term 1746, before Lord Hardwicke) wherever the word " estate " or " estates " was restrained to personalty, it was done upon the ground of the testator's shewing his intention by joining it with words which related to personalty only; but on the other hand, where such other words were in themselves sufficient to pass all the personal estate, then in order to give some effect to the word "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coard v Holderness
...be rejected, but must include the whole real estate; Hopeivell v. Acklund (1 Com. Kep. 164); Tilley v. Simpson (2 T. R. 659, n.; cited 1 Cox, 362); Terrel v. Page (1 Ch. Ca. 262); Midland Counties Railway Company v. Oswin (1 Coll. 74). But, secondly, it will be argued that, because the test......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...14 M. & W. 214. Day v. DavorenENR 2 P. Wms. 1. Acheson v. FairENR 1 Drew. 633. Winders v. WindersENR 2 T. R. 659 n. Hillas v. HillasENR 1 Cox, 362. Blackford v. LongENR 9 Sim. 447 n. Spearing v. HawkesENR 7 Taunt. 79. Parker v. HaswellENR 2 Atk. 102. Baker v. WallENR 29 Beav. 222. Dormer v.......
-
Morrison v Hoppe
...(6 B. & C. 512). Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Selwyn, for the co-heiresses at law, cited Tilly v. Simpson (2 T. R. 659, n.), Jongsma v. Jongsma (1 Cox, 362), Sanderson v. Ddbson (1 Exch. 141; S. C. 10 Beav. 478; 7 C. B. 41), Doe v. Emit (7 Taunt. 79). [The Vice-Chancellor referred to Timewell v. P......
-
James O'Toole against Edward Francis Browne
...order to make that a general devise which otherwise might have been restricted to personalty; Tilley v. Simpson (a), Jongsma v. Joiigsma (1 Cox, 362), which are the two cases acted on in Doe dem. Evans v. Evans (9 A. & E. 719), where this principle was the ground of the decision. [Lord Camp......